Which bloc do you want to see rolled most?

[Daikos]

Voted for SF because Fark is a bunch of meanies.

[Hiro Nakara]

Hiro, you are ex Spartan gov. You know we don't have blanket bans on membership posting on the OWF. We encourage restraint and civility, but we do not outright ban it. It has been suggested, as you know, but we have never, EVER, actually done it. I'm confused as to why you think we have enacted such a rule, considering you were in the talks where we discussed it, and you know we decided against it.

First time in Gov I was told not to post in certain threads FACT, second time I argued my point repeatedly, I would not be curbed from saying what I thought. You (Government) wanted to water down what I had to input into a thread or topic thus limiting my freedom of speech. Your skype conversations are still on logg, I'm pretty sure I could check what was said, I'm pretty sure I'm right.

Back on topic excuse my rant. I nulled my vote because a war will happen regardless of who thinks what block should be rolled. Every block no doubt has some form of !@#$%baggery in it or has aced in some !@#$% fasion at some point.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Hiro Nakara

[Achilleus]

Citadel. That stuff's getting old, already.

[Mayzie]

Well, at least we're more hated than AZTEC.

That's something.

From what I gather, our votes mainly came from our own members because the hatred for us looked a little pathetic. We should perhaps roll a few small alliances with no allies, steal fat kids lunch money and kick babies in the face more often.

[Cyphon88]

From what I gather, our votes mainly came from our own members because the hatred for us looked a little pathetic. We should perhaps roll a few small alliances with no allies, steal fat kids lunch money and kick babies in the face more often.

Or attack a neutral menance. Amounts to the same thing really.

[Kindom of Goon]

To do true lasting damage to most of Citadel (and top ranked nations in general) would require either an absurdly drawn out conflict (a few months of constant nuclear warfare) or absurdly punitive reparations and terms. Not their fault, not much else for them to do but hoard money, and it seems as if the chances of an actual solution to the massive "warchest" problem being implemented are pretty much nil.

On the other hand, if we can't properly damage the majority of Citadel, neither can they properly damage the majority of the rest of us.

That's why I think any war surrounding Cit would be different and interesting, as it will take a lot of effort for either side to win or lose.

From what I gather, our votes mainly came from our own members because the hatred for us looked a little pathetic. We should perhaps roll a few small alliances with no allies, steal fat kids lunch money and kick babies in the face more often.

Don't worry, as soon as they all realise you're a member I'm sure votes will soar up.

[Some-Guy]

What really? Are you saying the decision, to not go into this conflict nuclear, was entirely taken by you? Aren't TOP moving at TOP speed because you discuss things to the point it becomes really sad? I'm gonna bet that the "no-nukes" thing was discussed extensively and so the whole of TOP is responsible for that action. To the same level the whole of TOP is responsible for all the in-actions.

Your bet would be wrong.

[Crymson]

What really? Are you saying the decision, to not go into this conflict nuclear, was entirely taken by you? Aren't TOP moving at TOP speed because you discuss things to the point it becomes really sad? I'm gonna bet that the "no-nukes" thing was discussed extensively and so the whole of TOP is responsible for that action. To the same level the whole of TOP is responsible for all the in-actions.

Believe it or not, we do not discuss what we are going to (figuratively) eat for breakfast every day before going off to prepare it. In other words, we do not hold discussions on every tiny matter. TOP speed exists when a very significant matter, i.e. entry into a war---the most pertinent outside reference to TOP speed, it seems---is on the table.

In public, at the very least, I seem to recall it being rather vocally supported by TOP members, and certainly don't remember anyone in the alliance decrying it. Although, with that said, I'm very glad to see your new perspective on those events and I really think this goes a long way to putting that whole mess of a war behind us.

Some may have agreed with the policy, while others may have supported it out of defensiveness against whatever condemnation or blanket criticism was being leveled towards TOP on the issue. I'm sure you understand.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Crymson

[Hyperion321]

Some may have agreed with the policy, while others may have supported it out of defensiveness against whatever condemnation or blanket criticism was being leveled towards TOP on the issue. I'm sure you understand.

toting the party line. everyone does it.

[Aeternos Astramora]

toting the party line. everyone does it.

This. A large number of people from any alliance will side with their alliance leadership in a controversial public announcement for the sole reason of toting the party line, as you said.

[x Tela x]

This. A large number of people from any alliance will side with their alliance leadership in a controversial public announcement for the sole reason of toting the party line, as you said.

I DID NOT have sexual relations with this woman.

[Penkala]

Everyone has seen the logs. Not fooling anyone. Also, SF is a *defensive* bloc? Have you read the treaty? Just wondering.

I'm aware everyone has seen the logs, and I'm aware of what we think. We don't want to roll Citadel (unlike another bloc *cough**cough*). I know what you're referring to, and discussing contingencies =/= plotting to attack Citadel. I'm also well aware of the treaty. You're not as clever as you think you are, just because of what the treaty says it doesn't mean we're an offensive bloc - you'd be better off looking at how we utilize said treaty. The entire basis of the treaty is that of a defensive 'suicide bloc', friends who are fully prepared to go to ZI fighting on the way down for one another.

[Timberland]

People really overestimate Citadel. Yeah, they're a badass bunch of big nations, and some of them even know what they're doing, but a long term war? A war where both sides take heavy casualties? You'll see TOP's membership cut in half within a couple weeks, at the minimum.

Some nice guys in Citadel, and even some nice guys in TOP, but for the most part, it's an alliance filled with a bunch of pansy nation building wimps.

Calling us pansy's but so says the person in peacemode ?

hypocrite much ?

[Hyperion321]

This. A large number of people from any alliance will side with their alliance leadership in a controversial public announcement for the sole reason of toting the party line, as you said.

Yep. You back your friends and family in public no matter what, always. That's partly the reason why the OWF doesn't ever really give the whole picture of what people think, since more often than not people think of defending their friends first than giving their own opinion. I rather like that trait in everyone, it's everlasting proof that people here do still have loyalty to one another.

[cookavich]

I'm aware everyone has seen the logs, and I'm aware of what we think. We don't want to roll Citadel (unlike another bloc *cough**cough*). I know what you're referring to, and discussing contingencies =/= plotting to attack Citadel. I'm also well aware of the treaty. You're not as clever as you think you are, just because of what the treaty says it doesn't mean we're an offensive bloc - you'd be better off looking at how we utilize said treaty. The entire basis of the treaty is that of a defensive 'suicide bloc', friends who are fully prepared to go to ZI fighting on the way down for one another.

SF certainly offends me. Quit projecting your own desires on Frostbite.

[Lord Brendan]

SF certainly offends me. Quit projecting your own desires on Frostbite.

I don't think he mentioned Frostbite in his post. Guilty conscience?

[Hyperion321]

I don't think he mentioned Frostbite in his post. Guilty conscience?

Ya I'm pretty sure he meant CDT. Not sure where he got FB from...

[cookavich]

I don't think he mentioned Frostbite in his post. Guilty conscience?

You need to follow the conversation back a couple posts.

Unfortunately both Citadel and FB gov seem to not be interested in it. They've had their chances and backed off.

Good thing we're not, then. SF is a *defensive* bloc. We have no interest in attacking Citadel. Although many of our members do find the prospect of FB and Citadel nuking each other for 6 months to be quite interesting...

Edited December 4, 2009 by cookavich

[wickedj]

SF certainly offends me. Quit projecting your own desires on Frostbite.

oh yeah? DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

/hai

[cookavich]

oh yeah? DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

/hai

No, see that was a joke about SF not being offensive... they offend me, see? Get it? Oh come on!

[wickedj]

No, see that was a joke about SF not being offensive... they offend me, see? Get it? Oh come on!

you would ruin two good jokes...

[cookavich]

you would ruin two good jokes...

I think I hear Grub calling me D:

[Van Hoo III]

Everyone has seen the logs. Not fooling anyone. Also, SF is a *defensive* bloc? Have you read the treaty? Just wondering.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I can back up Penkala's post and state that SF is a defensive bloc. The bloc as a whole is not out to get anyone nor do we sit and plot the demise of any alliance or supposed "rival" bloc. Do we discuss possibilities should war come to our doorstep? Sure. We'd be stupid not to. I understand some logs of one SF meeting leaked, we are all well aware of that ... but please stop basing your opinion on that lone discussion. I could show you several SF meetings and discussions that say the opposite of that one.

I, for one, tire of our ally making accusations towards a bloc that we are a part of ... as a member of Superfriends, we are aware of what goes on behind closed doors and have repeatedly told you that there is no desire on the part of that bloc to see Polar die or get attacked.

As an ally of the NpO, why on earth do you even think we'd be ok with that? You really think we're sitting there letting our allies plot against you? That there are topics and threads discussing how happy SF would be if the NpO was destroyed? "Wringing our hands" as I believe you said? Honestly, that's getting insulting and disrespectful. I've had my fill with conduct unbecoming of an ally ... and yes, that's exactly what it is.

Ragnarok (obviously) has issues with the NSO ... do you see us slamming all of Frostbite at every turn? No, you do not ... that wouldn't be very respectful to our allies in Polar or to STA who we have no qualms with whatsoever.

[cookavich]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I can back up Penkala's post and state that SF is a defensive bloc. The bloc as a whole is not out to get anyone nor do we sit and plot the demise of any alliance or supposed "rival" bloc. Do we discuss possibilities should war come to our doorstep? Sure. We'd be stupid not to. I understand some logs of one SF meeting leaked, we are all well aware of that ... but please stop basing your opinion on that lone discussion. I could show you several SF meetings and discussions that say the opposite of that one.

The bloc as a whole doesn't need to be out to get anyone. Only part of it, correct?

I, for one, tire of our ally making accusations towards a bloc that we are a part of ... as a member of Superfriends, we are aware of what goes on behind closed doors and have repeatedly told you that there is no desire on the part of that bloc to see Polar die or get attacked.

When I see nothing but vitriol concerning FB and Polaris coming from the likes of your bloc mates in RIA and GOD what other opinion should I form?

As an ally of the NpO, why on earth do you even think we'd be ok with that? You really think we're sitting there letting our allies plot against you? That there are topics and threads discussing how happy SF would be if the NpO was destroyed? "Wringing our hands" as I believe you said? Honestly, that's getting insulting and disrespectful. I've had my fill with conduct unbecoming of an ally ... and yes, that's exactly what it is.

I'm quite confident that RoK wouldn't be okay with that. However, as I read the treaty RoK wouldn't have to be okay with it to be subjected to the whims of the other members of your bloc. I won't apologize, Hoo. Fellow members of your bloc have been consistently aggressive in their stance and their tone against my alliance for months, and I'm not going to turn the other cheek. You can take it up with Grub, if you like.

Ragnarok (obviously) has issues with the NSO ... do you see us slamming all of Frostbite at every turn? No, you do not ... that wouldn't be very respectful to our allies in Polar or to STA who we have no qualms with whatsoever.

I haven't been slamming SF "at every turn". Simply responding to Penkala's posts.

[Dajobo]

I understand where you're coming from Cookavich but must say I disagree with an awful lot of what you say here. The whole point of any bloc is a group of alliances who trust each other stand together for security. Sure almost all have the ability for offence as well but it's rarely the primary goal.

To lump a whole bloc together because some members think one way is crazy. As Hoo said, RoK and NSO don't get along, that doesn't mean FB is out to get RoK. Yes some members of SF dont like Polars and vica versa but to turn than into anything more is crazy IMO.

To address the OP I don't wish to see any bloc rolled as without exception they all have some members I really like. I do how ever think my world would get a whole lot simpler if some blocs split up!

Edited December 4, 2009 by Dajobo