Rating alliances

[Benjamin Arouet]

So what you're saying is CSN is a terrible alliance?

*sigh* I was waiting for someone without much love for astronaut jones to come back with something like this.

I believe what he was talking about was a broad cross-section of the membership of any particular alliance. If you honestly have a wealth of bad experiences with CSN to match that definition, I'm sorry and I hope we can change that opinion in the future. Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from flaming us as a whole because you disagree with the words of one of our members and/or dislike them personally.

Thanks.

[astronaut jones]

So what you're saying is CSN is a terrible alliance?

If you don't like CSN because of me, that's fine. I don't like NSO because of you, so hey, we should go out for lunch some time, but no shrimp. Praise be to charles barkley.

[Skippy]

STA - 3 (when they aren't being trollesque their number goes up...something to think about)

Define our use of "trollesque"

[Van Hoo III]

I've also never have known Hoo to be aggressive in his debate style without an agenda. I need to pick up some popcorn for the weekend.

You'd be sorely disappointed.

And really? That's what you consider aggression? You just witnessed a slapfight.

[Heft]

[ooc]multis[/ooc] in various alliances - check

Umbrella runs a massive spy ring on every sanctioned alliance.

Mine's better.

[Ivan Moldavi]

I do believe you missed the greater point that you don't need to actually know the inner workings of an alliance to form an opinion about them, and you don't dislike an alliance while having no opinion about them.

I'm sure I've painted many an alliance in a bad light in a number of people's eyes simply by being a member, you said so yourself in the thread, more or less (a few posts back), so he's not ignorant for forming his opinions of NSO based on the words/actions of your membership. Everyone does it, to say anyone is immune to that is just ridiculous. Praise be to charles barkley.

Oh no, I got your point.

My point is that, in general, "liking" someone is something the little girls do in elementary school. Send the note, check the box...is it Maybe? Pointless stuff diplomatically. I am a pragmatist. I understand that there are points in time when you work with, or at least are not antagonistic towards, those you dislike in order to gain a greater goal. Most of my rankings that were not 5s had very little to do with my actual like or dislike of the posting styles presented here but more to do with their antagonism towards NSO, much of which has no merit or justification.

Agitation without direction is wasteful. If direction is wanted, then bring it.

[Bob]

Stunning to say the least.

Bob Sanders <3

You'd be sorely disappointed.

And really? That's what you consider aggression? You just witnessed a slapfight.

Hoo, such an aggressive man. Gosh

Also, I'll do one.

TOP - 10

[Heft]

*sigh* I was waiting for someone without much love for astronaut jones to come back with something like this.

I believe what he was talking about was a broad cross-section of the membership of any particular alliance. If you honestly have a wealth of bad experiences with CSN to match that definition, I'm sorry and I hope we can change that opinion in the future. Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from flaming us as a whole because you disagree with the words of one of our members and/or dislike them personally.

Thanks.

If you don't like CSN because of me, that's fine. I don't like NSO because of you, so hey, we should go out for lunch some time, but no shrimp. Praise be to charles barkley.

Just using a counter-example to point out the silliness of the argument, is all.

[SpoiL]

Let's see;

"aggressive" behaviour - check

[ooc]multis[/ooc] in various alliances - check

recruiting from various alliances - check

dragging allies into precarious positions - check

brown team - check

fanboy follow - check

Replicating such greats as 2006 GATO brings a tear to my eye.

[ooc]Also pretty sure a shark in a barrel is easier to shoot than a fish in a barrel. Snap all you want, but jaws wouldn't have spawned a sequal if he was kept in a barrel.[/ooc]

These are failures??

[ChairmanHal]

You'd be sorely disappointed.

And really? That's what you consider aggression? You just witnessed a slapfight.

Some people consider a slapfight aggressive. :shrug:

You don't make a habit of them either.

Define our use of "trollesque"

You have certain members who use a style of debate that resorts to personal attacks a bit too often. On the whole I don't loathe STA, which makes the behavior of those individuals...unfortunate.

[LJ Scott]

This is the worst post I have ever seen from you. Very disappointing.

I get that feeling everytime I see you post. Sometimes I swear it's not even the same person who played in '06 that's posting.

[Eden Taylor]

Umbrella runs a massive spy ring on every sanctioned alliance.

Mine's better.

Mhawk said it first.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

Stunning to say the least.

Indeed it is, seeing as my opinion of Valhalla was formed in an incident that may or may nor have involved jerdge

[astronaut jones]

Oh no, I got your point.

My point is that, in general, "liking" someone is something the little girls do in elementary school. Send the note, check the box...is it Maybe? Pointless stuff diplomatically. I am a pragmatist. I understand that there are points in time when you work with, or at least are not antagonistic towards, those you dislike in order to gain a greater goal. Most of my rankings that were not 5s had very little to do with my actual like or dislike of the posting styles presented here but more to do with their antagonism towards NSO, much of which has no merit or justification.

Agitation without direction is wasteful. If direction is wanted, then bring it.

Ahhh, okay, I get where you're coming from then. Sometimes agitation is just good ol' fun though, but, you know that by now.

[Heft]

Mhawk said it first.

Well I'm sure it isn't true. Or else that would completely flip my point around and oh, would I be red-faced.

[LJ Scott]

These are failures??

Perhaps go back, read the original sentence fully, if you don't understand, maybe I'll break it down for you more. But it's pretty straight forward.

[Benjamin Arouet]

Just using a counter-example to point out the silliness of the argument, is all.

Okay, I stand corrected on what he thinks, keep your opinions of us if you like.

[astronaut jones]

Just using a counter-example to point out the silliness of the argument, is all.

Except the argument is valid, you may claim to not actually base your opinions of alliances on how their membership acts towards you, but, you do. It's not even something to be ashamed of, everyone, at one point in time, has let one person taint their opinion of an entire group.

So be it. I figured you'd have embraced the role, being "sith" and all. Oh well. Praise be to charles barkley.

[mpol777]

I don't want to play in your reindeer games, but I have to once again tip my hat to Señor Moldavi. Well played. I'd have gone the whole "I'll skull $%&@ your sister" route, but that's more my style than yours.

[Ivan Moldavi]

I get that feeling everytime I see you post. Sometimes I swear it's not even the same person who played in '06 that's posting.

What an incredibly astute reply. Not expected in the least. Excellent.

[Eden Taylor]

Well I'm sure it isn't true. Or else that would completely flip my point around and oh, would I be red-faced.

Now I wish it was true for two reasons.

[Ivan Moldavi]

I don't want to play in your reindeer games, but I have to once again tip my hat to Señor Moldavi. Well played. I'd have gone the whole "I'll skull $%&@ your sister" route, but that's more my style than yours.

Thank you, kind sir. I do try.

[Skippy]

You have certain members who use a style of debate that resorts to personal attacks a bit too often. On the whole I don't loathe STA, which makes the behavior of those individuals...unfortunate.

Sometimes debates require the use of telling/revealing the truth, this doesn't always come across too well to the person you are debating with/against.

So some of those "individuals" point things out, usually its more to a point rather than just posting to anger everyone in the thread.

[Ivan Moldavi]

Except the argument is valid, you may claim to not actually base your opinions of alliances on how their membership acts towards you, but, you do. It's not even something to be ashamed of, everyone, at one point in time, has let one person taint their opinion of an entire group.

So be it. I figured you'd have embraced the role, being "sith" and all. Oh well. Praise be to charles barkley.

Oh, I don't mind that people hate the NSO. That is part of the plot.

It is the failure of the haters to actually formulate good reasons for the hate that annoys me. If you are going to play the hero against our villain then be a damn hero, not some coward that hopes someone else will do your dirty work for you, putting pointless jabs out periodically in hopes of landing a hit.

[TehChron]

I get that feeling everytime I see you post. Sometimes I swear it's not even the same person who played in '06 that's posting.

I'm happy to see that at the very least you've used your three years here to improve your skill in debate. You can actually string strawmen together now.

That being said, being painfully vague in attempting to launch ad hominems does not actually score you points, rather it simply leaves folks scratching their heads and not giving a damn about whatever it is you're trying to say. Consider it a free debating tip.