Letum Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 (edited) RED is free you have no right to defened anyone on red thats in none, that is not your role or your job Timeline, baby - those who are not ready get shot should not be wielding guns. Do you truly believe the twisted views of small-time bullies who are unable to form a coherent or at least linguistically consistent argument possess, by some improbable coincidence, the ability to limit the rights of the Order to be noble? Or perhaps that such unequivocal righteousness stems from a belief in some divinity being on your side? No, it is much more likely that such primitive tendencies as emotional anchoring and the inability to recognise a sunk cost when you see it have been triggered by a certain little incident. This probably resulted in some poor soul's super-ego being turned on its head as a defence mechanism. But regardless of what it is, sweetheart, your illusions will have to end. They aren't healthy. Wake up and step into the new world. If it makes you feel better, you can just pretend we are tech-raiders too; albeit ones with a very exclusive target range. Only raiding raiders. Thanks for reaffirming my position again. We didn't want you to protect red unaligned nations. You are protecting red unaligned nations, you are breaking your surrender terms. See you at update. http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...?Nation_ID=3782 I've rep'd off most of my tech and my warchest's low after I bought 9k infra. I am demilitarized and have not fought in a war in 2 years. Should be easy pickings. Don't be late. P.S: This is an open invitation to all ex-Karmaites who'd like to smash the resurgent Pacific's oppressive protection schemes. The more the merrier. I'd love a menage-a-trois. Or even a foursome. Edited January 1, 2010 by Letum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadScotII Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 (edited) I love watching people yell at brick walls other people on the OWF as much as the next guy, but honestly, this can all be solved by people from the NPO front, that fought NPO clarifying on if there is a problem. Their alliances all still exist, and have an active government. If this is a violation, I am sure they will be made aware of this thread, and will respond accordingly. This is one of the sillier and more useless arguments I've seen. People who were against the NPO have already came in here and said there is no problem and that the NPO are not in violation. Congratulations Mary on your expanded position EDIT: To add quote Edited January 1, 2010 by MadScotsman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcades057 Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Good luck with re-establishing your authority in a somewhat-changed red and further improving it And happy new year D: Whoa, long time no see! Oh I finally got educated by the great Sir Paul. Please forgive me my shortsightedness. I was absolutely wrong. The new Revenge Doctrine is nothing like the old. And NPO is totally legitimized when it comes to safeguarding red unaligned nations. By all means, please all you unaligned nations, join the red sphere and stay unaligned (especially you guys over 100k!). You will be safe from all those big bad raiders out there. Oh btw, the 'see you at update' line was absolutely not meant as a threat. The current conflict thought me about the connotation of the 'see you at update' line and was therefore meant as a simple reminder that we could continue this discussion at update. I am being absolutely honest about this! I swear! I never lie! Your passive agression is noted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 You're in violation of iFOK's "international" thingie, then, man. See you at update! You should read our charter more carefully before making such assumptions my dear friend. See you at update too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 See you at update too! God I certainly hope so. Then things might actually get rolling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 I can get behind this, Mary I am sure will excel at this. Also see you at update. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toraoji Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 congrats Mary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Protecting unaligned nations on their sphere is about the only thing NPO did right for a while there. Some of the reactions here are telling; one would assume that the reason the Revenge Doctrine was struck down was because it asserted Pacific dominance over the red team. If that's not the case the fault lies with the victors for terrible wording in their surrender terms. Either way, the reactions of certain parties to NPO preserving the only good policy from a past era is ... telling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timeline Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) 3: You were sent messages asking you not to continue your raid on a Red nation. Quite sorry you had to endure such a horror. No the message was more, We protect red nations if you do not stop your attacks it will be seen as an attack on NPO. who would know, im still waiting for the NPO to attack me how ever Edited January 2, 2010 by Timeline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Matveyev Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 No the message was more, We protect red nations if you do not stop your attacks it will be seen as an attack on NPO.who would know, im still waiting for the NPO to attack me how ever Can you tell me how this is a bad thing? Please? I think it's actually nice of NPO to defend Red nations. That isn't control, that is protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timeline Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Timeline, baby - those who are not ready get shot should not be wielding guns.Do you truly believe the twisted views of small-time bullies who are unable to form a coherent or at least linguistically consistent argument possess, by some improbable coincidence, the ability to limit the rights of the Order to be noble? Or perhaps that such unequivocal righteousness stems from a belief in some divinity being on your side? No, it is much more likely that such primitive tendencies as emotional anchoring and the inability to recognise a sunk cost when you see it have been triggered by a certain little incident. This probably resulted in some poor soul's super-ego being turned on its head as a defence mechanism. But regardless of what it is, sweetheart, your illusions will have to end. They aren't healthy. Wake up and step into the new world. If it makes you feel better, you can just pretend we are tech-raiders too; albeit ones with a very exclusive target range. Only raiding raiders. I am very ready to be shot, this is why my tech raid did not end until the nation i attacked sent peace, I then sent peace my self, NPO can huff and puff but we all know its just hot air. Unless the leaders of my alliance tells me not to raid someone, I would not care what colour they are on, Red - pink or brown, if they have no AA they are fair game just that smiple to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timeline Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Can you tell me how this is a bad thing? Please?I think it's actually nice of NPO to defend Red nations. That isn't control, that is protection. I am sure the gangs who give protection for a cost would be very happy to hear your statement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Matveyev Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) I am sure the gangs who give protection for a cost would be very happy to hear your statement For a cost? What cost? Also you failed to answer my three questions from earlier: Am I under control from NPO? Is SWF under control from NPO? If so, how? Do tell. Edited January 2, 2010 by Ray Matveyev Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 No the message was more, We protect red nations if you do not stop your attacks it will be seen as an attack on NPO.who would know, im still waiting for the NPO to attack me how ever "Oh, what a big man you are! Hey, let me buy you a pack of gum. I'll show you how to chew it. Whoof!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 I am very ready to be shot, this is why my tech raid did not end until the nation i attacked sent peace, I then sent peace my self, NPO can huff and puff but we all know its just hot air. Says the man in peace mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x Tela x Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Man, this thing got absolutely hilarious in a very short amount of time. Thanks for the read! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Congratulations to Mary. I do wonder who's going to fill out your new office. This has some interesting parallels to what's been going on with our vice-presidential office actually. I think it's just coincidence. Right? Now to the quotes. I suppose I was confused because you said 'creation of the office of regent', which implies a new Office and a new Regent. I wasn't really sure what was going on. NPO being devious again... )): Welcome to Cortath's NPO. If you think he's implying something, you're probably wrong. Unaligned nations that need protection need to join an alliance, that is my personal opinion. They don't need harsher terms because this was part of the terms. To me, they are breaking their surrender terms with this 'doctrine'. Perhaps you should make war upon them for violating the surrender terms with your signature on them. Oh wait. You are failing to see that the new Revenge doctrine is the same as the old plus something extra. If Karma didn't want the first, why would they want the latter which is the first plus something extra? So if (former)Karma tolerates this (which I hope they will not), I do hope you will fiercely protect red unaligned nations. I will continue to raid them. The original Revenge doctrine incorporated the Moldavi doctrine as a part of it (which was partly why it left the protection of Red nations as the exclusive province of the NPO, since per the Moldavi doctrine no other Red alliance could exist). This was seen as objectionable. NPO has rejected the Moldavi doctrine. They have not rejected the idea of protecting unaligned nations. They are also not alone in this. Nueva Vida and FOK both protect unaligned nations who are involved in tech trading with their alliances; this is quite similar to the justification for NPO, who (wish to) protect nations who are involved in resource trading with their alliance. Are people really up in arms about defending tech raid victims? Hilarious. And people wonder why some of us thought of Karma as doing its best to keep Planet Bob safe for raiders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alekhine Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Per the Moldavi Doctrine (the NSO one that is supposedly for use by everyone), I find issue with kriekfreak's posting, and I intend to do something about it. See you at update. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atahualpa Pachautec Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Congratz Mary, Ill send u a big big big HUG , now make us more prosper and powerful in the Red sphere o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenDeSolei514 Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Honestly, this thread turned into a major lolfest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President President Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 I'm going to indulge in some Mary lurve. I'd love to be your watercooler boy, but I'm 112 years old and my doctor thinks I need a new hip. 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.