Starfox101 Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 As I watch and witness the ridiculous public outcry at the event of GOONS, \m/ and PC raiding an unprotected FoA, I have to sit back and laugh at it all. The logic of these neo-moralists just blows me away. Whenever an alliance decides to do anything besides collect taxes, you are out there throwing a huge fit and calling for their destruction. Why? A few members of our alliance attacked another, and thus you call for over 100 people to be attacked? The war is term less. It would have consisted of at most one round of war and then FoA would have been a distant memory. I can see where you could perhaps have a problem with another alliance continually stomping another alliance, sentencing their members to PZI, or attempting to force them into disbandment, but what is going on here is a short battle that is nearly harmless. What is the huge problem here? Now, Athens and friends, including \m/ were recently attacked by an entire (cowardly) coalition merely for honoring treaties, and for defending our alliances. So, the problem is deeper than a mere hatred of tech raiding, it has evolved into a hatred of war altogether. Any alliance who makes an aggressive action gets lambasted in public and made to look like the evil empire of the world. This is all public knowledge to anyone who's in this world, so what I am saying here is not news. It is simply my attempt at understanding the psyche of the neomoralist, and my goal of understanding what their ideal world would look like. So please, answer these questions. What is the problem with a short battle without any ending terms? What is the problem with alliances starting an aggressive war? Why do you wish for a world of peace, a world without war? Why don't you just join the GPA, you hippies. Also, please take a shower now and then, and invest some of that hard earned warchest on a comb, a haircut, and a nice suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWAT128 Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 (edited) I have a strange feeling that some of people crying about how evil \m/, GOONS, and PC are couldn't care less what happens to FoA, but can't let a cheap PR opportunity pass by. Personally I have no problem with alliances attacking whoever they want for whatever reason. It's up to the alliance leaders to protect their members from raids like what happened to FoA, whether it be with treaties or other means. I know my point of view probably won't be well received, so feel free to try and push your views of how things should work in planet bob on me. Edited January 19, 2010 by SWAT128 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Blair Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 So please, answer these questions.What is the problem with a short battle without any ending terms? What is the problem with alliances starting an aggressive war? Why do you wish for a world of peace, a world without war? Without being a neo-moralist (my morals are founded in good old principles), I'll give it a shot. 1. It's immoral, because war hurts people and hurting people is wrong. 2. It's immoral, because war hurts people and hurting people is wrong. 3. Because if everyone is at peace, no one is hurting people and hurting people is wrong. How did I do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 Without being a neo-moralist (my morals are founded in good old principles), I'll give it a shot.1. It's immoral, because war hurts people and hurting people is wrong. 2. It's immoral, because war hurts people and hurting people is wrong. 3. Because if everyone is at peace, no one is hurting people and hurting people is wrong. How did I do? F- see me after class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Blair Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 F- see me after class. I hope this will involve some form of corporal punishment... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted January 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 Without being a neo-moralist (my morals are founded in good old principles), I'll give it a shot.1. It's immoral, because war hurts people and hurting people is wrong. 2. It's immoral, because war hurts people and hurting people is wrong. 3. Because if everyone is at peace, no one is hurting people and hurting people is wrong. How did I do? Let me see, I have a few different grading charts from various lands. GPA - A+ TDO - A- WTF - B+ NpO - B IRON - AAA+ \m/ - Check your war slots, you've been declared on. Call us the National Guard at Kent State. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leftbehind Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 (edited) I have a strange feeling that some of people crying about how evil \m/, GOONS, and PC are couldn't care less what happens to FoA, but can't let a cheap PR opportunity pass by. Personally I have no problem with alliances attacking whoever they want for whatever reason. It's up to the alliance leaders to protect their members from raids like what happened to FoA, whether it be with treaties or other means. I know my point of view probably won't be well received, so feel free to try and push your views of how things should work in CN on me. Although I agree with you that most of the people that went out "crying" about the raids are only looking for that cheap PR but the problem I have is attacking an alliance for no cause other then for the tech and lulz of it. What is the problem with a short battle without any ending terms?What is the problem with alliances starting an aggressive war? Why do you wish for a world of peace, a world without war? 1. No problem with a battle but an alliance wide tech raid I dislike. 2. Wars are fought on the battlefield and the forums. Its all about the PR. Even if you had a signed letter from God stating that TPF spied on your alliance people will always come out to call you evil. I honestly enjoy reading the debates. 3. World without war would blow harder then the world we live in now. Edited January 19, 2010 by Left_Behind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 (edited) text So much what SWAT said. A protectorate, even temporary, is not hard to aquire(just look at our little fail with CME...that ended well). Lots of alliances tech raid, hell look through the history books of Planet Bob and youll find some down right dirty actions that make a tech raid look down right fun. Some of the people who are out here trying to cry a river for FOA have either supported or partaken in the aforemtioned dirty actions. Much like you did with Athens this is just a cheap excuse to try to paint tech raiders as bad people 'sides i already established that over 90% of the folks in the other....discussion..... arent doing anything to help FOA other than moan about how terrible tech raiding is Although I agree with you that most of the people that went out "crying" about the raids are only looking for that cheap PR but the problem I have is attacking an alliance for no cause other then for the tech and lulz of it. When can we expect MASH to treaty all small un-protected alliances? Edited January 19, 2010 by wickedj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raasaa Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 Whenever an alliance decides to do anything besides collect taxes, you are out there throwing a huge fit and calling for their destruction. Why? A few members of our alliance attacked another, and thus you call for over 100 people to be attacked? The war is term less. It would have consisted of at most one round of war and then FoA would have been a distant memory. ...... but what is going on here is a short battle that is nearly harmless. What is the huge problem here? The problem is that you picked the opportune moment to declare war on a helpless alliance...that had no treaties, no protection, no means of fighting back and protecting themselves.... Now, Athens and friends, including \m/ were recently attacked by an entire (cowardly) coalition merely for honoring treaties, and for defending our alliances. So, the problem is deeper than a mere hatred of tech raiding, it has evolved into a hatred of war altogether. Any alliance who makes an aggressive action gets lambasted in public and made to look like the evil empire of the world. Actually, there were many DoW threads, but the number of actual attacks was pretty much the same as your organized tech raid.... Well, duh....alliances will get lambasted by the defending alliance's allies.....what else do you expect them to do...sit back and twiddle their thumbs ?? So please, answer these questions.What is the problem with a short battle without any ending terms? What is the problem with alliances starting an aggressive war? Why do you wish for a world of peace, a world without war? Why don't you just join the GPA, you hippies. Also, please take a shower now and then, and invest some of that hard earned warchest on a comb, a haircut, and a nice suit. 1. Sure, no one is stopping you....why not hit some other alliances as well....GPA, TDO and FAN dont have any treaties...and they have a lot of tech as well. I am sure it will be a profitable venture given the size of your tech raid coalition.... 2. What goes around, comes around.....fact of life. So, if you start a lulz war against another alliance today, rest assured someone will repay the favor. Starting an aggressive war without proper CB / backing from your allies, will never end well.... 3. War is fun, makes me &*&^ in pants. I need a reason to fight....boredom and lulz are not good enough. frankly, out of boredom i would like to see the Tech raid coalition pick on someone their own size, instead of bullying the little ones.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 The problem is that you picked the opportune moment to declare war on a helpless alliance...that had no treaties, no protection, no means of fighting back and protecting themselves....Actually, there were many DoW threads, but the number of actual attacks was pretty much the same as your organized tech raid.... Well, duh....alliances will get lambasted by the defending alliance's allies.....what else do you expect them to do...sit back and twiddle their thumbs ?? 1. Sure, no one is stopping you....why not hit some other alliances as well....GPA, TDO and FAN dont have any treaties...and they have a lot of tech as well. I am sure it will be a profitable venture given the size of your tech raid coalition.... 2. What goes around, comes around.....fact of life. So, if you start a lulz war against another alliance today, rest assured someone will repay the favor. Starting an aggressive war without proper CB / backing from your allies, will never end well.... 3. War is fun, makes me &*&^ in pants. I need a reason to fight....boredom and lulz are not good enough. frankly, out of boredom i would like to see the Tech raid coalition pick on someone their own size, instead of bullying the little ones.... I'm really not trying to take a mean tone here: I know it looks like, but I'm being sincere. You know, you could just declare on us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raasaa Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 I'm really not trying to take a mean tone here: I know it looks like, but I'm being sincere.You know, you could just declare on us. i could...but then i would be no different than you..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 i could...but then i would be no different than you..... Eh, I think the "unjust attacks without reparations" is a good enough CB, considering the terrible ones we've had for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leftbehind Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 When can we expect MASH to treaty all small un-protected alliances? Responding to my AA and not my opinions, very nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raasaa Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 Eh, I think the "unjust attacks without reparations" is a good enough CB, considering the terrible ones we've had for a long time. we have already been on the receiving end of that CB.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 we have already been on the receiving end of that CB.......... Wait, are you talking about NoCB? Because I don't remember that being the CB. If not, I guess I'm just confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 I have some easy questions for you: What is the problem with neo-moralists attacking those they want? Why do you want attack without people complain about that if you complain(see this topic) when your alliance is under risk of being attacked? Why do you wish for a world where you just attack and never are attacked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raasaa Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 Wait, are you talking about NoCB? Because I don't remember that being the CB. If not, I guess I'm just confused. thats exactly what "unjust attacks without reparations" would amount to....and like i said earlier, if we did that, then we would be no different from you.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyDakota Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 (edited) What is the problem with a short battle without any ending terms?: None.(Unless on the receiving end, then feel free to QQ) What is the problem with alliances starting an aggressive war?: None, it keeps Planet Bob moving. Intellectually, debates start. Artistically, war propaganda is made. In the end some are satisfied, some aren't. Either way, you weren't bored to death. Why do you wish for a world of peace, a world without war?: I don't. Drama is excellence. Peace is war. War is Peace. War fuels passion. Passion fuels creativity. How did I do? Edited January 19, 2010 by LadyDakota Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 I have some easy questions for you:What is the problem with neo-moralists attacking those they want? Why do you want attack without people complain about that if you complain(see this topic) when your alliance is under risk of being attacked? Why do you wish for a world where you just attack and never are attacked? As for the first, I'm sure Starfox doesn't care. As for the other two: I thought people knew Starfox better than this. The dude, fights for like, probably over a year worth of his almost 4 years here. Most of it, he's on the losing side. Come on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raasaa Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 What is the problem with a short battle without any ending terms? Since i wasnt around during UJW, i maybe wrong.......but from what i have heard / read, isnt that the reason that \m/ disbanded in the first place ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand I Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 Why don't you just join the GPA, you hippies. Leave GPA alone! You cry about people who cry, now how sad is that? Long story short: pointless topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 I find it amusing that you of all people are now condemning moralism after being one of the loudest and most outspoken moralists in the karma war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted January 19, 2010 Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 I find it amusing that you of all people are now condemning moralism after being one of the loudest and most outspoken moralists in the karma war. It is no longer desirable or convenient Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted January 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 I have some easy questions for you:What is the problem with neo-moralists attacking those they want? Why do you want attack without people complain about that if you complain(see this topic) when your alliance is under risk of being attacked? Why do you wish for a world where you just attack and never are attacked? First off, I have no problem with that. Every action has a reaction. I just hope the attacking party doesn't hide behind a false moral mask, and admits the attack is due to political opposition, and they are seizing a PR misstep to attack the offending alliance. Because that's all it is in all of these situations. Secondly, I have no idea what you said, but I understood the last part. A simple announcement from a common member has changed no minds, no plans. I will not suck up to dodge a war like a certain reformed alliance. Stand by your actions and man up. If we get attacked by a bigger foe so be it, just know you're getting into bed with a bulldog alliance with something to prove and we won't go quietly into the night, but down in a nuclear blaze. Besides, I was on the PZI list of the largest alliance in the game for over 2 years, do you really think you scare me? Dream on. Lastly, I've been attacked in nearly every war I've been in, so I don't recall ever wishing that. I wish for a world where false morals weren't a mask hiding a political agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted January 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2010 I find it amusing that you of all people are now condemning moralism after being one of the loudest and most outspoken moralists in the karma war. Just ask Moridin how much of a moralist I was in the Vox Populi movement. I don't think there was ever any doubt that my part in the resistance was revenge because I felt wronged and was kept down. Afterall, I caused multiple founders and members to leave because I was not a moralist. OOC: I know I double posted, I'm on mobile. Sue me. 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.