New Athens Speech Policy

[Dochartaigh]

By the way, I'm not denying that the sigs are unclassy. Just that the unclassiness is aimed at IAA, not Athens.

Your take on things is rather spot on though.

again, please explain how wearing sigs stating that members of MK wants to roll IAA is somehow not aimed at Athens who holds an MDoAP with IAA? please explain that cuz i am honestly confused. do you know what an MDoAP is?

[SirWilliam]

again, please explain how wearing sigs stating that members of MK wants to roll IAA is somehow not aimed at Athens who holds an MDoAP with IAA? please explain that cuz i am honestly confused. do you know what an MDoAP is?

/me facepalms.

Athens is not IAA. Athens is treatied with IAA, but they are two distinct, separate entities. The MK members' dislike of IAA was there long before Athens and IAA treatied, and is there for reasons having nothing to do with Athens. Disrespecting an ally of an ally is quite a bit different than openly disrespecting one's ally. We're not treatied to IAA, who some are disrespecting. IAA is treatied to Athens, who you are disrespecting. Honestly it shouldn't be that hard to wrap one's mind around.

It's no different than how your disrespect of Athens does not equate to disrespect of MK. Athens is not MK. Athens is treatied with MK, but they are two distinct, separate entities. Etc etc etc.

[Dochartaigh]

/me facepalms.

Athens is not IAA. Athens is treatied with IAA, but they are two distinct, separate entities. The MK members' dislike of IAA was there long before Athens and IAA treatied, and is there for reasons having nothing to do with Athens. Disrespecting an ally of an ally is quite a bit different than openly disrespecting one's ally. We're not treatied to IAA, who some are disrespecting. IAA is treatied to Athens, who you are disrespecting. Honestly it shouldn't be that hard to wrap one's mind around.

It's no different than how your disrespect of Athens does not equate to disrespect of MK. Athens is not MK. Athens is treatied with MK, but they are two distinct, separate entities. Etc etc etc.

you are condoning overtly hostile threats to IAA. threats that if acted upon would cause Athens to have to choose between two treaties. so please again, tell me how putting Athens in that situation is anything but disrespectful towards Athens? you stated that Grub's "threats" against Athens was disrepsectful towards MK since Athens was an ally of an ally, yet you refuse to see it when MK members do it to an ally of an ally.......

[SirWilliam]

you are condoning overtly hostile threats to IAA. threats that if acted upon

Stop. As I've mentioned, no one sporting those sigs or those sentiments has the authority or ability to act on them. Kinda blows that point out of the water.

[Dochartaigh]

Stop. As I've mentioned, no one sporting those sigs or those sentiments has the authority or ability to act on them. Kinda blows that point out of the water.

not really. i have no authority to do a damn thing in IAA and yet you are taking my sig, which is not hostile in any way shape or form, as being utterly disrespectful towards Athens, when all it is is a sig that calls them out for being bullies.

so if i have no point, then neither do you.

[SirWilliam]

not really. i have no authority to do a damn thing in IAA and yet you are taking my sig, which is not hostile in any way shape or form, as being utterly disrespectful towards Athens, when all it is is a sig that calls them out for being bullies.

so if i have no point, then neither do you.

You may have no authority, but you keep mentioning Grub threatening Athens as a comparable situation. Clearly, it's not. He could act on it. The MK members expressing their sentiments can't. They can only make empty jabs, not legitimate threats.

My other point was that your disrespect to your allies in Athens is far different than MK members' disrespect of IAA, who are not allies but rather allies of allies.

The points stand until you adequately refute them. Do we need to keep going in circles?

[Dochartaigh]

You may have no authority, but you keep mentioning Grub threatening Athens as a comparable situation. Clearly, it's not. He could act on it. The MK members expressing their sentiments can't. They can only make empty jabs, not legitimate threats.

My other point was that your disrespect to your allies in Athens is far different than MK members' disrespect of IAA, who are not allies but rather allies of allies.

The points stand until you adequately refute them. Do we need to keep going in circles?

i brought up Grub once, maybe twice (honestly cant remember). as for going in circles, if you can actually tell me why it is okay for even MK members to make overtly hostile threats about an ally of Athens, does not disrespect Athens. the reason why i am having issues is that you said that it is only the members of MK and thus the actions are empty. i am a member of IAA and thus my actions are empty as well. so the situation is the same. MK members are directly tied to Athens and are threatening an ally of Athens. I am directly tied to Athens and am calling them a bully due to their recent actions.

again, i do not honestly see how MK members are not disrespecting Athens when they make overtly hostile threats against an ally of Athens? it honestly does not matter whether they can do anything about it, the sentiment is quite clear. those MK members wearing those tags would war IAA if they had the chance, regardless of the fact that said action would cause Athens to be put in a position of choosing between CnG and IAA. so again, regardless of how "empty" said threats are, the sentiment behind it is not.

so now, please answer me how the sentiment behind those sigs are nothing but disrespectful towards Athens.

[SirWilliam]

An ally is not the same as an ally of an ally, and no amount of debate or confusion changes that.

[Dochartaigh]

An ally is not the same as an ally of an ally, and no amount of debate or confusion changes that.

aiight, you win. i even changed my sig.

[SirWilliam]

aiight, you win. i even changed my sig.

I changed mine too!

[Dochartaigh]

I changed mine too!

woot, i am quoted in a sig. i think this is like maybe my second time in 3.5 years.

[Chimaera]

I guess that's the difference between MK and IAA. They back their allies up, you publicly moan about your "unsafe and unstable" position, and then wear sarcastic propaganda that belittles your allies. Classy.

Accusing IAA, who has never broken a SINGLE treaty in the entirety of our existence upon Planet Bob, of not backing our allies up whilst being a leader of ODN is absolutely hilarious. I will always permit my members their thoughts and opinions, but Dochartaigh speaks for himself and not for the Empire. If I was going to cancel the Athens treaty, I would have done so already.

IAA has a history of bleeding and dying for our allies. ODN has a history of refusing to do so. Be careful of casting stones when you live in a glass house.

[James Wilson]

That was such a mind-numbingly piss poor argument that I don't even know how to respond to it. I'll go with "Hey mom, my friend jumped off a bridge, can I jump off a bridge too?"

I guess that's the difference between MK and IAA. They back their allies up, you publicly moan about your "unsafe and unstable" position, and then wear sarcastic propaganda that belittles your allies. Classy.

This coming from the leader of the Optional Defense Network?

I don't know much of the old IAA's history but I believe they died for an ally whereas ODN's history, as I've read, has been shrouded in cowardly cancellations of treaties which tie you to the losing side.

My, my, I smell a hypocrite!

[Voodoo Nova]

I guess that's the difference between MK and IAA. They back their allies up, you publicly moan about your "unsafe and unstable" position, and then wear sarcastic propaganda that belittles your allies. Classy.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54850

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=30720

Not supporting your allies in two major wars. Classy.

[Chimaera]

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54850

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=30720

Not supporting your allies in two major wars. Classy.

I guess that's just the difference between IAA and ODN. We back our allies up, you publicly state that you "cannot be bound to the actions" of your allies. Classy.

[Style #386]

Accusing IAA, who has never broken a SINGLE treaty in the entirety of our existence upon Planet Bob, of not backing our allies up whilst being a leader of ODN is absolutely hilarious. I will always permit my members their thoughts and opinions, but Dochartaigh speaks for himself and not for the Empire. If I was going to cancel the Athens treaty, I would have done so already.

IAA has a history of bleeding and dying for our allies. ODN has a history of refusing to do so. Be careful of casting stones when you live in a glass house.

This coming from the leader of the Optional Defense Network?

I don't know much of the old IAA's history but I believe they died for an ally whereas ODN's history, as I've read, has been shrouded in cowardly cancellations of treaties which tie you to the losing side.

My, my, I smell a hypocrite!

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54850

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=30720

Not supporting your allies in two major wars. Classy.

I guess that's just the difference between IAA and ODN. We back our allies up, you publicly state that you "cannot be bound to the actions" of your allies. Classy.

And lo'! A blistering series of ad hominem attacks that completely fail to address the matter at hand! Get back to me when you brush up on your reading and comprehension skills.

That said, good on you for not canceling on Athens.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Style #386

[Chimaera]

And lo'! A blistering series of ad hominem attacks that completely fail to address the matter at hand! Get back to me when you brush up on your reading and comprehension skills.

I know ad hominem. That wasn't ad hominem. That was a stylistic tactic known as "responding to your baseless accusations using solid evidence backed up by historical events". It's absolutely revolutionary, I know.

[The Syndic]

That was such a mind-numbingly piss poor argument that I don't even know how to respond to it. I'll go with "Hey mom, my friend jumped off a bridge, can I jump off a bridge too?"

I guess that's the difference between MK and IAA. They back their allies up, you publicly moan about your "unsafe and unstable" position, and then wear sarcastic propaganda that belittles your allies. Classy.

That isn't what all of us do. Mostly Doch.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Ascendant

[Style #386]

I know ad hominem. That wasn't ad hominem. That was a stylistic tactic known as "responding to your baseless accusations using solid evidence backed up by historical events". It's absolutely revolutionary, I know.

Really? Because I wasn't talking about ODN. I made a comparison between MK and IAA, and you chose, in turn, to attack my affiliation and self. Classic ad hominem, actually.

Your "solid evidence backed by historical events" holds zero bearing to the matter I discussed. As I said, get back to me when you have an argument to make.

[Chimaera]

Really? Because I wasn't talking about ODN. I made a comparison between MK and IAA, and you chose, in turn, to attack my affiliation and self. Classic ad hominem, actually.

Your "solid evidence backed by historical events" holds zero bearing to the matter I discussed. As I said, get back to me when you have an argument to make.

If you can verbally attack IAA based on a single member's opinions, I am certainly entitled to verbally attack ODN for your entire alliance's history.

You made a baseless comparison between MK and IAA, to be precise, assuming that a single member's distaste for Athens constituted Imperial policy and therefore making an assumption about IAA as a whole (which, while we're speaking about logical fallacies, is a classic hasty generalization). I was responding with a not-so-baseless comparison between ODN and IAA, backed up by the fact that your alliance has chosen the easy way out (IE the winning side) of wars multiple times in its past. Are the two things really that different except for the fact that your attack has no merit and mine does based on the historical actions of our respective alliances? I think not.

Please, feel free to get back to me when you are more interested in discussing our alliances' treatment of our allies rather than explaining to me how I am committing a logical fallacy.

[Scorbolt]

I know ad hominem. That wasn't ad hominem.

I would say that you clearly misunderstand what ad hominem is.

[James Wilson]

Really? Because I wasn't talking about ODN. I made a comparison between MK and IAA, and you chose, in turn, to attack my affiliation and self. Classic ad hominem, actually.

Your "solid evidence backed by historical events" holds zero bearing to the matter I discussed. As I said, get back to me when you have an argument to make.

Well, yea, because someone from ODN making claims about someone not sticking to their treaties is hilarious!

[Voodoo Nova]

Really? Because I wasn't talking about ODN. I made a comparison between MK and IAA, and you chose, in turn, to attack my affiliation and self. Classic ad hominem, actually.

Your "solid evidence backed by historical events" holds zero bearing to the matter I discussed. As I said, get back to me when you have an argument to make.

The thing is, ODN has no backing when it comes to the topic of supporting your allies and the treaties you sign. At all. You cannot sit there and talk about two alliances, both whom have sat there and defended their allies through the good, the bad and the ugly. ODN has dropped their allies when the bad and the ugly show up, and even worse, suspended certain treaties while keeping others. That makes you a bad ally. Period. IAA has defended our allies when we were needed the most. MK has done the same.

The matter at hand is backing allies. ODN has a history of not doing so. That is the argument, and that is the facts. You cannot make your argument against any other alliance that has actually defended their allies.

[NationReaper]

Thanks Athens =D that is really classy of you

Edited November 16, 2009 by Voldorish

[Scorbolt]

The thing is, ODN has no backing when it comes to the topic of supporting your allies and the treaties you sign. At all. You cannot sit there and talk about two alliances, both whom have sat there and defended their allies through the good, the bad and the ugly. ODN has dropped their allies when the bad and the ugly show up, and even worse, suspended certain treaties while keeping others. That makes you a bad ally. Period. IAA has defended our allies when we were needed the most. MK has done the same.

The matter at hand is backing allies. ODN has a history of not doing so. That is the argument, and that is the facts. You cannot make your argument against any other alliance that has actually defended their allies.

No, the matter at hand is Athens new speech policy. I'd recommend reading the op.