King Srqt Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 (edited) protip: read the quoted portion of text to find out what my post is addressing.Yes, because this entire discussion has been about the quality or number of people on Bob, and not about how evil we are for promoting raiding. Any other angle you'd like to take? You're apparently running out. You do realize that I am saying that I don't think your policy is evil or will really have any effect on anything (in other words I don't really think your policy is bad) right? Because if you do realize that I am really confused as to what you are trying to argue with me about. Also the argument behind "promoting raiding is bad' is usually that it decreases the number and quality of people on Bob. So uhmm yeah... and as far as the quoted portion. You quoted me saying that one reason I don't think this policy is evil is that many who it applies to wont know about it and you responded by showing me that you made them aware of it so my comment makes sense but even at that I would think me starting the next sentence with "seriously though" would clue you in that I wasn't completely serious with that comment anyway. Edited September 23, 2009 by KingSrqt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vizard Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 I've been here long enough, and I always pay attention, and yes really, this act is tremendously bad. Tech raiding is uncool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 You do realize that I am saying that I don't think your policy is evil or will really have any effect on anything (in other words I don't really think your policy is bad) right?Because if you do realize that I am really confused as to what you are trying to argue with me about. I see...you're just not understanding what you're writing. "I don't think your policy will really have any effect on anything" is a long way of saying "your policy is ineffective". Our policy is accomplishing exactly what we want it to accomplish on several fronts. Even if the policy failed completely, this thread still would have been worth posting. Anyway, your new stance is odd, considering your vile, vicious posts you made back on page 33. Thanks for your input, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamuella Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 KingSrgt, it's possible you'd have a point if this announcement had been rejected by a majority either on the basis of its tone or its content. However, as I showed earlier, a plurality of people posting in this thread were supportive of the announcement. If I included those who had no comment on the content but were amused by the delivery, that plurality would grow. Yes, part of the purpose of the announcement was to parody and deflate an overly pompous announcement by another alliance. What I don't get is how this is "the same political strategy that failed the original GOONS". The Goon Order Of Neutral Shoving did not have a monopoly on parody, and their efforts at parody were not what got them rolled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 and as far as the quoted portion. You quoted me saying that one reason I don't think this policy is evil is that many who it applies to wont know about it and you responded by showing me that you made them aware of it so my comment makes sense but even at that I would think me starting the next sentence with "seriously though" would clue you in that I wasn't completely serious with that comment anyway. I don't know you don't happen to use enough punctuation in your posts so sometimes your point totally escapes the person reading it because they're used to reading properly formatted text but that's okay man I forgive you no one's perfect. Your use of 'seriously though' was neither illuminating nor eloquent. Sorry that you failed to say what you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamuella Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 I've been here long enough, and I always pay attention, and yes really, this act is tremendously bad. Tech raiding is uncool. you have been here less than two months, unless you are a reroll. Your entire in-game experience is post-Karma War. THus, while I can entirely accept that you are of the opinion that tech raiding is tremendously bad, I must beg your pardon and observe that I do not place much value in your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 (edited) I see...you're just not understanding what you're writing. "I don't think your policy will really have any effect on anything" is a long way of saying "your policy is ineffective". Our policy is accomplishing exactly what we want it to accomplish on several fronts. Even if the policy failed completely, this thread still would have been worth posting.Anyway, your new stance is odd, considering your vile, vicious posts you made back on page 33. Thanks for your input, I guess. I do understand what I am writing, I do not see your policy having any real effect but even if it did I do not see it as 'evil' considering the limits you placed on it. My comments on page 33 were in regards to a situation that had nothing to do with this policy. KingSrgt, it's possible you'd have a point if this announcement had been rejected by a majority either on the basis of its tone or its content. However, as I showed earlier, a plurality of people posting in this thread were supportive of the announcement. If I included those who had no comment on the content but were amused by the delivery, that plurality would grow.Yes, part of the purpose of the announcement was to parody and deflate an overly pompous announcement by another alliance. What I don't get is how this is "the same political strategy that failed the original GOONS". The Goon Order Of Neutral Shoving did not have a monopoly on parody, and their efforts at parody were not what got them rolled. The majority does not post here and the grumblings I have heard off of this forum have been more bad then good. that said I admittedly do not speak to everyone so it is possible that I have a skewed sample on which I am basing my observation. The political strategy that I was talking about was what elborrador had attributed to you which was; "i think that the thing that a lot of people don't realize (or maybe they do, and just don't care?) is that GOONs really doesn't care if your alliance doesn't like them. They aren't going to do and say things just to make other people happy" And while I don't think you should do things just to make others happy I think being apathetic to the feelings of others is a very large part of what got the original GOONS rolled. Edited September 23, 2009 by KingSrqt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 My comments on page 33 were in regards to a situation that had nothing to do with this policy. What a coincidence! You had nothing to do with the situation, and the situation had nothing to do with this policy. Are you saying you came into this thread with the intent to bring it off topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 What a coincidence! You had nothing to do with the situation, and the situation had nothing to do with this policy. Are you saying you came into this thread with the intent to bring it off topic? I am part of the public therefore when a situation is brought up in public I am very much entitled to comment on it. The situation was brought up through points made about your policy and was a perfectly logical evolution of the conversation. I commented on a subject that was already being discussed I did not bring the topic anywhere. OOC: If you would like to accuse me of rule breaking however I believe there is a place on these forums designated for just that and would appreciate it if you kept it out of an IC thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 I am part of the public therefore when a situation is brought up in public I am very much entitled to comment on it. The situation was brought up through points made about your policy and was a perfectly logical evolution of the conversation. I commented on a subject that was already being discussed I did not bring the topic anywhere.OOC: If you would like to accuse me of rule breaking however I believe there is a place on these forums designated for just that and would appreciate it if you kept it out of an IC thread. No accusation was made. I asked a simple question, sorry for hitting a nerve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamuella Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 kingsrgt, I think you're confusing not caring what people think and not caring what the peanut gallery think. This is a big part of why we were so keen to determine if (to pick a name at ramdom) ModusOperandi was speaking for himself or his alliance. Clearly any part of diplomacy is knowing and considering the opinion of other alliances. I for one absolutely accept that, and we frequently converse with our allies about our and their political direction. There is however a world of difference between caring about that and caring about what bobbysox2424 of the New Allied Federation thinks of a policy that will not impact his life at all. (note I have no idea of there is a bobbysox2424 or if there is a New Allied Federation. However, if he exists, is in that alliance, and turns up angry, that would make this the best thread ever) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chasmic Descent Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 lol this is some funny bickering, keep it going guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salithus Posted September 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Why are people acting like we didn't piss anyone off before we allied with NpO, Umbrella, and MK? We upset so many people by just existing. Hell, we were upsetting people before we declared existence, so I think you are overestimating how much we care about what you think of us. This has nothing to do with old GOONS and more to do with you needing someone to hate blindly. Not one person in this thread who expressed negative feelings towards anything GOONS related has come to conduct actual diplomacy and discuss the issue. Let's call it what it is - pure posturing. And before you can complain about GOONS doing the same, you'll note that this and the one thread that has to do with this one are the only ones I've posted in substantively, and you'd be a fool to think I don't have a purposeful and warranted agenda. We stated our policy and have taken advantage of the stepping stones others have made themselves into to further our ambitions. There are quite a few alliances that we're talking to now that we have wanted to get closer to for a while, but did not have a solid opportunity until this thread went exactly as it has. For that, we thank you for playing to our hand. We even got the bonus opportunity of exposing, repeatedly, how two-faced and intentionally deceptive the membership of GLoF has been - to the point that their own government had to disavow the comments and supposed policies of its membership. Quite frankly, this thread has been more of a success than any of those critical of it could ever imagine, yet your blind ignorance that is generated because, yes, we use the acronym of our homeland - GOONS - has made you hasty. We quite enjoy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bower3aj Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 OK, I think I see where this has derailed, so let's try and rebuild ModusOperandi's actual objection from scratch."Now, the only problem I have with it is if an unaligned nation applies for membership to alliance x, and is being tech-raided by nations financed by GOONs and GOONs refuses to stop the financing.. that is a declaration of war imo." As near as I can make out, he's talking about a situation where the following happens: 1) Unaligned nation A attacks unaligned nation B 2) Unaligned nation B joins GLOF 3) GOONS aid unaligned nation A speaking as myself and not an alliance government member, I can't see how this is a situation covered by the pro-piracy act. I don't foresee us aiding an unaligned nation who is at war with someone we consider to be a recognized alliance More usually what we will encounter is this: 1) Unaligned nation A attacks unaligned nation B 2) GOONS aid unaligned nation A 3) Unaligned nation B joins GLOF Now, in this circumstance, the aid would have been sent to an unaligned fighting an unaligned, and I don't think GLOF would have any place in holding GOONS culpable for support offered. It's possible that we could get out our scalpels and split hairs to a point where aid was offered when a nation was fighting an unaligned but not accepted until after the nation had been accepted, but if we are getting down to an issue this small then I swear to god I'm going to start crying. None of the above was me speaking in my role as member emeritus, by the way. Personal opinion entirely. wow... just... wow I can't.. believe the words... This is exactly what I was saying... it almost hurts to say... I agree whew, now that that is done, this is what I spelled out. Gee, once we got past the insulting and a GOONS member states his opinion it turns out we're on the same page. Bravo good sir I owe you a beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEraser Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 wow... just... wowI can't.. believe the words... This is exactly what I was saying... it almost hurts to say... I agree whew, now that that is done, this is what I spelled out. Gee, once we got past the insulting and a GOONS member states his opinion it turns out we're on the same page. Bravo good sir I owe you a beer. to be fair, everoyne was being insulting on both sides of the fence (namely modusoperndi and GOONs defending themselves from him) so often the simplest issue gets blown out of proportion b/c one individual wants to come into a thread and thump their chests, oh well.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModusOperandi Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 to be fair, everoyne was being insulting on both sides of the fence (namely modusoperndi and GOONs defending themselves from him)so often the simplest issue gets blown out of proportion b/c one individual wants to come into a thread and thump their chests, oh well.. Yes, everything that happens on Bob is clearly my fault. Thank you for clearing that up Lamuella; much respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galapagos Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Overreaching a bit there GOONS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Overreaching a bit there GOONS. Or, they're doing less than what they're capable of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamuella Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Overreaching a bit there GOONS. you don't think we have the ability to send money to unaligned nations? or in what other way are you suggesting we're overreaching? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galapagos Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 (edited) you don't think we have the ability to send money to unaligned nations?or in what other way are you suggesting we're overreaching? I think your policy is bigger than you are. You guys should really be focused inwards at this point, rather than hellbent on pissing everybody off. But that's just me. *edit: felt like it Edited September 24, 2009 by Galapagos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 I think your policy is bigger than you are. You guys should really be focused inwards at this point, rather than hellbent on pissing everybody off. But that's just me. *edit: felt like it I didn't know Bel Air and GOONS were so close. Apparently we have some very close ties in that people think we're "hellbent on pissing everybody off" instead of trying to have fun with our ideals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galapagos Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 I didn't know Bel Air and GOONS were so close. Apparently we have some very close ties in that people think we're "hellbent on pissing everybody off" instead of trying to have fun with our ideals. I didn't know my post somehow implied a connection between GOONS and belair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 rather than hellbent on pissing everybody off. I didn't know my post somehow implied a connection between GOONS and belair. We've been accused of this daily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angrator Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 Keep it up GOONS. I hope you get what's coming to you... again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 Keep it up GOONS. I hope you get what's coming to you... again Love? Jesus? Christmas? Empty threats? Come on, man, don't leave us hanging: this suspense is killing me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts