TheyCallMeJeezy Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 First off, I'm not in PC. Secondly, it was a rhetorical question. You didn't declare on PC because you're terrified of Umbrella and FoB coming in and ruining your carefully guarded pixels. How anyone can proclaim that we "carefully guard" our pixels is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keve69 Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 While I'm flattered that AlmightyGrub considers us so evil, don't be suckered in by his lofty talk of morals and "community standards". These goals would be noble if they were genuine, but they are not. AlmightyGrub simply doesn't like us. If he were truly committed to these farcical goals, then he would have declared war on Poison Clan or any of the other techraiding alliances out there. But he did not because he knows there is actual risk involved there. Don't be deceived. AlmightyGrub attacked us because he finds us to be disgusting and immoral. That's great. I find him to be pompous and moralist. We're even. I'm not imploring the CN community to come to our defense. It is not your obligation. All I ask is that you use your heads and see through these "community standards". The only rules alliances are obligated to follow are the CN Terms of Service, not these purposely vague "community standards" that the most powerful alliances can redefine at will. We will not subject ourselves to these false standards, as it will set a terrifying precedent that the most powerful alliances can destroy any alliance that they find to be inconsistent with their values. If you can't see that, then you don't deserve the freedom to define your own morals anyway. No risk involved? Comeon, are you already telling us all your allies are going to default on you? Might as well call it quits while your at it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manetheren Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 First off, I'm not in PC. Secondly, it was a rhetorical question. You didn't declare on PC because you're terrified of Umbrella and FoB coming in and ruining your carefully guarded pixels. I think our history speaks for our total disregard for infra. The only stat we care about is having almost 5000 nukes. And that is one stat we would love to lower Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 CNARF was a military project in GATO using GATO nations. I don't see why the fanfare subject is even being brought up, the fact of the matter was that it was an attempt to attack all tech raiders. Not just GATO nations, WC. It was a "Non-alliance" organization or something like that, so he could try and get as many folks to join without leaving the comfort of their AA's. GATO playing bodyguard doesn't suddenly mean that never happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essenia Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Ahh yes, well I'm quite aware of the Rok-NpO treaty for obvious reasons, however, I would be rather disappointed in Ragnarok if they simply threw up their hands and cried, "conflicting treaties!" Particularly since Rok has been far closer to \m/ than NpO as of late...witness the TPF War. They should attack their own MDP partner? Interesting idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan V Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Forward Polaris! o/ Bring down the Hammer of Justice over their heads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEraser Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 O/ polaris Enjoy your grave \m/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keve69 Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 First off, I'm not in PC. Secondly, it was a rhetorical question. You didn't declare on PC because you're terrified of Umbrella and FoB coming in and ruining your carefully guarded pixels. True you aren't PC... your hillarious, good show! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Not just GATO nations, WC. It was a "Non-alliance" organization or something like that, so he could try and get as many folks to join without leaving the comfort of their AA's.GATO playing bodyguard doesn't suddenly mean that never happened. Like I mentioned, that isn't really relevant the actual connection being made. Walford made an organization to attack tech raiders hence why people are drawing the parallels between him and Grub Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stetson76 Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 ...it will set a terrifying precedent that the most powerful alliances can destroy any alliance that they find to be inconsistent with their values. If you can't see that, then you don't deserve the freedom to define your own morals anyway. Like those with the values of being all of the sudden without treaties? That's a much better reason to attack someone. And before the we raided, so it's different our war would have ended in two days...if they do lay down, more of your members will raid the next day, so please just don't use that line, it's really old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogenes Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 As much as I dislike \m/, I can't bring myself to support this decision. This situation could have, and should have, been handled better by both of the involved parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 How anyone can proclaim that we "carefully guard" our pixels is beyond me. Because you only attacked 1/4 because you were scared to attack the rest of them (well, and because you like GOONS). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 We are lazy, Polar is far away, and cold. I'm not buying that one..unless *sniff* nahh, for a moment there I thought I smelled poultry. You'll live up to your treaties, that much about PC has to be true or Planet Bob just got really weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trace Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 They should attack their own MDP partner? Interesting idea. An ally who attacks your ally. That's a real good friend there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Heh, if that's how you want to connect it, then what you say is true. I was connecting their actions to another set of actions. Thank you for in a way proving my point. If your point is that a superficial analysis of two situations can lead to a misleading analogy and comparison and thereby to a false equivocation, then you are welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savethecheerleader Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 First off, I'm not in PC. Secondly, it was a rhetorical question. You didn't declare on PC because you're terrified of Umbrella and FoB coming in and ruining your carefully guarded pixels. If those alliances want to come along for the ride when PC declares, I fully welcome it. [OOC] I'd rather hug casualty pixels than infra any day.[/OOC] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Don't you have a treaty you want to enforce... we are waiting for you, you said you were coming, so we baked a cake. Instead of watching that awfully slow clock of yours you should have spent those days teaching your alliance how to offense war, I know its been along time for you guys but man, you're bad at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChimpMasterFlash Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) You were doing this same thing when TPF got attacked. Is it whining or not, Aut? You have one choice.@ this mess: allowing your allies free passes twice and hitting \m/ after the first time they do this = hilariously hypocritical. You're making a bad political move, and you're attacking the protectorate of an MDoAP partner while giving everyone else involved a pass. Unbelievable. So what? By NpO's definition they were. So GOONS have mass raided 2 alliances. Makes those who defend them pay reps. NpO does nothing (actually they declared to support them when they started getting hit by someone wanting justics). \m/ raids one. NpO DoWs only them and nobody else involved. Just so you don't look retarded A single GOONS nation raided a nine man crew called RLMMO then they threw down a DOW on GOONS and KRONOS so we joined them in war. So go ahead and get your facts straight. Debate how you will but a mass raid it wasn't. Edited January 21, 2010 by ChimpMasterFlash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted January 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Pretty much this. Way to attack 1 of the 4 alliances that has raided micros, NpO. You're really going to protect the community that way! If you really have this obligation to the community (which, by the way, I think you do) you should declare on all four (which, by the way, I would support.) My issue isn't with you attacking \m/. It's with you attacking only \m/ because only \m/ is convenient to attack. It's for taking the easy route and claim to be standing alone in the face of a looming evil.Do it right or don't do it at all. You get to say it once, maybe twice, but after that it is simply trying too hard isn't it? I attacked \m/ for the reasons outlined in the OP. If you think that I think the Poison Clan should also fit the same way, perhaps you should present the case and I will determine how I feel about it. My standards are obviously a mystery to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaR Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Wrong. If NpO attacked PC, PC's allies would be obligated to defend them. I don't know about that. Treaties, allies, and wars don't need to be fought excessively to the letter of the law, to the wording of the treaty. If PC tells allies that NpO is essentially attacking both \m/ and PC but attempting to circumvent the larger treaty web backlash by selectively "declaring" on \m/, I believe it would be more than fair for PC's allies to STILL treat this as an attack on both \m/ and PC. Just because NpO attempts to make themselves the "defenders" from PC's defense of \m/ does not mean that PC's allies need to allow the farce to be maintained. They can easily defend PC on the grounds that NpO is simply using a ruse while still accomplishing the same thing. Now... If PC and her allies do not wish the conflict to escalate beyond a quick white peace war between only three alliances, then of course PC and her allies will allow NpO to get away with the legalese and avoid escalation. They still can attempt to win points through pointing out NpO's plan of self-preservation and an easy beat-down, and just use the ruse as propaganda rather than as justification to escalate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keve69 Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 They should attack their own MDP partner? Interesting idea. I think that was the time to employ the: Brilliant Political Move actually.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Like I mentioned, that isn't really relevant the actual connection being made. Walford made an organization to attack tech raiders hence why people are drawing the parallels between him and Grub Yes, and I was pointing out why that comparison doesn't apply. Thank you for agreeing that there is only a superficial similarity between the two instances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 An ally who attacks your ally. That's a real good friend there. But they attacked our ally's ally's ally's ally! Polar must hate MK too )): Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 They should attack their own MDP partner? Interesting idea. I would expect to see a cancellation along with that declaration. Logic dictates such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Marcelle Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 God bless you, NpO! You are noble alliance for taking a stand against \m/. Their destruction brings me great joy. 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.