\m/, I just want to help

[wickedj]

43 pages?

Why?

Boredom my dear Ejay, that and the urge to hate the alliances involved

[Fantastico]

Boredom my dear Ejay, that and the urge to hate the alliances involved

Some of us entered this thread wanting to save some face for the three alliances, and argued that the issue should be resolved with some level of good judgment.

\m/, PC and the goons would have no part of this.

Instead of anything being made right with the FoA, as was tried with the Knights of Ni, the FoA was placed into a protectorate of convenience and silenced.

This is far worse than the Knights of Ni outcome.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Fantastico

[Merrie Melodies]

Some of us entered this thread wanting to save some face for the three alliances, and argued that the issue should be resolved with some level of good judgment.

\m/, PC and the goons would have no part of this.

Instead of anything being made right with the FoA, as was tried with the Knights of Ni, the FoA was placed into a protectorate of convenience and silenced.

This is far worse than the Knights of Ni outcome.

Welcome to \m/, glad to met you. Did you like the show?

[Denial]

The only reason this isn't turning into a KoN! type of situation is because of who these people are allied too. Athens was isolated to the CnG side, so it was able for Polaris and TOP to pursue it do to treaties. Now in this situation you have PC who is on the CnG Side. GOONS who is on the NpO side. And \m/ who is on the SF side. With these treaties, no one could pursue them like with the KoN!/Athens situation worked out. If you really want to do something, you could try to get peace for them instead of blab on here

It's amusing to see that people only stand up for their beliefs when a military victory is likely.

[Atanatar]

I don't care which, what or how many alliances are involved.

This is a disgrace.

The world should be united in demanding justice for the FoA.

Remember this post, Fantastico? Because I do, and nothing says hypocrisy callin upon us to save face than "diagrace" and calling for "the world to unite" against us and dictate our alliance matters. But please, don't let your own words disprove your lies and knock some damned sense into your skull.

[Fantastico]

Remember this post, Fantastico? Because I do, and nothing says hypocrisy callin upon us to save face than "diagrace" and calling for "the world to unite" against us and dictate our alliance matters. But please, don't let your own words disprove your lies and knock some damned sense into your skull.

Why yes I do. I immediately recognized that this thread was started by Alterego, so I made that post to prepare to give you a way out.

Instead you foolishly boxed yourself into a corner, refused any appeal to reason, and now here we are.

[Atanatar]

Yes, here we are: we have our tech, our laughs, and generally better relations with our allies. What a horrid box to be trapped in. My outraged sense of morality can't stand the fact I'm not indulging it's persecution complex. I may have to serve it's two week notice.

[Fantastico]

Yes, here we are: we have our tech, our laughs, and generally better relations with our allies. What a horrid box to be trapped in. My outraged sense of morality can't stand the fact I'm not indulging it's persecution complex. I may have to serve it's two week notice.

Congrats.

Do you want a medal?

[Atanatar]

I'm so glad you've come to understand the false assumptions you made. Would you like a medal, how ever? I'm quite sure we can find some one cynical enough to craft you a "Medal of Misplaced Outrage". I'm sure it would menace with spikes of outrage.

[Bob Janova]

40+ pages later to add to the aid sent by TJO and that one guy from SOS Hyperion has since sent off 6 million and International has sent 9 million. but theres no aid from people like Alterego, Bob Janova, Timeline

If you're as outraged as you say you are then help these people out you keep asking "Why should i" well the answer is simple you are posting here to express outrage at \m/ you arent going to do anything militarily(sp) so why dont you put your money where your mouth is unless of course you dont really care about FOA and are just using this as a sad excuse to hate on \m/ and PC for doing the same thing your alliance does afterall look at all the tech raiding Valhalla is doing or IRON yet you arent outraged at these people

You know, just this once, I'm going to bite on this ridiculous bait, because you stepped into the realm of fact where you seem to be quite lost.

IRON have seven active wars. Three are against a rogue, two against ghosts, and two apparent tech raids against unaligned nations.

Valhalla have six; one is defensive, one against WF which is either a ghost or will be paying reps and getting shouted at, one tech raid against an unaligned nation and three against a nation in a 4 man AA.

Neither of them is committing an alliance sanctioned raid against another alliance. Let's get the large injustices off the world stage before worrying about the small ones.

It is not 'the same thing my alliance does'; VE does not permit raids. In addition, I expressed outrage at Athens when they did the same thing. I have no particular history with any of the alliances in question; when anybody does outrageous things, they will generate outrage.

I do not particularly care about FoA; they have agreed to a settlement and got themselves a protector, so I would say they are happy enough with the outcome. What I care about is the state of international relations and the ability of alliances to exist peacefully without being attacked through no fault of their own. Besides, sending aid to raid victims simply gives the impression to the raiders that they can commit acts of war and someone else will clean up after them.

I'm also loving the double standards that \m/ ZI someone who tech raids them, yet expect to be able to raid alliances with no repercussions. Not unexpected from a classless alliance, mind you. (To forestall the obvious riposte: yes, of course my alliance would ZI an unrepentant rogue. However, we do not expect to be able to attack other alliances at will.)

Yes, here we are: we have our tech, our laughs, and generally better relations with our allies.

If this is true, then shame on RoK. Even if Hoo is ex-original-\m/, I am disappointed if he supports things like this.

[bzelger]

I'm so glad you've come to understand the false assumptions you made. Would you like a medal, how ever? I'm quite sure we can find some one cynical enough to craft you a "Medal of Misplaced Outrage". I'm sure it would menace with spikes of outrage.

Can you give me an example of "well-placed" outrage?

[Sardonic]

This was a few back, but I'm going to respond. Just because you follow your charter doesn't mean your any less of a threat to others. Bandits care nothing for the common good, only their purses and sadistic entertainment. Even if they sat down and penned up their own constitution, they would still be a threat to those around them who were less prepared. Public opinion won't stop you, and even if the majority of alliances got together and decided to punish tech raiders who broke their de facto law with any international police action, would you obey their demands? Probably not, especially if you could get away with it, and so with all the characteristics combined, your organizations resemble little more than the highway robbers and rogues of days past.

If we faced extinction? You better believe we'd stop. However such a thing is so ridiculous it's not even worth talking about. Your attempt at painting us as dashing rogues flaunting authority is much appreciated though, thanks.

Apparently you've confused me for some one who cares what your business with FoA is.

I wasn't addressing it to you.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Sardonic

[Kzoppistan]

If we faced extinction? You better believe we'd stop. However such a thing is so ridiculous it's not even worth talking about.

Obviously not for you. Though others might see interest in the collective security of Bob or protection of their sphere.

Your attempt at painting us as dashing rogues flaunting authority is much appreciated though, thanks.

I didn't attempt it, I describe you as rogues and bandits. If you're happy with that characterization, and I'm sure you are, then there we have it.

I wasn't addressing it to you.

Oh, I see. It was hard to tell since it was in the same reply to a quote of mine.

[wickedj]

Some of us entered this thread wanting to save some face for the three alliances, and argued that the issue should be resolved with some level of good judgment.

\m/, PC and the goons would have no part of this.

Instead of anything being made right with the FoA, as was tried with the Knights of Ni, the FoA was placed into a protectorate of convenience and silenced.

This is far worse than the Knights of Ni outcome.

Hi, remember me? You still havent done anything to help FoA other than highly entertain those of us in \m/'s IRC channel

Also, @Bob, tech raids are tech raids my dear as discussed to death earlier in this thread. What seperates three tech raids from fourty? nothing at all

Edited January 18, 2010 by wickedj

[Fantastico]

Hi, remember me? You still havent done anything to help FoA other than highly entertain those of us in \m/'s IRC channel

Also, @Bob, tech raids are tech raids my dear as discussed to death earlier in this thread. What seperates three tech raids from fourty? nothing at all

Per the \m/- PC-goons agreement with The Corporation, the FoA agreed not to seek reps in exchange for The Corporation's protection.

Why would anyone aid an alliance that has decided it no longer wants help and now even defends its attackers' right to attack them?

As for not recognizing an alliance of 40 members as an alliance, I'll have to agree with Kzoppistan, at least you finally are honest about what you really are.

[Vijaya]

LOL, dude what ever you need to think to make yuourself happy!

Well, if you guys say all wars are tech raids, it would stand to reason that conversely, tech raids are wars, just without the benefit of even a 6-month old CB.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Valdemar

[Atanatar]

Can you give me an example of "well-placed" outrage?

An example of "well-placed" outrage would be being outraged over an attempt to destroy your alliance. An example of misplace outrage is bawwing over something that was settled before you even know you had something to be outraged about.

In review:

well placed outrage: attempts to destroy your alliance

misplaced outrage: crying and moaning over something that doesn't concern you, your allies, and possibly not even your allies allies.

Would you like to try and make another point? So far it's 0 for 1.

[wickedj]

Per the \m/- PC-goons agreement with The Corporation, the FoA agreed not to seek reps in exchange for The Corporation's protection.

Why would anyone aid an alliance that has decided it no longer wants help and now even defends its attackers' right to attack them?

As for not recognizing an alliance of 40 members as an alliance, I'll have to agree with Kzoppistan, at least you finally are honest about what you really are.

Not seeking reps and receiving aid from some of these moralists who are OUTRAGED, i tell you, OUTRAGED! at PC \m/ and GOONS. i dont see them cancelling the aid being sent to them by TJO, Sparta and some others

[bzelger]

An example of "well-placed" outrage would be being outraged over an attempt to destroy your alliance. An example of misplace outrage is bawwing over something that was settled before you even know you had something to be outraged about.

In review:

well placed outrage: attempts to destroy your alliance

misplaced outrage: crying and moaning over something that doesn't concern you, your allies, and possibly not even your allies allies.

Would you like to try and make another point? So far it's 0 for 1.

So far it's 0 for 0, actually. I'm not going to try to make a point until I understand your stance, if then. Infer all you like though.

What is your basis for assigning the one as "well-placed" and the other "misplaced?"

[Atanatar]

Hm, it seems you are trying to be unbiased in your questions. If that is the case, please accept my apologies for my aggressively toned message. I shall try to answer your next question more sufficiently:

The basis is context sensitive to those posters who are at the moment completely unaffiliated to either FoA, the raiding alliances, and the protector of FoA; The Corporation. I attempted to use a commonly held view of the attempted total destruction of community as an example of an act that could legitamently outrage third party observers. For "misplaced" outrage I refer to the situation on this thread, in which the overwhelmingly vast majority of third party observers has no business interfereing with, especially considering the fact that the event these third party observers are so outraged about was privately resolved to the satisfaction to all involved. Seeing as the aggrieved party, in this case FoA, is satisfied with the outcome, the third party observers have little to no logical basis to be outraged.

[Earogema]

If this is true, then shame on RoK. Even if Hoo is ex-original-\m/, I am disappointed if he supports things like this.

You don't seem to remember when Rok pretty much raided all of Ubercon, do you?

Really nobody does, because that thread barely got any replies and nobody cared.

[Atanatar]

Shocking! That almost seems to insinuate most of these new found moralists only have a problem with tech raiding when \m/ does it! I can only imagine this is because they have missed us sorely, and wish to see more. Well my friends, I can make no promises, but I vow to do my best to bring back our lottery, and expand it to include unaligned alliances as well as unaligned nations.

[bzelger]

Hm, it seems you are trying to be unbiased in your questions. If that is the case, please accept my apologies for my aggressively toned message.

No sweat.

I shall try to answer your next question more sufficiently:

The basis is context sensitive to those posters who are at the moment completely unaffiliated to either FoA, the raiding alliances, and the protector of FoA; The Corporation. I attempted to use a commonly held view of the attempted total destruction of community as an example of an act that could legitamently outrage third party observers. For "misplaced" outrage I refer to the situation on this thread, in which the overwhelmingly vast majority of third party observers has no business interfereing with, especially considering the fact that the event these third party observers are so outraged about was privately resolved to the satisfaction to all involved. Seeing as the aggrieved party, in this case FoA, is satisfied with the outcome, the third party observers have little to no logical basis to be outraged.

I'm still caught up on the idea of "legitimately." Legitimacy is defined by a supermajority? How many people have to agree to it before it counts as commonly-held?

I see vociferous condemnation of moralism, but I also see ipsedixitisms to the effect that people interfering in your business are somehow in the wrong, or that attempts to force you to change your behavior would somehow be bad, and I really don't understand how you can take any such stance (or take the stance that disbanding an alliance is bad) if you reject a moral code.

I understand and to some degree respect the "this is what we're doing and if you don't like it then come and get it" line, but I really don't see how you can stand on "this is none of your business and you have no right to tell us what to do."

How can you insist on your right to attack another alliance without cause, yet complain when people offer objection or threat in return?

[hizzy]

Well my friends, I can make no promises, but I vow to do my best to bring back our lottery, and expand it to include unaligned alliances as well as unaligned nations.

tell ya what, champ... you guys go ahead and bring back the lottery, and Nueva Vida will unilaterally suspend all treaties and pacts in exchange for a ticket. Cool?

[D34th]

Also, @Bob, tech raids are tech raids my dear as discussed to death earlier in this thread. What seperates three tech raids from fourty? nothing at all

If you seriously can't see the difference between an sancioned raid of 3 alliances against a 32 men alliance and a random member raiding a nation without alliance affiliation you have serious problems.

Do you see the diference between 1 and 1000 or for you they are just numbers?