HellAngel Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 If this is your way of playing... fine. But it's not gonna change the other peoples way of playing, and that is crushing people who are playing like you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 If this is your way of playing... fine. But it's not gonna change the other peoples way of playing, and that is crushing people who are playing like you do. But what about sovereignty! It's our sovereign right to take away others' sovereignty! And sovereignty! Stop sticking your nose where it don't belong! What? I can't understand you! What you say!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 If this is your way of playing... fine. But it's not gonna change the other peoples way of playing, and that is crushing people who are playing like you do. I'm still waiting for TOP to crush people who are playing like they do. Hell, I'm still waiting for TOP to crush people, period. You seem to talk the talk, let's see if can you walk the walk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3nowned Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 What an unapologetic pile of trash. Y'all act like self-righteous raiders, then run crying when things get serious and hide behind lame excuses like not understanding what the other party is saying. And no, I'm not using this incident as the sole time you've done that. But thanks anyway for the fun story. Looks like you didn't read it. They weren't here to apologize and they weren't here to defend their so called "morality". They were simply here to say it how it is. If this is your way of playing... fine. But it's not gonna change the other peoples way of playing, and that is crushing people who are playing like you do. You'll find that their allies will stand with them. They play the game their way, and if you feel like "crushing them for playing the game their way", I can only say... Good luck, you'll need it. NEW, I've always supported you and your alliance. Of all the alliances, yours is perhaps the one I feel closest to aside from the one I reside in right now (although I can't join since I can't speak Indonesian lol). You have my airforce, and my CMs, and my... nukes x3 (OoC: LOTR reference if you didn't get it) o/ NEW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 I'm still waiting for TOP to crush people who are playing like they do. Hell, I'm still waiting for TOP to crush people, period. You seem to talk the talk, let's see if can you walk the walk. Where did i say it's going to be TOP? I was actually hinting on IAA. TOP is way too lazy and reasonable to start crushing people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 You'll find that their allies will stand with them. They play the game their way, and if you feel like "crushing them for playing the game their way", I can only say... Good luck, you'll need it.NEW, I've always supported you and your alliance. Of all the alliances, yours is perhaps the one I feel closest to aside from the one I reside in right now (although I can't join since I can't speak Indonesian lol). You have my airforce, and my CMs, and my... nukes x3 (OoC: LOTR reference if you didn't get it) o/ NEW No need to get defensive, Mhawk already needlessly made that clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 (edited) Going by your story it was NEW's aggression that started this conflict and NEW's inability to convey messages to their members/control their members that escalated it even further. This is from your description of events. So, why did ZDP have to pay you reps? Why did you feel you were exempt from paying reparations for the damage your alliance did to ZDP in the raid and subsequent escalation? For what reason do you bring IC incidents and IC reactions to them into an OOC forum and accuse people of thinking you are bad people in RL? It has nothing to do with the game or the incident you refer to. It is not the people you are pointing the finger at that are passing judgement on the RL morality of players based on in-game actions or comments, it is you who is doing that. Also, lol at Dr.Dan getting pissy over someone reneging on a peace deal. Any more ironic and it'd rust. Edited December 17, 2009 by Tygaland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryanto tan Posted December 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 (edited) Going by your story it was NEW's aggression that started this conflict and NEW's inability to convey messages to their members/control their members that escalated it even further. This is from your description of events. So, why did ZDP have to pay you reps? ZDP offered to pay reps hoping that we, in return, will agree on their demand for reps. I do not demand the reps, it is their offer to ease the deal. They had been very kind. Why did you feel you were exempt from paying reparations for the damage your alliance did to ZDP in the raid and subsequent escalation? I assume you are asking, "Why did we feel we have the right to deny paying reps?" or you meant to ask if I know "why we were exempt by ZDP from paying reps?" For what reason do you bring IC incidents and IC reactions to them into an OOC forum and accuse people of thinking you are bad people in RL? It has nothing to do with the game or the incident you refer to. It is not the people you are pointing the finger at that are passing judgement on the RL morality of players based on in-game actions or comments, it is you who is doing that.Also, lol at Dr.Dan getting pissy over someone reneging on a peace deal. The reason we play this way can only be explain well in OOC way. To start with, our decision to allow our alliance to tech raid is based on the OOC reason, that we see this as merely a game, not serious business. My writing is directed only to the selected few. There are people who sincerely think if we do bad things in game we are bad people. Do not underestimate what people can do, or think, no matter how ridiculous it seems to you. Not everyone is as smart and as logical as you do. If you read my post, I said it pretty clear the intention and what this post is not about. I hope this post help clear any confusion you might have.. Edited December 17, 2009 by suryanto tan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROMMELHSQ Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 Because we choose to play it this way. We choose to neglect your moral standard and play it our way. This is a game and we treat it as a game. Something is seriously wrong with you, not us, if you sincerely believe we are bad people for playing the way we play the game. Some people like to play the game without neglecting their moral standards. This is a game and people can be anything in a game (raiders, moral crusaders, hippies, etc). Something is seriously wrong with you, not them, if you sincerely believe they are bad people for playing the way they play the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryanto tan Posted December 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 (edited) Some people like to play the game without neglecting their moral standards. This is a game and people can be anything in a game (raiders, moral crusaders, hippies, etc). Something is seriously wrong with you, not them, if you sincerely believe they are bad people for playing the way they play the game. Good post. You win. But you know that, I did not sincerely believe they are bad people for playing the way they play the game. You know that, right? I said, "Something is seriously wrong with you, not them, if you sincerely believe they are bad people for playing the way they play the game." Just to be sure. edit: lots of edit Edited December 17, 2009 by suryanto tan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Autumn Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 Looks like you didn't read it. They weren't here to apologize and they weren't here to defend their so called "morality". They were simply here to say it how it is. Which I correctly identified as being unapologetic. I do actually read things now and then, beleive it or not. I'd hazard maybe, for once, actually owning up to a mistake and making a real effort to change things might really pay off. This is more of the same old garbage designed to attempt to get some public relations back after mhawk butchered it for NEW. Also, NEW, y'all aren't bad people, you're just outright terrible at lying convincingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROMMELHSQ Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 Good post. You win. Where is my cookie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryanto tan Posted December 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 Where is my cookie? Cupcakes ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 ZDP offered to pay reps hoping that we, in return, will agree on their demand for reps. I do not demand the reps, it is their offer to ease the deal. They had been very kind. That has to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. If they offered you reps to facilitate you paying them reps then they are complete dupes. I assume you are asking, "Why did we feel we have the right to deny paying reps?" or you meant to ask if I know "why we were exempt by ZDP from paying reps?" You were right the first time. You seem to be of the opinion you can do whatever you like without consequence within this game. The reason we play this way can only be explain well in OOC way. To start with, our decision to allow our alliance to tech raid is based on the OOC reason, that we see this as merely a game, not serious business. What makes you think people who oppose raiding or have restrictions on raiding in their alliance do not consider this to be just a game? Are you saying that anyone who chooses to play the game differently to yourself is automatically taking the game too seriously? Don't you think that is an arrogant assumption to make? My writing is directed only to the selected few. They are people who sincerely think if we do bad things in game we are bad people. It seems you are guilty of this as much as they are. Do not underestimate what people can do, or think, no matter how ridiculous it seems to you. Not everyone is as smart and as logical as you do.If you read my post, I said it pretty clear the intention and what this post is not about. I hope this post help clear any confusion you might have.. I don't underestimate what people can do. I have just seen an alliance raid another alliance, escalate the issue through gross incompetence and then turn around and refuse to pay reparations for the damage done or take any responsibility for their actions. To top it off they take reparations off the alliance they attacked and then come into an OOC forum accusing everyone else of thinking bad things of them in RL because they dare ICly criticise your actions in relation to this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryanto tan Posted December 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 You were right the first time. You seem to be of the opinion you can do whatever you like without consequence within this game. No. It is not true. We are well aware that There are always consequences. To answer you using the post I made in the OP: What were you thinking when you kept refusing the reps? Don't you worry about being declared on by the entire world?The way I picture it: if this did escalate to the entire world declaring on us, we will fight back, fiercefully like any figther should do. Then, if we loss the fight, we will surrender, like any defeated soldiers, and comply with the surrender term offered. That is the way I envisioned it, and we were ready to play that scenario should it come to that. It is my sincere hope that this post will give you some new perspective of how people might choose to play this game differently. That your style of play in this game is not the only valid choice. I applaud the decision of some of you make that bring real life morality to the game to get some political advantage over the others, but I pity those of you who blindly believe what they preached to you about the "right" or "wrong" in this game, and cannot see other alternative way to enjoy this lovely game. It is clear that you are not my intended audience. And no, I will not discuss with you about the morality standard you try to apply to us. Nor will I defend our IC action. It will only causes endless debate and a waste of my time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Autumn Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 And no, I will not discuss with you about the morality standard you try to apply to us. Nor will I defend our IC action. It will only causes endless debate and a waste of my time. So what was the point of this public spectacle again and why are you still participating in the discussion? Looks like you've been decently defensive thus far, cupcake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 And no, I will not discuss with you about the morality standard you try to apply to us. Nor will I defend our IC action. It will only causes endless debate and a waste of my time. What moral standard was I trying to apply to you? I wasn't the one accusing people of taking the game too seriously for not playing it the way I do. If you cannot defend your IC actions then I wonder why you carry them out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 Does anyone know why Dan was deleted? If that message is the reason, I am really, well, at a loss. Also, Tyga, Dan was not around for the negotiations you refer to, and I doubt the peace deal would have been offered if he was. Yeah, excuse, but one I know to be true and valid. Wish he was around for the beginning of those negotiations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmmehhh Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 (edited) Where did i say it's going to be TOP? I was actually hinting on IAA. TOP is way too lazy and reasonable to start crushing people. IAA isn't powerful enough to crush NEW, I look forward to the day when IAA sticks his nose in one of FOK's techraids. NEW you may be on different sides of the CN political centrum, but I like you guys a lot. You attitude is a lot like FOK On the other hand ZDP and TOP are friends of us so I can't root for you Edited December 17, 2009 by Timmehhh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryanto tan Posted December 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 IAA isn't powerful enough to crush NEW, I look forward to the day when IAA sticks his nose in one of FOK's techraids. B) NEW you may be on different sides of the CN political centrum, but I like you guys a lot. You attitude is a lot like FOK On the other hand ZDP and TOP are friends of us so I can't root for you That means a lot , Timmeh. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tequila Mockingbird Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 (edited) *wait wtf, ignore post* Edited December 17, 2009 by Tequila Mockingbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 I want to quote one vital part of your wall of text to show my special appreciation of: Because we choose to play it this way. We choose to neglect your moral standard and play it our way. This is a game and we treat it as a game. Something is seriously wrong with you, not us, if you sincerely believe we are bad people for playing the way we play the game. Lots of respect for you guys, I totally agree! Keep on doing what you think is right, and I'm sure we'll meet soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 And no, I will not discuss with you about the morality standard you try to apply to us. Nor will I defend our IC action. It will only causes endless debate and a waste of my time. Wait. I thought your way of playing was entirely OOC? Or is that only when it's convenient to negate IC arguments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jgoods45 Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 I love the way you guys do things. I really do. NEW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 Does anyone know why Dan was deleted? If that message is the reason, I am really, well, at a loss. Also, Tyga, Dan was not around for the negotiations you refer to, and I doubt the peace deal would have been offered if he was. Yeah, excuse, but one I know to be true and valid. Wish he was around for the beginning of those negotiations. He was around at the time as he was talking to us just before it was offered. 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.