Khyber Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Perhaps you should explain to me how you know I'm fearful of offending someone. As for my first post, it should be clear enough to you, I would think. A simple observation of a person's actions afterward is easily enough to illuminate their beliefs. Matthew, it may be clearer if you said "so and so in my opinion uses morality to further his ends and is not a true believe in it" rather then this. I don't know why this song and dance of "you know who it is" which is followed by "who?" and then "you know" and then "who" and then.... Just call them out on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 An Announcement from Athens Kap Bambino is under the full protection of Athens. Any and all unprovoked attacks on Kap Bambino will be seen as an attack on Athens and will be treated as such. Don’t mess. Athens will always be there for our friends, and one of our closest friends is Jack Diorno and we do not want to see him unjustly harmed in any way. Signed on behalf of the Government of Athens, Jgoods45, Theorodokos Cool. Athens is giving official recognition to a a one man alliance. I can support that, on moral hippie grounds too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 It clearly states they are not doing this in the very passage you quoted, and further explained by Jgoods. I read what he said, and my question is still valid in light of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jgoods45 Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 So you are enabling his aggression? No.... The protection is from tech raids and from those people who are salivating at the mouth at the prospect of attacking him. Athens will protect Jack and his alliance from all unprovoked attacks and once he declares an aggressive war, the protection will be automatically void. Important parts in red. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 No....Important parts in red. That still doesn't explain how you are not enabling his declared aggressive intentions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 It clearly states they are not doing this in the very passage you quoted, and further explained by Jgoods. But they are making sure he gets his chance to launch his war against the so called false morality police. And once he does they are going to abandon him to his fate. The whole thing seems pretty lame to me. They should either value his ideas and his cause and defend him with all their strength no matter what, or they should not support him and his cause at all. Fence sitting like this is, once again, lame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khyber Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) Cool. Athens is giving official recognition to a a one man alliance. I can support that, on moral hippie grounds too I would be careful with those moralist leanings if I was you, because if I attack Jack right now for tech, and you attack me due to those same moral hippie grounds, Jack would attack you. Edited November 30, 2009 by Khyber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jgoods45 Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Cool. Athens is giving official recognition to a a one man alliance. I can support that, on moral hippie grounds too We did it before, with the same person. (The Abortion Disco) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Xander the Only Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 God speed, Jack Diorno. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted November 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Oh ok. So treaty or not, you will only support curb stomps against those that intervene without a treaty because they may view it as immoral, because you do not believe they view it as immoral, and being the moral conscience person you are are morally opposed to their use of morality when they infact lack said morality, even though they oppose something that is immoral.May I ask how you will find out when this faux morals is in play and not actual, truely genuin, honest to god, cross my heart and hope to die morals are in play? I don't really know if its the grammar or what, but I am finding it hard to understand you. I'll respond with the intentions of Kap Bambino, we believe in freedom, the right to act according to ones will. Large alliances attempting to intervene in the affairs of others, where they bear no connection, using their own brand of morality as an excuse to do so is tyranny and directly opposes freedom. I will support alliances acting in their own free will to do whatever they want, it is not my obligation to judge if what they are doing is wrong or right, only to promote the ability for them to make their own choice in the matter, instead of allowing large alliances to decide what they can or cannot do. It is unfortunate that the large alliances may lose a small part of freedom in throwing their will down on those smaller alliances, but that is the only feasible way to combat this scourge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hippy Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Good show, Athens. Jolly good show indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jgoods45 Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 But they are making sure he gets his chance to launch his war against the so called false morality police. And once he does they are going to abandon him to his fate. The whole thing seems pretty lame to me. They should either value his ideas and his cause and defend him with all their strength no matter what, or they should not support him and his cause at all. Fence sitting like this is, once again, lame. Maybe it's because Jack only asked for protection from raids and rogues and any other form of unprovoked attacks on him. If you have a valid CB against Jack, go for it. We won't stand in your way. Jack mentioned his intentions to us, made it clear the protection would only be from raids or any other form of unprovoked attacks that may be made upon him and that the moment he declares war aggressively, the protectorate would become void. If he wanted a full blown protectorate, I would of given it to him but it would of placed some restrictions on how he did things and he didn't want that. I really don't see how we are enabling him and his declared aggressive intentions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) Maybe it's because Jack only asked for protection from raids and rogues and any other form of unprovoked attacks on him. So jack diorno goes around waving claims of military action against moralism and asks athens for protection afterwards? Typical of hypocrites who create moral codes against "moralism". Trust in size and in numbers to have "freedom" and oppress the little man, thats the way to go. Edited November 30, 2009 by deSouza Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) So, if I get this right, people who were up in arms when Athens (your alliance, which you vehemently defended back then) and FoB did a massive tech raid on an isolated alliance; those people were faux moralists. When people wanted to retaliate against Knights of Ni's raiders, it was faux moralism. But when Athens declares it will retaliate against your potential raiders, something you confirm by saying they will attack only rogues and raiders, all is fine? Don't you find it a bit contradictory, not to say outright hypocrit? Edit: Seems like comrade deSouza beat me to it, arg. Edited November 30, 2009 by Yevgeni Luchenkov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jgoods45 Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 So jack diorno goes around waving claims of military action against moralism and asks athens for protection afterwards?Typical of hypocrites who create moral codes against "moralism". Trust in size and in numbers to have "freedom" and oppress the little man, thats the way to go. Jack asked for protection from us last night, before he announced this topic. Made all his intentions clear. Showed us his charter. We knew right from the start what he was going to do. We don't necessarily support his beliefs but we didn't want to see him harmed. So we agreed to protect him. What's so bad about that? You people are seriously overreacting to this. It's a one man alliance. Whats the worse he can do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khyber Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 I don't really know if its the grammar or what, but I am finding it hard to understand you. Awww, it was part of the joke. Guess it wasn't funny. I was going to write moral, morality, moral, morality a bit more at the end of that sentance but thought it would have been funnier if I kept it subtle. Seems it tanked though. Oh well I'll respond with the intentions of Kap Bambino, we believe in freedom, the right to act according to ones will. Large alliances attempting to intervene in the affairs of others, where they bear no connection, using their own brand of morality as an excuse to do so is tyranny and directly opposes freedom. I will support alliances acting in their own free will to do whatever they want, it is not my obligation to judge if what they are doing is wrong or right, only to promote the ability for them to make their own choice in the matter, instead of allowing large alliances to decide what they can or cannot do.It is unfortunate that the large alliances may lose a small part of freedom in throwing their will down on those smaller alliances, but that is the only feasible way to combat this scourge. Can you point to where this has taken place in the past? Your logic seems to read as following: Small alliances should do whatever they want to do as long as it is within their own moral parameters, which may include oppressing smaller alliances, but larger alliances should not do whatever they want to do within their own moral parameters because all large alliances are tyrants if they do anything that interfers with the freedoms of another alliance. Did I get that right? Also how will large alliances lose a small part of freedom in throwing their will down on those smaller alliances? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 I would be careful with those moralist leanings if I was you, because if I attack Jack right now for tech, and you attack me due to those same moral hippie grounds, Jack would attack you. Good point! If that happens, I guess I can only be a moralist in this matter with verbal support on OWF. Sorry, Jack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) Jack asked for protection from us last night, before he announced this topic. The hypocracy about counting on size and numbers to oppress the little man and promoting a moralist code against moralism continues. Made all his intentions clear. Showed us his charter. We knew right from the start what he was going to do. We don't necessarily support his beliefs but we didn't want to see him harmed. So we agreed to protect him. What's so bad about that?You people are seriously overreacting to this. It's a one man alliance. Whats the worse he can do? Last time I checked Jack Diorno was big about not caring about his nation. I doubt he would be or feel harmed by anything done in planet bob, which makes me think you either support his intentions or are too lenient on exposing the clear faults in it. edit: cleaning up Edited November 30, 2009 by deSouza Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Maybe it's because Jack only asked for protection from raids and rogues and any other form of unprovoked attacks on him. If you have a valid CB against Jack, go for it. We won't stand in your way. Jack mentioned his intentions to us, made it clear the protection would only be from raids or any other form of unprovoked attacks that may be made upon him and that the moment he declares war aggressively, the protectorate would become void. If he wanted a full blown protectorate, I would of given it to him but it would of placed some restrictions on how he did things and he didn't want that. I really don't see how we are enabling him and his declared aggressive intentions. Truly you don't see how protecting someone who declares he plans to wage aggressive war on the entity of his choice is anything but enabling? Is the rest of the world just supposed to wait around until Jack decides which of us he wants to attack because you say so? Come on guys, surely you are smarter than this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted November 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) So jack diorno goes around waving claims of military action against moralism and asks athens for protection afterwards?Typical of hypocrites who create moral codes against "moralism". Trust in size and in numbers to have "freedom" and oppress the little man, thats the way to go. So, if I get this right, people who were up in arms when Athens (your alliance, which you vehemently defended back then) and FoB did a massive tech raid on an isolated alliance; those people were faux moralists.When people wanted to retaliate against Knights of Ni's raiders, it was faux moralism. But when Athens declares it will retaliate against your potential raiders, something you confirm by saying they will attack only rogues and raiders, all is fine? Don't you find it a bit contradictory, not to say outright hypocrit? Edit: Seems like comrade deSouza beat me to it, arg. I would imagine Athens would try to broker a peace deal for me, standard operations for any alliance on planet bob. I can do little for my cause if I am decimated on the first few days by people who simply dislike me as a person and not the ideals I am representing. Also, please don't derail this thread into an Athens one, I left Athens more then a week ago, if you have any criticisms keep them focused on kap bambino or something related to this subject. Awww, it was part of the joke. Guess it wasn't funny. I was going to write moral, morality, moral, morality a bit more at the end of that sentance but thought it would have been funnier if I kept it subtle. Seems it tanked though. Oh well Can you point to where this has taken place in the past? Your logic seems to read as following: Small alliances should do whatever they want to do as long as it is within their own moral parameters, which may include oppressing smaller alliances, but larger alliances should not do whatever they want to do within their own moral parameters because all large alliances are tyrants if they do anything that interfers with the freedoms of another alliance. Did I get that right? Also how will large alliances lose a small part of freedom in throwing their will down on those smaller alliances? You are close, my logic is that every alliance should be able to do what they want within their own moral parameters, as long as they are not forcing those morals upon other alliances, or trying to make another alliance submit to the same moral parameters they uphold, because that is taking away freedom. The size only comes into it when Kap Bambino does, as it is my policy to not engage in a war against a lesser or disadvantaged power. Edited November 30, 2009 by Jack Diorno Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 I would imagine Athens would try to broker a peace deal for me, standard operations for any alliance on planet bob. I can do little for my cause if I am decimated on the first few days by people who simply dislike me as a person and not the ideals I am representing. Also, please don't derail this thread into an Athens one, I left Athens more then a week ago, if you have any criticisms keep them focused on kap bambino or something related to this subject. The goal and the source of my criticism was kap bambino. Athens just happens to be protecting it. Which I think is utterly wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted November 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 The goal and the source of my criticism was kap bambino.Athens just happens to be protecting it. Which I think is utterly wrong. Your criticisms are with Athens for protecting me, so if you want to continue with that agenda start your own thread on it, it is unrelated to my declaration of intent and birth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scythegfx Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 So...Abortion Disco 2.0? Good Luck with this =) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Your criticisms are with Athens for protecting me, so if you want to continue with that agenda start your own thread on it, it is unrelated to my declaration of intent and birth. If your "cause" is strong enough, you shouldn't need your big friends to help you through it. The sheer potency of the immoral morals should be enough to motivate people towards the "freedom" of oppressing the little man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jgoods45 Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Truly you don't see how protecting someone who declares he plans to wage aggressive war on the entity of his choice is anything but enabling? Is the rest of the world just supposed to wait around until Jack decides which of us he wants to attack because you say so? Come on guys, surely you are smarter than this. We are protecting him out of friendship. Nothing more, nothing less. I would do almost anything for Jack. He has helped me a lot during his time in Athens and I am forever grateful for it . I see where you are coming from and I somewhat agree, but I my Jack, he asked for protection from unprovoked attacks, and I gave it. It may be a dumb move, but I thought it was necessary seeing some of the comments in this thread and not to mention the three spy attacks already made upon his nation. 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.