Vilien Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 I'm seeing a lot of if's, beliefs, and assumptions. Why not state facts? Because there are none. There are no facts. I think it's time for me to go to bed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 Umm "You have until update" to me very much implies you have until update or else we go to war. Also the log from STA where war is mention also kind makes me draw that conclusion. Now if you meant that you were gonna have a pillow fight with them, then i am sorry and am clearly in the wrong. The STA MoFA does not speak for NSO under any circumstances, as is generally customary when you go from one alliance to another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternalis Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 It was on my terms. the hell does that even mean? You went in and wrecked !@#$, but since the war was "on your terms" it's cool? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodemofi-NPO Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 So if we come in and demand reps and an apology from STA and give them an ultimatum, threatening to escalate the situation if they don't do anything.That could be cool with you? Yep, I definitely said that. I'm a bit confused, how did we get to the current argument? What does whether or not NSO threatened DF have to do with DF's baseless accusations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Co God Ben Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 "NSO should be destroyed" is quite a bit more blatant than what Corinan said. yeah, but they probably should be. p.s. <3 shode Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The FSM Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 Ah, insinuation and plainly stating are not the same thing. Please provide me with a plainly stated comment from NSO threatening war and I will retract my position. The greatest statesmen know that you never state what you mean plainly, especially if it regards war. Nuance and subtlety are the tools of this planet's greatest leaders. I had always thought you and your subordinates in NSO could be placed in the category of 'great statesmen' Ivan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 Sorry, I was answering his question. The deadline probably reflected that the evidence requested or the apology should not take long to produce and dragging the whole escapade out made no sense.However, as I was not present for the discussions I'm only speculating. It seems speculation is the latest trend. It was pretty clear that it was meant to intimidate him. Acknowledging basic, obvious facts won't undermine your argument, so there's really use in calling a spade anything other than a spade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 Whoever declares in this whole thing will be heros to a lot of CN. If you both back down we'll all hate you both. Just throwing that out there. What were we talking about again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 It was on my terms. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the definition of "on your terms" is actually declaring war, and the definition of "not giving into idiotic goading" is back-pedaling as fast as your legs will carry you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistledown Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 They never plainly stated it. Insinuate, perhaps. But I don't know how much you've delt with Corinan, but he tends to be a little terse and gives discussions a time limit for his purposes.It's the way he works. Also do you honestly think the NSO would just go to war on a whim over a relatively small issue without having the Emperor present? The militarization however, is entirely reasonable as a precautionary measure. CD did it too upon seeing SCM's thread. Oh goodness. A time limit for his purposes? Really? And if they did not have an apology by update (a time chosen not because that's when DoWs are made, but because it's a really convenient time in... Hawaii), NSO would just be very very sad? Maybe give DF stern talking to? No. Giving a time limit for an apology, at a time when when DoWs are made, has an obvious meaning. Particularly when pezstar, who from the logs was talking to someone in NSO who knew these talks were happening, certainly seemed to think war was coming. And really, I don't think NSO are idiots. They know full well what was implied, and they know that in politics, it's not what you say, it's what you mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 So if we come in and demand reps and an apology from STA and give them an ultimatum, threatening to escalate the situation if they don't do anything.That could be cool with you? Depends what the apology and reps were sought for. If you have any issue with a member of the STA, let me know and bring evidence of wrongdoing and I'll be happy to make good on the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternalis Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 Oh wait, yes I can. It's worthless. You are worthless. sorry for forming a hypothetical answer for your hypothetical question, limps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyroman Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 NSO doesn't imply anything, ever. They are the most blunt, to-the-point people I know. Anyone reading one of Ivan's posts would know this. NSO does, however, do an incredible job of giving the silent treatment. Being that I'm one of their MDP partners, I think I would know first hand if they had any intentions of going to war. They did not. And being that they don't give into baiting easily, and rationally saw through it and simply asked for an apology, I think it's safe to say that no war was ever going to be started on the NSO side of things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixoux Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 (edited) So let me get this straight...Saying "You have until update" to make a decision = We are going to attack you. Saying "Furthermore, I think the New Sith Order should be destroyed." = We don't want war. Interesting argument the fellows at DF have got there. Alright, you can accuse me of wanting to see NSO rolled or not being involved in this or whatever. But in the 3 years I've been playing this game, 'you have until update' has always meant that you're either going to comply with the demands or go to war. If that makes me crazy, then fine. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this way. I'm not even going to insult anyone in this post. If I'm wrong and someone has used that line without the advent of war, then show me and I'll be perfectly content. Edited December 24, 2009 by Mixoux Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 Trust me, I have no hope of you or any other member of NSO ever showing a backbone. Ah yes, so you sidestep every legitimate point that I make, especially the points about your failing as a leader in posting that ignorant crap to begin with and basically fall back on "no u". Excellent. How expected. Do you have proof of the claims you made against the NSO? No. Do you have any reason to have posted that thread at all, except with the hopes of drawing NSO into a conflict? No. Are you butthurt now that your brilliant plan crumbled and now you look like a jerk? God, I hope so but I doubt it, birds of a feather and all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oktavia Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 I think it's safe to say that no war was ever going to be started on the NSO side of things. Shame. Seems the only one's having fun these days are the micro alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 Trust me, I have no hope of you or any other member of NSO ever showing a backbone. You and I both know that this statement just makes you look ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 What say you reveal your inside man, huh Daggarz? The inside man was found last night and was introduced to the boot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterman1043 Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 NSO's new acronym = No Stones Order Just attack already so people will stop making fun of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakerzz8 Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 (edited) Alright, you can accuse me of wanting to see NSO rolled or not being involved in this or whatever. But in the 3 years I've been playing this game, 'you have until update' has always meant that you're either going to comply with the demands or go to war.If that makes me crazy, then fine. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this way. I'm not even going to insult anyone in this post. If I'm wrong and someone has used that line without the advent of war, then show me and I'll be perfectly content. And in the 3 years [ooc]you've played[/ooc], when an alliance leader starts a thread and in the OP says "Furthermore, I think [ALLIANCE NAME] should be destroyed," that means that alliance does not want to start a war? Edited December 24, 2009 by lakerzz8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Co God Ben Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 Did the NSO declare? Then golly Sherlock, I guess it wasn't an ultimatum now was it. An ultimatum does not require the ultimatum-giver to have the stones to follow through with said ultimatum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puppet Master Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 Alright, you can accuse me of wanting to see NSO rolled or not being involved in this or whatever. But in the 3 years I've been playing this game, 'you have until update' has always meant that you're either going to comply with the demands or go to war.If that makes me crazy, then fine. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this way. I'm not even going to insult anyone in this post. If I'm wrong and someone has used that line without the advent of war, then show me and I'll be perfectly content. Your not, just apparently NSO is setting a precedent and changing everything! WATCH OUT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 Alright, you can accuse me of wanting to see NSO rolled or not being involved in this or whatever. But in the 3 years I've been playing this game, 'you have until update' has always meant that you're either going to comply with the demands or go to war.If that makes me crazy, then fine. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this way. I'm not even going to insult anyone in this post. If I'm wrong and someone has used that line without the advent of war, then show me and I'll be perfectly content. Unless declared upon, or in response to an ally being declared upon, the NSO does not go to war when I am absent. Any other conjecture on this is simply failure. I was not available, it would not have happened. I don't give a damn what anyone's opinion on "until update" means, it did not mean war because I was not going to be online until today. That is policy, that is a fact. Conjecture and imply and insinuate all you wish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cairna Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 sorry for forming a hypothetical answer for your hypothetical question, limps My question was a situational one, not hypothetical. But thanks for proving my point. As for the limps reference, it passed over my head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodemofi-NPO Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 Again, I don't think I'm the only one who's lost. What does whether or not NSO threatened DF have to do with the topic at hand? 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.