Triyun Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Ah, I find it interesting that both sides claim the other is oppressive. The arguments for Polar side is its not okay for thieves to oppress others. The arguments for \m/ side is it is oppressive to stop thieves. I wonder which side most rational players would agree with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottimus prime Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 The arguments for Polar side is its not okay for thieves to oppress others.The arguments for \m/ side is it is oppressive to stop thieves. I wonder which side most rational players would agree with. Probably depends on who you are allied with and if you have ever been the victim of thieves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 The arguments for Polar side is its not okay for thieves to oppress others.The arguments for \m/ side is it is oppressive to stop thieves. I wonder which side most rational players would agree with. Rational people would agree with both sides. You're all insane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendoftheSkies Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 The arguments for \m/ side is it is oppressive to stop thieves. If you don't have the authority to do so, I believe that's called being a vigilante, which is a crime in and of itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timeline Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) Well it seem the drama queens have hit this topic hard, 66 pages and not one of you have had the balls to do what NpO has done today, they saw something they did not like and acted on it, maybe some of you guys posting pointless crap in this topic should grow a pair and do something if your unhappy at how things have happened. I do not think NpO will worry to much about a buch of drama queens spamming this topic. Hail NpO Hail Grub (remove \M/ as it was done once before and make BoB a better place) Edited January 21, 2010 by Timeline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 If you don't have the authority to do so, I believe that's called being a vigilante, which is a crime in and of itself. Errrr, vigilantes are individual citizens. We're all ruling nations here. I do not fear the law enforcement of Llonach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Reading betwen the lines isn't your thing is it? Or anyone else that made comments similar to yours. The part where they say that it will be by \m/s own actions this would escalate is the same as stating directly in the DoW that they'd prefer that nobody else hits them.Am I supposed to be impressed by the fact that they didn't drag in assistance to fight this 80 man aa? No the reason they even brought that part up is because they both want a easy fight and step away from any responsibility for this conflict in case it would escalate. Grub might be bat!@#$ insane but he's not that dumb. He didn't enter this war without checking to see that he would not leave his back open. This conflict will not escalate in any way where it could be a threat to NpO and grub knew that when he decided to roll \m/ for not liking them. Bravery? I think not. You did not address the main point that he made (and that I made, but you passed my post ). Grub said in the OP, "**For those concerned, we will require NO assistance from our allies in dealing with this matter. If this matter is to escalate that will be by your choosing alone. I understand that a treaty partner of \m/ will choose to defend, we will await your deployment, also alone." I fail to see how this is begging for an easy fight. Please point out to me what part of this statement, in the OP, implies that Polaris wants an easy fight with lots of allies of our own and none of \m/'s? Also, how does the fact that \m/ is smaller than Polaris make it cowardly to fight them? Are the only honorable fights for Polaris against MHA and TOP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendoftheSkies Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 maybe some of you guys posting pointless crap in this topic should grow a pair and do something if your unhappy at how things have happened. Personally I feel like rolling both NpO AND \m/, but Kev never let's me have fun :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottimus prime Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (Triyun @ Jan 21 2010, 03:00 PM) *The arguments for \m/ side is it is oppressive to stop thieves. If you don't have the authority to do so, I believe that's called being a vigilante, which is a crime in and of itself. And we'll stop as soon as the Bob police show up and sto....um.....wait....we have Bob police?...wait....no we don't....um....carry on then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Rational people would agree with both sides. You're all insane. I have to agree with this man completely here. No one is right everyone just sucks. D: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 If you don't have the authority to do so, I believe that's called being a vigilante, which is a crime in and of itself. Only in a non-anarchical environment. With an absence of an over arching authority, be it a hegemon, universal international codes, or legitimized multi-lateral organization it falls to alliances or grouping of alliances to create a more just environment should they find it desirable to do that. In my opinion as there is no authority to say that Polar cannot and as their cause is just, in my opinion they are engaging in a unilateral but just war in order to fulfill principles which are for the betterment of the whole Planet Bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 All the best to you Polar. Indeed, people should have learned how you roll until now. And that you will not change. So if it irks them now, well people you had plenty of time to establish a "more unified FA policy",...as goes the sayin' these days. lol Have fun all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) Bzelger asks the question: Just because there's other ways to resolve it doesn't mean that military response is "bad." What grounds would GOONS, \m/, and PC have to complain if a coalition got together and "tech-raided" them right back? WarriorConcept answers it for me: They wouldn't have a reason to complain at all. Edit: Just to show that the quote is in context, here's the original post. Edited January 21, 2010 by heggo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timeline Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Personally I feel like rolling both NpO AND \m/, but Kev never let's me have fun :/ Well personally rolling \M/ is like slapping a bully, one hit they run away and cry. I would not want to roll NpO for the simple fact I support what they are doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wad of Lint Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 It might have something to do with the lack of nukes, AC attacks, CMs and navy attacks.It also might have something to do with the easy way to stop the raid ("pm for peace" ring any bells?). I'm still curious, can I or can I not attack your nation with nothing but ground attacks and expect retaliation from your nation alone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Only in a non-anarchical environment. With an absence of an over arching authority, be it a hegemon, universal international codes, or legitimized multi-lateral organization it falls to alliances or grouping of alliances to create a more just environment should they find it desirable to do that. In my opinion as there is no authority to say that Polar cannot and as their cause is just, in my opinion they are engaging in a unilateral but just war in order to fulfill principles which are for the betterment of the whole Planet Bob. When did I start constantly agreeing with NPO government... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodemofi-NPO Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) When did I start constantly agreeing with NPO government... I had the same thought. It's slightly unnerving. Edit: though != thought Edited January 21, 2010 by Shodemofi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiper Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 If you don't have the authority to do so, I believe that's called being a vigilante, which is a crime in and of itself. We're the hero Planet Bob deserves, but not the one it needs right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonOfHoward Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) Anyone who isn't in an alliance and wants to avoid being tech raided you can try joining iFOK. Just thought I'd put that out there if no one has already. Also, if you're in an alliance where you're own leaders can't protect you from tech raiders I'd leave that said alliance ASAP. Edit: And if you decide to leave that said alliance you can join us. Edit Edit: if the CB was just for penis waving and racial slurs I'd support this DoW, but it's just grandstanding so whatever. Edited January 21, 2010 by SonOfHoward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Ozujsko Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 It's funny that you guys keep saying that, yet it is not even close to the truth. \m/ knew you were going to attack them and assume you would no matter what they did. There is no shock on the part of \m/ whatsoever. Keep proclaiming that they didn't think you'd go through with it because you look pretty stupid from where those of us in the know are sitting.Another important point is that Grub didn't say anything to \m/ to start the commentary in \m/'s channel. You went after him with horrid and childish insults simply for being there. This wasn't just individuals saying what they please in their home channel or joking around with eachother. This was you going after someone who you knew damn well wasn't "in on the joke" in public. Anyway, those two points were just irking me to no end. While I understand Polar and \m/'s reasons to an extent ... I do not agree in any way, shape, or form and both sides have been told this. Tech raiding a 34 man alliance is stupid. Getting involved when it is already resolved (and imposing a deadline, no less) and not your concern is stupid. Goading someone who doesn't like you (while using racial slurs, no less) is stupid. Attacking an ally of an ally is stupid. Neither of you cared enough about Ragnarok to simply walk away. Shame on you both. Great post, Hoo. You are a gentleman and a scholar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pansy Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Well personally rolling \M/ is like slapping a bully, one hit they run away and cry.I would not want to roll NpO for the simple fact I support what they are doing. You realise this puts your alliance in a very awkward situation right? Tied to both sides of this and all, and you possible could end up fighting alongside \m/. God I love the treaty web Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some-Guy Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 And we'll stop as soon as the Bob police show up and sto....um.....wait....we have Bob police?...wait....no we don't....um....carry on then top r worldz police dudes. 4 reals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratonbox Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Only in a non-anarchical environment. With an absence of an over arching authority, be it a hegemon, universal international codes, or legitimized multi-lateral organization it falls to alliances or grouping of alliances to create a more just environment should they find it desirable to do that. In my opinion as there is no authority to say that Polar cannot and as their cause is just, in my opinion they are engaging in a unilateral but just war in order to fulfill principles which are for the betterment of the whole Planet Bob. Finally, somebody making sense in this fast-growing thread. I fully support your action against \m/. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulafaras Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 I'm still curious, can I or can I not attack your nation with nothing but ground attacks and expect retaliation from your nation alone? i answered Sqrt when he asked the same question about 1 page before you asked. I did not believe i need to answer twice. But if you insist, no i would do what any target of a techraid does and that is respond to the best of my ability. Meaning, i'd ask you to pay reps and if you refuse i'd nuke the stuffing out of you until one of us drops out of range of the other. You won't find any post of mine where i try to defend a "techraid gone bad" retaliation. Frankly it's an inherent risk of techraiding that your target might fight back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCRABT Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) If you don't have the authority to do so, I believe that's called being a vigilante, which is a crime in and of itself. Since their is no written regulation regarding this it is not a crime here to be a vigilante. What we do have is unwritten norms and values formed by general public opinion. The vast majority of rational thinkers beleive it is wrong to co-ordinate alliance wide tech raids on untreated alliances. Whether Polaris has the authority to attack \m/ for breaching this social norm is dependent on two things: Whether anyone with more influence than Polaris individually objects to them rolling \m/ and decides to something about it and whether the majority of alliances on Bob support Polars actions. There is a different between authority and legitimate authority. Authority cannot be legitimised until their is some form of social control, this by and large is absent in CN and thus there is no way for any alliance to act "illegally". What it comes down to is you either have the authority and influence to change the norms of the community in which case you are successful in your intended goal or you break the social norms and get on the wrong end of public opinion. In this case Polar is unwilling to allow \m/ to make alliance wide tech raiding a social norm and thus \m/ have suffered the consequences of breaking an existing social norm. Edited January 21, 2010 by MCRABT 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.