WarriorConcept Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 You should ask Grub if it isn't just related to the tech raid, but in my opnion reading the OP you can see that the way that \m/ dealed with Grub is one of the reasons too. I am asking because the main reason why Grub would even need to have gone to \m/ in the first place would've been regarding FoA. And if Grub is fighting because of the bad language directed his way that's fine, but \m/ did in fact apologize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 That's still the changing/possibly destruction of our community. You can paint it in whatever colors you want, but that's what it is. Well, your community should have thought of that before, shouldn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) I suppose you have a point. We created our standards, you have your own. Still, it does make me wonder why other alliances weren't attacked. As already was explained before GOONS reached a diplomatic resolution with Polaris, as per PC I don't have an answer for you, but if they are good allies they will defend you don't worry about that. Edit: Well, if I was allied with PC I would be worried, they have a small problem honoring treaties you know. Edited January 21, 2010 by D34th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Curzon Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Additionally Pip. If the "oA" is not enough for NpO's attack to be considered a risky move, the question naturally arises of whether it would be valid to attack an alliance containing only an ODP for a raid. We, nor you I presume, don't allow that because there is a significant chance of retaliation. Meaning attacking someone with an "optional" clause is still putting one's neck out there, ie NpO is inviting massive repercussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChimpMasterFlash Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 I also have a present.Hey Louisa. e: language warning on the link provided. And here I am stuck holding my **** with no present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) So Polar's problem with \m/ wasn't at all related to the tech raid on FoA? I see what you're trying here. The fact that \m/ picked a fight with Grub as a direct result of the tech raid on FoA means that it's tangentially related, but it's irrelevant to the declaration itself. Nice move there, slick. So foul language wasn't what set him off to declare war? Okay glad to know you agree. If I could get away with rolling every punk that tried to pick a fight with me, I'd do it too.Again another throwaway line with no real argument behind it. Don't you get tired of the same old tactics?What? You're the one who's dropping lines of argument like hot potatoes when they get shown for the insults to intelligence that they are. Polaris tried to negotiate, \m/ gave Grub the finger, that's picking a fight, then escalation lead to the current situation.I'm sorry if you refuse to acknowledge the existence of context, but I think you should at least be honest enough with yourself to step back when you don't know what you're talking about. I could have sworn the FoA situation was handled well with The Corp. What makes them more qualified than the Polars to handle it, WC? Who gets to decide? Maybe the Polars simply didnt know that the situation was handled already, and that was a simple mixup on their part.It still doesn't excuse \m/s reaction and treatment of Grub's diplomatic approach. Edited January 21, 2010 by Chron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldr Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 There is no way we can use up all our nukes and war chest in one week Of course not. 30% of your alliance is hiding in peace mode. I'd still like to know what size alliance constitutes NpO automatic protection. I'd hate to be put in the same position as \m/. Is it a sliding scale depending on how well connected the alliance is? Has NpO made an annoucement that they will defend every alliance who is tech raided? Until they make that statement, your question is pointless. Just like \m/ has atacked some (but not all) alliances, NpO has gone to war in one instance. If NpO had stated "We will give protection to every alliance who is tech raided", then you would have a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Still, it does make me wonder why other alliances weren't attacked. Why does having problems with one alliance and their specific actions automatically mean that the NpO must have a problem with all similar alliances who did not carry out the same specific actions. Really its amusing to see people around here disparage the NpO for being world police, and at the same time "wonder" why they aren't being world police. Stick with one or the other. Both doesn't make sense! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 This whole thing is such a mess of stupid. No, not just \m/. No, not just the DoW. The whole thing, every last detail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Of course not. 30% of your alliance is hiding in peace mode. Are you really that terrible at war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon 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. This must be some form of new super-irony I don't know about ... right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWAT128 Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Why does having problems with one alliance and their specific actions automatically mean that the NpO must have a problem with all similar alliances who did not carry out the same specific actions.Really its amusing to see people around here disparage the NpO for being world police, and at the same time "wonder" why they aren't being world police. Stick with one or the other. Both doesn't make sense! Because if you're going to do something, at least do it right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Clearly NoFish has no notion of international relations.Nation-states enforce their own law to the reach of their armies in a scenario where there isn't a governing body (the world). True to an extent. Yet Bob doesn't quite work this way. In fact, NPO tried that very same route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 I am asking because the main reason why Grub would even need to have gone to \m/ in the first place would've been regarding FoA. And if Grub is fighting because of the bad language directed his way that's fine, but \m/ did in fact apologize. I try to tell people that "I'm sorry you're so upset" is a real apology, but they just won't listen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USOFAA Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Why does having problems with one alliance and their specific actions automatically mean that the NpO must have a problem with all similar alliances who did not carry out the same specific actions.Really its amusing to see people around here disparage the NpO for being world police, and at the same time "wonder" why they aren't being world police. Stick with one or the other. Both doesn't make sense! I am not into this and not even saying its a bad or good thing but in his own words it kind of sounds like they are I do however see many others, many who realize that our community has some standards, some agreed codes of conduct and some boundaries that keep our community functioning. We are forced to self-regulate, there is no CN Police, no Courts, except of public opinion and therefore as a community we are compelled to prevent anarchy by enforcing our own standards. This forum provides the platform for all and sundry to present their views and to be heard. Discussion and debate are an important part of our process, yet today I stand concerned that too few actually care at all about our community and what it needs to survive and with it, us. For several months, behaviors that have long been considered against the greater good of the community have been on the rise. It is clear that many wish to test the community, find new boundaries, push existing ones and establish a lower standard of conduct for their benefit. These same people mock and ridicule those who question what they do, backing down when forced to do so, only to re-appear elsewhere with antics more befitting a zoo than a political community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Why does having problems with one alliance and their specific actions automatically mean that the NpO must have a problem with all similar alliances who did not carry out the same specific actions.Really its amusing to see people around here disparage the NpO for being world police, and at the same time "wonder" why they aren't being world police. Stick with one or the other. Both doesn't make sense! But they did carry out similar actions. Except for the whole racism deal. But if that's the basis of the entire CB, well then, that's not a very good CB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicknight Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 So now not giving in to foreign demands is picking a fight. Somehow, this is familiar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyInc Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Do not let my signature make you question my sincerity when I hail this as a very classy move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Because if you're going to do something, at least do it right. I think they are doing what they, and not you or anyone else, choose to do quite well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 I see what you're trying here.The fact that \m/ picked a fight with Grub as a direct result of the tech raid on FoA means that it's tangentially related, but it's irrelevant to the declaration itself. Nice move there, slick. I believe Grub was the first one to pick a fight considering the whole situation didn't require him to butt in. And I won't get pulled into just putting random name, when branimir and whoever did it it was kinda weird. If I could get away with rolling every punk that tried to pick a fight with me, I'd do it too. So you'd only punch those you're capable of? Sounds familiar... What? You're the one who's dropping lines of argument like hot potatoes when they get shown for the insults to intelligence that they are. Polaris tried to negotiate, \m/ gave Grub the finger, that's picking a fight, then escalation lead to the current situation.I'm sorry if you refuse to acknowledge the existence of context, but I think you should at least be honest enough with yourself to step back when you don't know what you're talking about. Negotiate what? I've yet to see what needed to be "negotiated" in the first place. What makes them more qualified than the Polars to handle it, WC? Who gets to decide? Maybe the Polars simply didnt know that the situation was handled already, and that was a simple mixup on their part.It still doesn't excuse \m/s reaction and treatment of his diplomatic approach. This isn't an argument about qualifications. The Corp were the ones whom just got to it first and this it was handled by the time polar got there, thus disqualifying the need for polar to do anything. And no there was no mixup at all as the official announcement was made here rather quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riddick Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 You should ask Grub if it isn't just related to the tech raid, but in my opnion reading the OP you can see that the way that \m/ dealed with Grub is one of the reasons too. So you admit this is a blatant attack on a smaller alliance. So GRUB if ROK flipped you the bird are you going to send your personal army after them too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Well, your community should have thought of that before, shouldn't it? Well yeah, but that's not my point. My point was you said destruction of communities was bad. Maybe FoA should have thought of that before they let their protectorate with Sparta drop. See, it works both ways. If you're going to say that the destruction of communities is a bad thing, then it holds in all situations of violence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 I try to tell people that "I'm sorry you're so upset" is a real apology, but they just won't listen. So you're claiming their apology wasn't genuine? Is that it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWAT128 Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 I think they are doing what they, and not you or anyone else, choose to do quite well. From what I gather from this topic, NpO never even bothered to contact PC about the raid on FoA. Now unless I'm mistaken, that's one party that will not face any repercussions from this whole ordeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Clearly NoFish has no notion of international relations.Nation-states enforce their own law to the reach of their armies in a scenario where there isn't a governing body (the world). So it's fine to enforce your own law on anyone you feel like for whatever reason? Cool story. 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.