Neo Uruk Posted November 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 You are serving this audience something else than what you are offering and it smells like the fecal matter of a mature steer.If you boast that no one can give an appropriate counter-attack to your statements and then damage control behind the lines like you are doing, it really tells me that you have no concern over that small, unaligned nation and that you are simply here for blood. I never claimed to be best buddies with the nation. I'm wanting to know where Penkala the Righteous went. Of course, I don't actually like nuking people who do nothing to you, but I realize it can't be helped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogeWilliam Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 There's absolutely no difference. The stated aim in both cases is taking technology and land from the attacked nation(s). The only difference is the scale of the enterprise, and I'm not sure how it becomes morally acceptable by stealing from a single person rather than a group of people. Stated aims are meaningless. If stated aims were worthwhile then nobody would ever be in the wrong. NPO would never had been wrong. That actions, the facts are what matters. Penkala is in an individual tech raid that is not intra-allaince organized. The Athens/FoB raid was obviously a planned attack that had full support of both governments. You tell me if those are the same things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 If this were July 2007, I'd be asking Penkala if he wanted to join \m/. For those morally outraged by this, I suggest a laxative. For those who think this is all just a joke, there is a srs bns aspect to this and I'm sure Penkala had good justification for what he did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) Stated aims are meaningless. If stated aims were worthwhile then nobody would ever be in the wrong. NPO would never had been wrong. That actions, the facts are what matters. Penkala is in an individual tech raid that is not intra-allaince organized. The Athens/FoB raid was obviously a planned attack that had full support of both governments. You tell me if those are the same things. Yes, the organization required for the respective sides was clearly different. The morality of stealing from someone who you can get away with stealing from remains the same. Scale has nothing to do with it. Edited November 19, 2009 by Vilien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperonic Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 I love playing the apples and oranges morality game. So good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balder Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Lol morals. That's all I have to contribute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porksaber Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) If this were July 2007, I'd be asking Penkala if he wanted to join \m/. For those morally outraged by this, I suggest a laxative. For those who think this is all just a joke, there is a srs bns aspect to this and I'm sure Penkala had good justification for what he did. take it from a true connoisseur of seriousity... laxitives leverage the synergy of srs bsns. lol penkala! Edited November 19, 2009 by porksaber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 I love playing the apples and oranges morality game. So good. Larger apples to smaller apples. Try contributing next time. Lol morals. That's all I have to contribute. Oh look! Another one. lol____ has never been and never will be a substitute for an argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Seems like Penkala has perfectly good justification for escalating it beyond normal raiding protocol. As for Penkala making a raid in the first place, it's not a black and white issue. Sure, you can be an 'all raiding is wrong' person, but there is a huge difference between raiding an unaligned nation and raiding a medium sized alliance. There are a lot of people who consider raiding unaligned not to be wrong and raiding alliances to be wrong. You might not agree with them but Penkala's views are not hypocritical at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balder Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Larger apples to smaller apples. Try contributing next time.Oh look! Another one. lol____ has never been and never will be a substitute for an argument. I'm not arguing, I'm simply showing that I have indeed been entertained. Thank you by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 I'm not arguing, I'm simply showing that I have indeed been entertained. Thank you by the way. I'd forgone expecting anything but trite crap from you. You haven't disappointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balougahfitz Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Seems like Penkala has perfectly good justification for escalating it beyond normal raiding protocol. Except the part where he didn't. I didn't make any OOC threats against him or his family. The conversation he claims we had never existed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunder Strike Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Who let Hyperonic out of his cage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Beck Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 This whole thing is rather confusing as it is so hard to know what the truth is. Although I don't disagree with holding penkala to his own standards, the two situations are entirely different. The Athens/FoB thing was an undeclared war that people were upset with. This is indeed an individual tech raid. But let's not rehash done business I suppose. There was no motivation for Athens and FoB to declare war on KoN, no motivation whatsoever and thus calling it a war and not a tech raid is wrong. Or did Athens and FoB do it to isolate MASH? See my point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperonic Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Larger apples to smaller apples. Try contributing next time. You are comparing an alliance to a single nation. That is called reaching. There is no one here coming to your rescue and supporting you in your theory except more people that don't like Penkala. Take your ball and come back when you have some real game to bring to the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smacky Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Seems like Penkala has perfectly good justification for escalating it beyond normal raiding protocol.As for Penkala making a raid in the first place, it's not a black and white issue. Sure, you can be an 'all raiding is wrong' person, but there is a huge difference between raiding an unaligned nation and raiding a medium sized alliance. There are a lot of people who consider raiding unaligned not to be wrong and raiding alliances to be wrong. You might not agree with them but Penkala's views are not hypocritical at this point. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1978458 Might want to read further before taking his word for it, Penkala nuked the poor guy 3 times for daring to send cruise missiles back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Stalin Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) Seems like Penkala has perfectly good justification for escalating it beyond normal raiding protocol. You must have forgotten to look at all those screenshots posted. They kind of point to his so called "justification" being untrue. Edited November 19, 2009 by Uncle Stalin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balder Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 I'd forgone expecting anything but trite crap from you. You haven't disappointed. I do my best for you babe . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 I await the posturing and threats from the Polar crowd ..but while i wait i shall enjoy this nice double standard Penkala has setup for us. i'll go tech raid someone and feel bad about it while im doing it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 You are comparing an alliance to a single nation. That is called reaching. There is no one here coming to your rescue and supporting you in your theory except more people that don't like Penkala. Here we go. Effectively, you're stating that there's a difference between an alliance and an individual. That's completely true. Alliances are much larger than individuals. Point, Hyperonic. Now, what separates tech raiding an alliance (the Athens situation) from tech raiding an individual? The motivation is exactly the same: profit, fun, whatever. You're damaging more people when you raid an entire alliance, but ultimately, you're doing the exact same thing as when you tech raid an individual. You make a decision to take from someone else for your own gain. You decide to violate another nation, or group's, sovereignty because you can. Why should it be any more acceptable to raid a single nation than to raid a much larger conglomeration of nations? Would you be outraged if forty individual nations were all raided at the same time? The scale of destruction is different, but the motive, violence for its own sake, remains the same. Let's get rid of the double standard. Tell me, what's the difference, morally, between attacking a group without justification and a single nation without justification? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperonic Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Message: Quitting the game, Are you kidding me? The guy he nuked was QUITTING? And, you all guys are angry about this? Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Stalin Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Are you kidding me? The guy he nuked was QUITTING?And, you all guys are angry about this? Why? He nuked the guy before he said he was quitting, multiple times. For all we know penkala's dastardly behavior has provoked the desire to quit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) Seems like Penkala has perfectly good justification for escalating it beyond normal raiding protocol. Why? Because his victim fought back and launched *gasp* cruise missiles? That has to be the most ridiculous justification of using nuclear weapons on a tech raid victim that I have ever heard. And to make it even more outrageous his alliance buddy, James Dahl, has the gall to levy uncalled for accusations against the character of the victim, which have since been proven false. This is really nothing more than a bully tactic, and even more deplorable than normal raiding, which at least has some form of restraint. As for you, Penkala, for all of your moralist nonsense you spew against the NSO, I think this little episode speaks volumes about your own character. Your morals are flexible to whatever suits your purpose. You are nothing, and I shall be sure to make sure this little incident will not soon be forgotten, you hypocritical little worm. Are you kidding me? The guy he nuked was QUITTING?And, you all guys are angry about this? Why? Ever hear of a thing called principles? No? Not surprised. Not from your group at least. This sets a precedent. Regardless of what the victim plans to to do soon, he was nuked because he fought back after he was unjustly attacked. If it is acceptable for nukes to be used against him, then it will be justified for all tech raid victims to be threatened with nukes and more if they fight back. I cannot stand for this betrayal of and against justice. Edited November 19, 2009 by Rebel Virginia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Louis the II Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Penkala broke our raiding guidelines and launched nukes without authorization. As a result will have his raiding privileges suspended. Rules can be bent in extenuating circumstances with permission, but regardless of whether this qualifies, no such permission was sought.If Grub would like to threaten me over this, I'll be free most of the night. Congratulations Delta. Wise decision of your AA. I don't have a problem with the raiding, I think he should have his reasons. However, Nukes only should be used during a really serious war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperonic Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Here we go. Effectively, you're stating that there's a difference between an alliance and an individual. That's completely true. Alliances are much larger than individuals. Point, Hyperonic. Now, what separates tech raiding an alliance (the Athens situation) from tech raiding an individual? The motivation is exactly the same: profit, fun, whatever. You're damaging more people when you raid an entire alliance, but ultimately, you're doing the exact same thing as when you tech raid an individual. You make a decision to take from someone else for your own gain. You decide to violate another nation, or group's, sovereignty because you can. Why should it be any more acceptable to raid a single nation than to raid a much larger conglomeration of nations? Would you be outraged if forty individual nations were all raided at the same time? The scale of destruction is different, but the motive, violence for its own sake, remains the same. Let's get rid of the double standard. Tell me, what's the difference, morally, between attacking a group without justification and a single nation without justification? Don't spin this into a morality debate, especially when morality is flexible and not standard across CN. Morality is an accepted thing and just because YOUR morals are different from mine, doesn't mean you get to define what is right and wrong about this situation. Especially when its a unaligned nation. unaligned nation. unaligned nation. And, the person running the nation was planning on abandoning it. Why in the world do you care about that guy's nation more than he does? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.