kulomascovia Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 I would prefer they dont get a treaty so I can reraid them, Im not complaining at all, thats your department walford. In that case, don't call people a coward for telling you what to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 I do believe you're giving your alliance FAR more credit than it rightly deserves. And you're confusing the NPO with the NpO, as it was the NpO that lead the charge, and NPO was largely on the sidelines for that war. He's confusing nothing with the kind. His assertion that NPO was the culprit behind the original GOONS' demise was spot-on. The only reason they were on the 'sidelines' is because they wanted to see Neutral Shoving destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steodonn Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Well then that is simply cowardly; to prey on the weak when there is no need to do so is indeed an act of a coward. You guys could be role models and start leaving everyone alone. From the reaction I've seen here, a lot of people want peace on Bob. I'm sure you won't have any trouble getting them to agree on peace. Don't be so cynical on something you haven't tried. If you really do think that peace is a lovely concept, then at least stop perpetuating violence. I would like to point out the fact that most of OWF was very upset that a war dident happen recently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Unless you have some specific examples regarding kulomascovia's actions in particular unrelated to mere opinions, this is an unfair accusation. Regardless, it comes across and mud slinging - which will not make anyone who hasn't already made up their mind on the matter want to take your viewpoint. I'd say this regardless of the viewpoint expressed. That may be your perception, however to anyone who has actually had to argue with him, you would realize quite quickly (see his posts in the Athens CB etc) that he only advocates for war not occuring. I hope I'm wrong, if only to watch another person fail to uphold the morals that they hide behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 In that case, don't call people a coward for telling you what to do. when you actually do something tangilbe I will redact my statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 And that is whats great about our world, that more or less unless you do something stupid you can live how you want to. Something stupid like wanting to live in peace because you haven't done any wrong to anybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 I would prefer they dont get a treaty so I can reraid them, Im not complaining at all, thats your department walford. Darn!!! Merrie Melodies, you disappoint me. I was hoping I'd be called walford first And here I spend all night arguing with you - traitor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 (edited) when you actually do something tangilbe I will redact my statement. You stand by calling me a coward for telling you what to do while you're not cowards for forcing others to abide by your ideology? That may be your perception, however to anyone who has actually had to argue with him, you would realize quite quickly (see his posts in the Athens CB etc) that he only advocates for war not occuring.I hope I'm wrong, if only to watch another person fail to uphold the morals that they hide behind. I don't advocate for wars not occurring; I advocate for war being the last possible option. And no, you won't see me advocating for a curbstomp anytime soon. Edited January 17, 2010 by kulomascovia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Darn!!! Merrie Melodies, you disappoint me. I was hoping I'd be called walford first And here I spend all night arguing with you - traitor Sorry, the "none" is weak in you, besides he is the first one to claim to be actually trying to setup anthoer "none" protection plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 You stand by calling me a coward for telling you what to do while you're not cowards for forcing others to abide by your ideology? The may be a sidenote, but I'm going to spill it....almost every nation that I despise has a ruler that begins with a 'K'. It's almost eerie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Meanĕ Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Something stupid like wanting to live in peace because you haven't done any wrong to anybody? When you know people are looking for unaligned nations to raid wouldn't you think it's not too smart to be flying that aa? The easy solutions are to find an affiliation to join/hide behind, or head to peace mode. Problem solved for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 (edited) :wtc: Thanks for the double post, forum...more generous than I would have expected. Edited January 17, 2010 by nippy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 You stand by calling me a coward for telling you what to do while you're not cowards for forcing others to abide by your ideology? I don't advocate for wars not occurring; I advocate for war being the last possible option. And no, you won't see me advocating for a curbstomp anytime soon. Yes, the way I see it, you sit in the stands, whinging on about what you want while we go and take what we want. See the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 I don't advocate for wars not occurring; I advocate for war being the last possible option. And no, you won't see me advocating for a curbstomp anytime soon. My head..it hurts from the slamming it against my Imperial Throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Yes, the way I see it, you sit in the stands, whinging on about what you want while we go and take what we want. See the difference? Believe me, if I could protect all of the unaligned for being attacked I would but I don't have the power to do that. So I'll just do what I'm capable of doing which consists of posting on the OWF and coming up with ideas to prevent tech raiding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwistedRebelDB47 Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 You know what amuses me the most? When someone who is raided is seen as completely and utterly helpless and alone. Poison Clan has stood by its charter in that we will not raid an alliance that has any treaty, even if it is as simple as a Treaty of Friendship. Keep a tie to some alliance outside of your own, and we will respectfully walk on by. Is it not the alliance leader's responsibility to ensure the safety of his alliance mates? Its obvious that FoA has been around for quite some time. The leader of FoA obviously knows the perils that abound for an unaligned alliance. Where is the criticism guided in his direction? I also chuckle when alliances who raid but have arbitrary alliance size limits on what is considered unaligned walk in feeling morally superior. How can you possibly attempt to differentiate raiding between alliances of one, ten, fifty, or two hundred members? Either you raid or you don't raid. Hell, it's even worse if you raid someone with an alliance of None - they don't have any form of diplomatic power, anyone to defend them or aid to recover from alliance mates. Yet so many of you here raid nations on None without thinking twice. Where are the reps sent to them? We fully expect that there is the possibility of our raid targets fighting back. Our rules are simple. Nothing but ground attacks and peace. If the opponent sends cruise missiles or aircraft attacks, send peace - no attacks besides ground attacks. When a nuke is thrown, we fight until the war ends and put them on our Do Not Raid list. For those of you that really care for FoA, I'm awaiting to see treaties written and aid sent to help them rebuild. Until then, your words mean nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Gutenhagen Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Good job, \m/. Even though you don't know me, I know you. Actually a lot of you do know me. So I can't really go all Deep Throat on you. But congrats, nonetheless. On what, you may ask? I'm not sure. I'm not reading 26 pages of people wailing about things. But I'm sure you held your own. Actually, I'm not even sure of that. So I'll just congratulate myself. Good job, Kaiser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Believe me, if I could protect all of the unaligned for being attacked I would but I don't have the power to do that. So I'll just do what I'm capable of doing which consists of posting on the OWF and coming up with ideas to prevent tech raiding. The only way you could attempt to protect the unaligned is to engage in massive war, somethng you've stated time and again you would like to avoid, I dont get you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 You know what amuses me the most? When someone who is raided is seen as completely and utterly helpless and alone. Poison Clan has stood by its charter in that we will not raid an alliance that has any treaty, even if it is as simple as a Treaty of Friendship. Keep a tie to some alliance outside of your own, and we will respectfully walk on by. Is it not the alliance leader's responsibility to ensure the safety of his alliance mates? Its obvious that FoA has been around for quite some time. The leader of FoA obviously knows the perils that abound for an unaligned alliance. Where is the criticism guided in his direction? FoA was attacked soon after Sparta canceled on them. They probably didn't have the time to get a new protectorate before they were raided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 \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. Just catching up on world events there, chief. I've been sick. But rest assured I'll be up to at least Mushroom Kingdom standards of information soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggp Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 I think we have a situation here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 (edited) The only way you could attempt to protect the unaligned is to engage in massive war, somethng you've stated time and again you would like to avoid, I dont get you. If I was the leader of a large alliance, I'd probably offer every nation on "none" individual protection. I don't need to attack everyone who is attacking none; I can contact the individuals and ask them to peace out/ pay reps. If they refuse to comply, I shall contact their alliance and attempt to have the situation ironed out. If everything fails, then I will go to war. War shouldn't have to be the first option to solving everything. EDIT: Spelling check fail. Edited January 17, 2010 by kulomascovia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwistedRebelDB47 Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 FoA was attacked soon after Sparta canceled on them. They probably didn't have the time to get a new protectorate before they were raided. Maybe you should reread the cancellation thread: Here. There was a 72 hour cancellation period, which is more than enough time to find a protector. Hell, I've given protectorates in less than a half hour. Nice try though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 If I was the leader of a large alliance, I'd probably offer every nation on "none" individual protection. I don't need to attack everyone who is attaching none; I can contact the individuals and ask them to peace out/ pay reps. If they refuse to comply, I shall contact their alliance and attempt to have the situation ironed out. If everything fails, then I will go to war. War shouldn't have to be the first option to solving everything. you should go back and read what the world had to say about the original Moldavi Doctrine when NPO was forced to dismantle it, you position isn't a popular one. BTW Walford tried what you want to do when he was MoD at GATO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 FoA was attacked soon after Sparta canceled on them. They probably didn't have the time to get a new protectorate before they were raided. A wild reason for raiding has appeared! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts