ChairmanHal Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) I appreciate it, but we don`t take on protectorates or any allies lightly. We took this protectorate on, though under fire, with the full support of the attacking parties. The 7 day temporary order is to ensure we take the time to get to know FoA properly, and they us, so we DON`T place our allies into the type of situation you describe above. Interesting... So now I'm left to wonder at what point you decided to ride in and play "white knight"...because if you stumbled upon \m/ raiding FoA, felt sorry for FoA and decided to try to negotiate a protectorate for them using your influence with \m/ and Ragnarok, then it was a rather civilized thing to do. If on the other hand you consulted with \m/ in advance of the raid and set it up so that you could appear to be a white knight...that would be something entirely different and I get what others have been hinting at in their posts. At this point only you know the truth and rather than ask you for to expound upon it, I'll take my leave. edit: spelling is fun Edited January 16, 2010 by ChairmanHal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boscher Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 I for one support ruthless aggression in CN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Interesting...So now I'm left to wonder at what point you decided to ride in and play "white knight"...because if you stumbled upon \m/ raiding FoA, felt sorry for FoA and decided to try to negotiate a protectorate for them using your influence with \m/ and Ragnarok, then it was a rather civilized thing to do. If on the other hand you consulted with \m/ in advance of the raid and set it up so that you could appear to be a white knight...that would be something entirely different and I get what others have been hinting at in their posts. At this point only you know the truth and rather than ask you for to expound upon it, I'll take my leave. edit: spelling is fun \m/ wasn't the one to bring up the idea of a raid as was already made clear here. However your ability to grasp at straws in this instance is quite scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 World police? It's going to take more than regurgitation of GWII platitudes that I created, WC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Nope, not in the slightest. Unless you think I offered the protectorate without speaking to the attackers, which would again confirm that you have not read this thread. We are speaking two entirely different languages here. Some friends of yours attacked an alliance. You took the alliance in as a protectorate with the consent of your friends doing the attacking. I cannot read your mind, but to me that looks no better than alliances who recruit by raiding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Then people need to stop giving them free passes before I get my !@#$ together. This sounds like a job for FAIL. They will feel my wrath. Next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 It's going to take more than regurgitation of GWII platitudes that I created, WC. I thought it was pre-GWII. Just because it holds true doesn't change anything though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) At this point only you know the truth and rather than ask you for to expound upon it, I'll take my leave. Well, thanks for going, but an accusation like that requires a response. So let me make this clear: We did not set up any raid for the purpose of making ourselves look good, or any other purpose. This was a raid on a yellow alliance, and I`ve always felt strong about team relations, whatever colour I was on. When it was discovered a yellow alliance was being raided, we went about trying to fix it. Could things have been different if either it wasn`t another yellow alliance, or if the people doing the raiding weren`t allies of ours? Probably, but I don`t see how this makes this anything other than what it is: Us trying to do something nice for our neighbours. Edit: Fantastico, that`s for you too. Edited January 16, 2010 by Kevin McDonald Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 I thought it was pre-GWII. Just because it holds true doesn't change anything though. No, you're right. It doesn't change the fact that it's moronic to advocate giving alliances carte blanche to roll alliances without treaties and then cry "STOP POLICING US". I'm curious, though. What would happen if I raided Opethian, right now? Surely nobody would stop me. World police are bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salithus Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) It's ironic you should say that, because it's only your treaties that prevent a few well-organised people destroying you.Edit: Hi Salithus. Outrage, outrage, moralism. If you don't want moral outrage, don't commit morally outrageous acts. It seems in your attempt to get even higher moral ground that you missed the point. You're the equivalent of a TV evangelist trying to earn every dollar he can by being popular and not doing a damned thing to improve the quality of life of those he claims to "shepherd." That's why treaty web or no, I don't worry one bit about all your threats of comeuppance or retribution against GOONS. There are those who bluster and bleat, like yourself, and there are those who get things done, like Kevin did. Quit talking about your morals and do something about them. [pause] At this point, someone is going to reply about the "do something" phrase, trying to paint me as a villian for suggesting that violence is the only solution. Note that no such claim has been made. Kevin "[did] something" about the situation without firing a shot. [continue] Until you manage that, you're just a forum warrior that no one cares about. Edit: Grammar is hard. Edited January 16, 2010 by salithus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 This sounds like a job for FAIL. They will feel my wrath. Next week. Is that a declaration of war? No I am not kidding either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Well, thanks for going, but an accusation like that requires a response. So let me make this clear:We did not set up any raid for the purpose of making ourselves look good, or any other purpose. This was a raid on a yellow alliance, and I`ve always felt strong about team relations, whatever colour I was on. When it was discovered a yellow alliance was being raided, we went about trying to fix it. Could things have been different if either it wasn`t another yellow alliance, or if the people doing the raiding weren`t allies of ours? Probably, but I don`t see how this makes this anything other than what it is: Us trying to do something nice for our neighbours. Edit: Fantastico, that`s for you too. Doing something nice for them would involve getting the attacks stopped and working for reparations, not further infringing on their sovereignty by putting them in protectorate status under your allliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salithus Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Doing something nice for them would involve getting the attacks stopped and working for reparations, not further infringing on their sovereignty by putting them in protectorate status under your allliance. If you don't like the way Kevin did it, you go do it yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 It seems in your attempt to get even higher moral ground that you missed the point. You're the equivalent of a TV evangelist trying to earn every dollar he can by being popular and not doing a damned thing to improve the quality of life of those he claims to "shepherd." That's why treaty web or no, I don't worry one bit about all your threats of comeuppance or retribution against GOONS. There are those who bluster and bleat, like yourself, and there are those who get things done, like Kevin did. Quit talking about your morals and do something about them.[pause] At this point, someone is going to reply about the "do something" phrase, trying to paint me as a villian for suggesting that violence is the only solution. Note that no such claim has been made. Kevin "[did] something" about the situation without firing a shot. [continue] Until you manage that, you're just a forum warrior that no one cares about. Edit: Grammar is hard. This just in: not jumping straight to action when someone does something that offends you makes you a coward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 If you don't like the way Kevin did it, you go do it yourself. That would require them to actually do something beyond whinging on about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) Doing something nice for them would involve getting the attacks stopped and working for reparations, not further infringing on their sovereignty by putting them in protectorate status under your allliance. The attacks have been stopped. There was only one war declared after the protectorate was announced, which is pretty good since it was announced at three in the morning, and wars are being peaced out. Reparations are not necessarily warranted, but that is a conversation for us to have with FoA and the other parties. Edited January 16, 2010 by Kevin McDonald Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 No, you're right. It doesn't change the fact that it's moronic to advocate giving alliances carte blanche to roll alliances without treaties and then cry "STOP POLICING US".I'm curious, though. What would happen if I raided Opethian, right now? Surely nobody would stop me. World police are bad. I didn't say anyone was policing them. I was just going off your comment which made it seem like what you're advocating is a world police style system, maybe something akin to CNARF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 I didn't say anyone was policing them. I was just going off your comment which made it seem like what you're advocating is a world police style system, maybe something akin to CNARF. It would be like christmas, new years and my birthday rolled into one of CNARF returned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 I didn't say anyone was policing them. I was just going off your comment which made it seem like what you're advocating is a world police style system, maybe something akin to CNARF. No, what I'm advocating is that people leave each other the hell alone unless they have a good reason not to be (i.e., someone screwed with them first -- greed is not a good reason). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 I didn't say anyone was policing them. I was just going off your comment which made it seem like what you're advocating is a world police style system, maybe something akin to CNARF. On what basis would you object to a world police? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salithus Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 This just in: not jumping straight to action when someone does something that offends you makes you a coward. GOONS is 271 days old. People have been whining about the same things we do day in and out since the day we formed. You're well past the deadline for "jumping straight to action". Even if you weren't, Kevin managed to do it in just a few hours, so what are you waiting on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 No, what I'm advocating is that people leave each other the hell alone unless they have a good reason not to be (i.e., someone screwed with them first -- greed is not a good reason). That would be cool. Reasons again are still subjective, but I get what you're saying. On what basis would you object to a world police? In a sense Q was a world police, so on that basis. Just any mega power that would stomp on anyone because they feel they're justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 GOONS is 271 days old. People have been whining about the same things we do day in and out since the day we formed. You're well past the deadline for "jumping straight to action". Even if you weren't, Kevin managed to do it in just a few hours, so what are you waiting on? What do you expect from us? I already try my best to recruit directly from your war screens, but really, what more do you want us to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 In a sense Q was a world police, so on that basis. Just any mega power that would stomp on anyone because they feel they're justified. I don't follow. Because you classify Q as a world police the concept is inherently bad? I admit I don't fully the "anit-moralist" movement, but I thought the premise was that there's no such thing as bad? And what distinguishes the apparently undesirable situation you describe from what is currently being done to FoA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 The attacks have been stopped. There was only one war declared after the protectorate was announced, which is pretty good since it was announced at three in the morning, and wars are being peaced out. Reparations are not necessarily warranted, but that is a conversation for us to have with FoA and the other parties. I appreciate your genuine attempts to work this out. However, I fail to see how reparations might not be warranted. Is there a CB other than "raiding" or "because they can" here or not? That would require them to actually do something beyond whinging on about it. If FoA is not compensated for these attacks, I'd be happy to start an irc channel on the theme of an Optional Defense Coalition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts