LOLtex Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 "It's not over yet.""It is for *me*, sister. Look, I ain't in this for your revolution, and I'm not in it for you, Princess. I expect to be well paid. *I'm* in it for the money." "If money is all that you can count, well that's what you'll receive." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 "It's not over yet.""It is for *me*, sister. Look, I ain't in this for your revolution, and I'm not in it for you, Princess. I expect to be well paid. *I'm* in it for the money." You needn't worry about your reward. If money is all that you love, then that's what you'll receive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) To those with rational, unbiased, and productive thoughts: I praise you. Mine you all, one man wore our AA upon info op, which he was caught and immediately anarchied and dealt with by us. Since STA or others have barely any relations with us, of course they will speculate 'war slot filling'. Of course, this is incorrect and they are more than welcome to speculate; like we are more than welcome to tell them they are wrong. Or rather, I shouldn't pin that assertion on STA alone -- that goes for anyone. This has been repeatedly done in history. One side says they are innocent, the other side says they aren't merely because of biased opinions or because of prior experiences. OR because of circumstantial events . This is our problem. It is shameful this has escalated into petulance nonsense; this is a textbook diplomatic problem which should be dealt with a textbook diplomatic solution; if they don't bear the aa, you aren't able to demand anything as they no longer belong to their former respective alliance. If you're going to accuse people of actions, such as war slot filling, provide relatively cunning evidence like we have in opposition to said comment. If you feel one way, go to the admin. Until then, stop the countless babbling about the WS fillings. I mine as well try speculating this was STAs doing -- yeah, it'd be an idiotic comment much similar to the accusations being tossed endlessly in this discussion. (Mind you, this is to everyone posting and not to STA. I should bold this, but I am too lazy.) First most, we have terrible statistical evidence brought into play. "Yeah, we acknowledge your guy was nuking our target, but since he was weaker than everyone else and had no WRC, of course you're trying to backstab us, or start a war." Really? REALLY? He got nuked, it reminds me of the consumer getting upset he didn't get a cherry with his whip cream. Seriously. This was a little far fetched. I also should note never to assume someone has control over a rogue. Side note to Owned-You or whatever your name is: I have realized, by reading your posts, you have called Kronos pigheaded and ignorant because we do not believe in paying reps because of an idiotic rogue causing damage no longer bearing our AA. I would just like to say you are an idiot, for lack of a better term. Let me make this clear: STA has an opinion because things look sketchy from their point of view -- which I guess one can say is decently understandable. Kronos has an opinion because we sincerely did what we could (Though some argue things could have been better communication-wise) in attacking the rogues, as we were betrayed as well but the difference between you and those professionally representing themselves and their alliance is they understand point of views and how it leads to different observations and, in the end, conclusions. One thing neither party is guilty of is sole ignorance. Though each has a different opinion, it is apparently obvious both have a general understanding this is a gut-feeling response rather than a factual one. In the first 12 pages alone, most have used the phrase "Understand from our point of view...". The one who is ignorant isn't my alliance or STA, but you. Just because we do not feel it is right to pay reps for a rogue doesn't mean we are 'ignorant'. You also said it was because of our 'pride'. If I am wrong, I will damn right admit it. If Kronos wanted war, we would DoW, just like STA would do. We wouldn't send off rogues then attack them. We wouldn't damage our own 'men' if we wanted a 'war'. Truth is, they are no longer our 'men', they betrayed their oath to my alliance and I would have attacked them myself If I could have. Learn what words to toss instead of mindlessly being unproductive. I thank those who aren't being eggheads and retaining logic (reasoning) Everyone chill. This is an event that was blown out of proportion. Both sides have something to be upset about with these rogues. I'll be damned if a bunch of useless rogues cause MORE damage to STA, my alliance, and to even those uninvolved as of now by us senselessly escalating this into a blowout war. Let it simmer down. Everyone put their pride to the side and just walk away. Everyone has good intentions except the rogues, take your anger out on them. Edit: Grammar, etc. Edited November 24, 2009 by Ejayrazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred von Tirpitz Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 A rap would have been better Ejay. But yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 A rap would have been better Ejay. But yeah. Ah, recording studio issues. I had to delete my first song, it was terrible quality and muffled. In time my friend, in time. Also, cheers dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterof9puppets Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 I picked a new avatar just because of this thread, and it is awesome!Thank you, Stupid. I think it's cute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 Apparently, we do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilber Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 If a government member "resigns and goes rogue" and attacks an alliance, the alliance should still be held responsible in terms of reparations. Lets say that I "left the NPO" and "attacked three members of Sparta". Would the NPO be held responsible because it's me? In all honesty, due to hatred for the Order the answer is probably. Now, replace NPO with Kronos, and three members of Sparta with STA members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 If a government member "resigns and goes rogue" and attacks an alliance, the alliance should still be held responsible in terms of reparations. Lets say that I "left the NPO" and "attacked three members of Sparta". Would the NPO be held responsible because it's me? In all honesty, due to hatred for the Order the answer is probably. Now, replace NPO with Kronos, and three members of Sparta with STA members. /me yells at Dilber... wait, he was supporting us.... Good work, lets hope this example is actually listened to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dontasemebro Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 If a government member "resigns and goes rogue" and attacks an alliance, the alliance should still be held responsible in terms of reparations. Lets say that I "left the NPO" and "attacked three members of Sparta". Would the NPO be held responsible because it's me? In all honesty, due to hatred for the Order the answer is probably. Now, replace NPO with Kronos, and three members of Sparta with STA members. He's using geass, don't look at his eyes. Oh wait, that's logic...nevermind. Now I see the one flaw in your argument: It is based in reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philp110 Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 If a government member "resigns and goes rogue" and attacks an alliance, the alliance should still be held responsible in terms of reparations. Why not just have the alliance held responsible and declare war? It's a rogue. Regardless of whether it is government or not, the alliance should not be held responsible. Lets say that I "left the NPO" and "attacked three members of Sparta". Would the NPO be held responsible because it's me? In all honesty, due to hatred for the Order the answer is probably. Now, replace NPO with Kronos, and three members of Sparta with STA members. This example is not applicable to this situation. What does this have to do with NPO? Seriously, let's not go there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 He could be in any AA, he is using himself as an example though. If you don't like the idea of NPO giving an example, then just pretend Dilber is in....lets just say NpO. Does that sound better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkerNinja Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 Apparently, we do. Liez. If balls were Defcon status, we would be Napoleon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philp110 Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 He could be in any AA, he is using himself as an example though. If you don't like the idea of NPO giving an example, then just pretend Dilber is in....lets just say NpO. Does that sound better? No, he could not be in any AA. He's saying it's not the same. He's saying because of the way the CN is aligned against NPO, they would be held to a different standard than say NpO. But, to humor you, if NpO had a .gov member go rogue, nothing would happen. No one would demand reps. No one would hold NpO responsible for the damages done. This situation with Kronos and STA is far more complex than that, obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crimson King Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 We should get our families together sometime. Ferb, I know what we're going to do today! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 No, he could not be in any AA. He's saying it's not the same. He's saying because of the way the CN is aligned against NPO, they would be held to a different standard than say NpO. But, to humor you, if NpO had a .gov member go rogue, nothing would happen. No one would demand reps. No one would hold NpO responsible for the damages done. This situation with Kronos and STA is far more complex than that, obviously. Let's just call it quits, a decision has been made, this monstrosity of a thread can finally come to a close Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philp110 Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 Let's just call it quits, a decision has been made, this monstrosity of a thread can finally come to a close Hurray for peace! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drostan Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 If a government member "resigns and goes rogue" and attacks an alliance, the alliance should still be held responsible in terms of reparations. Lets say that I "left the NPO" and "attacked three members of Sparta". Would the NPO be held responsible because it's me? In all honesty, due to hatred for the Order the answer is probably. Now, replace NPO with Kronos, and three members of Sparta with STA members. Anyone who mistakes this for logic is clearly not playing with a full deck. It's a hypothetical example based on many years of accumulated hatred towards an alliance that ruled Planet Bob with an iron fist and forced several alliances to disband. Also, one government member left and attacked one member of STA. Lastly, I think you are wrong. If you changed your AA to "Rogue Mobile Go!" before attacking, I seriously doubt the NPO would find themselves at war. Basically, your example is correct if you simply replace every element of the real life situation with hypothetical ones and then leap to a conclusion based on nothing. You see what I did there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 If a government member "resigns and goes rogue" and attacks an alliance, the alliance should still be held responsible in terms of reparations. Lets say that I "left the NPO" and "attacked three members of Sparta". Would the NPO be held responsible because it's me? In all honesty, due to hatred for the Order the answer is probably. Now, replace NPO with Kronos, and three members of Sparta with STA members. With all due respect the answer is still, "it depends". We're still playing Poker, remember? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEraser Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 No, he could not be in any AA. He's saying it's not the same. He's saying because of the way the CN is aligned against NPO, they would be held to a different standard than say NpO. But, to humor you, if NpO had a .gov member go rogue, nothing would happen. No one would demand reps. No one would hold NpO responsible for the damages done. This situation with Kronos and STA is far more complex than that, obviously. nothing would happen, but its wouldn't be for lack of efforts on some peoples parts. We have too much muscle and no one wants 4500 nukes in teh face (except maybe MK, they are wierd guys.... then again we love our mushrooms...) But you are right for the most part. Every situation is going to depend. Kronos has the luxury of being friends with Citadel, that was their get out of jail free card. Its called politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 Liez. If balls were Defcon status, we would be Napoleon. Wait just a minute here. What do you mean by that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 Platypi are TOPs mascots for a reason. TOP admires all other creatures with testicles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 nothing would happen, but its wouldn't be for lack of efforts on some peoples parts. We have too much muscle and no one wants 4500 nukes in teh face (except maybe MK, they are wierd guys.... then again we love our mushrooms...) But you are right for the most part.Every situation is going to depend. Kronos has the luxury of being friends with Citadel, that was their get out of jail free card. Its called politics. What is this supposed to mean, because I read this as "no one would try to do this to us because we have more nukes than Kronos" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white majik Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 So far Joe Stupid is on my list, even though I thought I hit him a year ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 His roughly 95M warchest won't last him long! 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.