Azhrei Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 "Man, this is some bad juju right here." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 Replace "Knights of Ni!" with "PPF/Opethian" and the hypocrisy in this thread is overwhelming. I thought it was a Bad Thing the ugly mess that is the treaty web, yet actions like this only compound the "problem" of too many treaties and is quite frankly talking out of both sides of your mouth. People, look what you made me do. I'm agreeing with Bilrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 I can't say I support this blatant mugging of another alliance, but I suppose the fault equally lies with the Knights of Ni! for not signing any treaties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilrow Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 People, look what you made me do. I'm agreeing with Bilrow. Hell truly has frozen over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpcurley Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 I can't say I support this blatant mugging of another alliance, but I suppose the fault equally lies with the Knights of Ni! for not signing any treaties. If we keep on signing treaties eventualy all of planet bob will become one giant alliance! Boring..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 I can't say I support this blatant mugging of another alliance, but I suppose the fault equally lies with the Knights of Ni! for not signing any treaties. So the message here is it is open season on alliances that aren't in a treaty web? This precedent will lead to an even greater tangling of the treaty web and contribute to the political atrophy of the Cyberverse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwoody Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) I wonder what WAPA would think of this discussion... Edited November 15, 2009 by bigwoody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) Maybe he was using some hyperbole or some other literary term to that effect and did not mean literally 30 wars?Either way, it's enough wars to be considered an alliance wide wars by even the most conservative of definitions. Please Osafune, don't bring your thought process into this. Last rumor I heard about Kronus is that they are slot filling a rogues war slots. So please let me know when an article is brought up about this so I can "insert" your alliance. Edited November 15, 2009 by Tick1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 Please Osafune, don't bring your thought process into this. Last rumor I heard about Kronus is that they are slot filling a rogues war slots. So please let me know when an article is brought up about this so I can troll your alliance. Very classy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 Hell truly has frozen over. One more time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 LOL, at the guy who thinks that the actual trigger point of a major CN war has anything to do with why the war was fought. Two sides line up, they wait around awhile and then fight for some mountain-out-of-a-molehill reason that is meaningless in the long term. That is how every single major war has been since my nation came into existance in November 2006.UJP -- BOTS WOC -- Hyperion Karma -- OV Please don't tell me that you actually think that any of those alliances were material to those wars being fought? They were only material to the day they were fought but the existence of the war had nothing to do with them. In all 3 cases it was just a matter of time until the fire was lit, whether it was them or the next alliance down the line is meaningless to history. P.S. I forget why GW 2 and 3 started but they were both caused by 2 obvious coalitions lining up and staring each other down. i dont know why you decided to come out with some complete non sequitor post in relation to something i said, but you did, so i will clarify. i said that in response to this: Oh c'mon Bob, there were always two distinct sets of Karma members. Those who just wanted to kill NPO/Hegemony because they hated them and those that were convinced to join in because they were sold on the moralistic BS that is the Karma name. Its not very hard to tell which category the main alliances of Karma fell into. In fact I don't think that anyone outside of Citadel and close allies falls into the second category. If you actually thought Athens or CnG for that matter ever bought into your version of Karma the joke is on you. it was stated that people joined that war either because they hated npo/hegemony and those that joined because of moralist crap. i simply said that there were also those who joined, you know, because of an MADP with OV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) Very classy Well considering slot filling should also play a part in morality should it not? Edit (Since this whole thread has been about morality) Edited November 15, 2009 by Tick1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 Well considering slot filling should also play a part in morality should it not? If the best you've got is "well you did this completely unrelated thing wrong!" as a defense, I think you might find the ground for the position you are standing on to be no where near as firm as you'd like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 If the best you've got is "well you did this completely unrelated thing wrong!" as a defense, I think you might find the ground for the position you are standing on to be no where near as firm as you'd like. Ender, I made my argument along time ago on this thread. I'm tired of the hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason8 Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 Semantics are of the utmost importance in these situations.I suppose 2 wars from FoB and 2 from Athens would be alliance wide as well? If the Knights of Ni! only had 5 or 6 nations, I would wholeheartedly agree with this. I would consider it alliance-wide if anything remotely close to the majority of the alliance got attacked, and in this case, it did. So the message here is it is open season on alliances that aren't in a treaty web? This precedent will lead to an even greater tangling of the treaty web and contribute to the political atrophy of the Cyberverse. That's how it's always been. The strong prey on the weak to become even stronger. You should be familiar with this, since this is how the NPO operated while it was at the top of it's game. If I remember correctly, you've been around to witness this, so it shouldn't be too hard to understand. Am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 Ender, I made my argument along time ago on this thread. I'm tired of the hypocrisy. Someone can both be a hypocrite and be making accurate statements about you being in the wrong. Unfortunately for you, simply calling them a hypocrite does not actually refute what they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason8 Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 Please Osafune, don't bring your thought process into this. Last rumor I heard about Kronus is that they are slot filling a rogues war slots. So please let me know when an article is brought up about this so I can troll your alliance. Kronos war-slot filling? You're insane. Kronos nations are tech raiding the rogue and dealing damage. That is not war-slot filling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 If the Knights of Ni! only had 5 or 6 nations, I would wholeheartedly agree with this. I would consider it alliance-wide if anything remotely close to the majority of the alliance got attacked, and in this case, it did.That's how it's always been. The strong prey on the weak to become even stronger. You should be familiar with this, since this is how the NPO operated while it was at the top of it's game. If I remember correctly, you've been around to witness this, so it shouldn't be too hard to understand. Am I wrong? While it is true that it has always been the case that many alliances used a superior position to advance their agenda, I am aware of no other instance where people's justification was that because the other alliance lacked treaties to defend themselves. This gives valid CBs on every alliance that chooses not to participate in the current political system and is a very disturbing development in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 While it is true that it has always been the case that many alliances used a superior position to advance their agenda, I am aware of no other instance where people's justification was that because the other alliance lacked treaties to defend themselves. This gives valid CBs on every alliance that chooses not to participate in the current political system and is a very disturbing development in my opinion. Who knows what terrible extremes this could lead to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 Who knows what terrible extremes this could lead to? Apple and oranges. Before I get into this, I think that it is terribly worrisome that previous wars between the Continuum and GPA have anything to do with Athen's justification (or complete lack thereof). I will say though that we did provide justifications before actually declaring war (whether you agree with that or not is a different issue), GPA had been as guilty as the Continuum in escalating tensions prior to outbreak. This as best I can tell is an attack for lulz and tech only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litha Riddle Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 That's fine, it's just not everyone else realizes that this MDP was null. Good to know you put so much into the treaties you sign. And that you don't even remember just makes this more ironic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 Apple and oranges. Before I get into this, I think that it is terribly worrisome that previous wars between the Continuum and GPA have anything to do with Athen's justification (or complete lack thereof). I will say though that we did provide justifications before actually declaring war (whether you agree with that or not is a different issue), GPA had been as guilty as the Continuum in escalating tensions prior to outbreak. This as best I can tell is an attack for lulz and tech only. They don't. It's just a bit something when you talk about the terrible precedent this sets, considering that you were the ones who actually set this precedent. Your justifications in that war were worth as much as Athens' lack of justification in this one. The only difference is that in that case you raided an alliance of around seven hundred members, while Athens did it to one of around forty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osafune Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 Please Osafune, don't bring your thought process into this. Last rumor I heard about Kronus is that they are slot filling a rogues war slots. So please let me know when an article is brought up about this so I can "insert" your alliance. Maybe before you bring your own process into this, you should have a fuller understanding of the situation (and make sure what you're posting is relevant to what's being talked about)? And so far I've been arguing in favor of Athens', and by extension your alliance's, position. God knows why you'd lash out at the person who is siding with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fort Pitt Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 Oh c'mon Bob, there were always two distinct sets of Karma members. Those who just wanted to kill NPO/Hegemony because they hated them and those that were convinced to join in because they were sold on the moralistic BS that is the Karma name. Its not very hard to tell which category the main alliances of Karma fell into. In fact I don't think that anyone outside of Citadel and close allies falls into the second category. If you actually thought Athens or CnG for that matter ever bought into your version of Karma the joke is on you. Being that you have a wonderful reputation of knowing what your talking about, and the fact you and your alliance were no where near Karma or any communication, you wouldn't know two !@#$s about how Karma worked. I must ask you to please ask yourself before posting, because it would save pixels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghuxalia Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 Reason for war: "Asparagus" Kazeki officially wins the Win Trophy Reason for war: "orders - raid, peace sent" Octavius, not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts