Jump to content

Screaming out of Both Sides of the Mouths


TehChron
 Share

Recommended Posts

I’m going to cut to the chase here, we have a war that essentially started because one group decided to be dicks, then told another, stronger party to do something about it if they didn’t like what they were doing. The party being told to “do something about it”, being Almightygrub, actually did something about it. So now we have a long series of posts, and a couple of massive threads filled with whining about whether or not they were justified in “Doing something about it”, quite literally the only reason given, and/or necessary when someone makes an apparent death wish in provoking an individual with the capacity to fulfill it.

So, regardless of the literal accuracy of the above summary, it more or less covers the important points. \m/ also has known all along that Polaris would follow through with it’s threat, and had ample time to make appeals for clemency. Tragically (pff) they were not successful in whatever endeavors they embarked upon during the considerable delay leading up to the declaration. So here comes a question:

Why are they, and by extension, their supporters, complaining so loudly about something they said they wouldn’t take issue with just a few days ago? Namely, an alliance taking up arms, and beating on \m/?

Or, specifically, why complain about something you’ve already acknowledged as being alright elsewhere?

So a police action would be just fine and you have no problem with a world police, you just don't like extreme consolidation of power. Is that a fair characterization?

In that vein, if the Corporation had not stepped in (which seems to be a good show, by the way, kudos), these three would be able to dictate whatever they like to FoA.

I'd say that's fair. And yeah they pretty much would until someone else stepped in (be it from their allies or others such as The Corporation). In a sense then Corporation did act as world police and handled it splendidly.
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=2110218

So clearly Warriorconcept has no problem with folks playing the world police, so long as they arent some kind of hegemonic superpower, right?

From where I'm standing Grub coming in with no reason at all for a closed matter is provoking.
I believe Grub was the first one to pick a fight considering the whole situation didn't require him to butt in.

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.

Well…I guess you’re not the biggest fan of diplomacy then? I mean, if Grub went into the channel, didn’t do anything, and was provoked anyway by \m/ without any real cause for it, how could it be Grub’s fault? And besides, don’t you *like* people who play world police and aren’t some kind of hegemonic hyper power?

Man, you’d think you’d be all over this supporting \m/’s decimation. You hate tech raiding (presumably), you like world police (presumably), and love it when folks try and find a diplomatic solution to tech raiding (presumably). So where do you draw the line, WC? How is Grub doin' it wrong? Or are you simply full of crap?

I'm guess I don't really get the idea of "inherently bad" coming from the amoral camp. 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?
They wouldn't have a reason to complain at all.
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=2110178

Well, since it’s only one alliance, and therefore not an entire coalition, surely you’d think there would be no problem with how Grub and Polaris handled this, right?

So you're attacking all alliances that raid other alliances? Do you know your ally's at all?
Considering the main motivator for polar being involved at all was because \m/ raided, that similarity holds a lot more true.

So it's against tech raiding alliances? I know several alliances whom allow that.

So why are you complaining? Is it your hobby to complain at every opportunity to play the victim or do you just go out of your way to try and make yourself look good?

Seriously, make up your mind, you hypocrite. You have no business sticking your nose into this, based on your previous commentary regarding this very (hypothetical) situation. You are full of crap, WarriorConcept. Full of it, and I, for one, can not stand the manner in which you’re going about this.

Your blatant insincerity with your comments should disqualify you from having any right to complain about how Polaris is handling this, since you specifically claimed there was nothing wrong with this reaction. I would say to make up your mind, but I think it’s pretty obvious you’d just choose whatever viewpoint would make you look best at the time, and then switch to something more convenient later as the situation changes.

Tl;dr: Warriorconcept, get off your high horse. You’re a damn hypocrite, and everything you’re saying right now reeks simply of playing up the moral crusader for the sake of looking good.

You have no shame.

Edit: Oh, and everyone else who's complaining about \m/'s right to not be curbstomped because they picked a fight outside their weight class, but said it would be fine if it happened beforehand. This applies to you too, I was just too lazy to find all of your contradictory posts.

Edit again: [ooc]Heh, nice 4000th post[/ooc]

Edited by Chron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell, WC is criticizing NpO for preaching about morals and "community standards" when they should have just said "We don't like \m/ so we declare war".

Then you should read what he's posted.

From where I'm standing Grub coming in with no reason at all for a closed matter is provoking.

Besides, WC already said he was fine even if that would be the reason. :awesome:

They wouldn't have a reason to complain at all.

And yet here we are, with them all complaining.

Clearly, WC has a problem with the declaration period. I mean, even after it's been pointed out several times that morals arent the reason, he still remains adamant that Grub simply not liking them isnt an adequate reason.

Edited by Chron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So clearly Warriorconcept has no problem with folks playing the world police, so long as they arent some kind of hegemonic superpower, right?

If you read the thread further, I answered that.

Well…I guess you’re not the biggest fan of diplomacy then? I mean, if Grub went into the channel, didn’t do anything, and was provoked anyway by \m/ without any real cause for it, how could it be Grub’s fault? And besides, don’t you *like* people who play world police and aren’t some kind of hegemonic hyper power?

Man, you’d think you’d be all over this supporting \m/’s decimation. You hate tech raiding (presumably), you like world police (presumably), and love it when folks try and find a diplomatic solution to tech raiding (presumably). So where do you draw the line, WC? How is Grub doin' it wrong? Or are you simply full of crap?

What? I enjoy diplomacy when it's warranted. The FoA situation required diplomacy and it was solved. If I had complained about that then you'd have an argument.

Well, since it’s only one alliance, and therefore not an entire coalition, surely you’d think there would be no problem with how Grub and Polaris handled this, right?

There's no problem with declaring war for what you believe in, I've even stated as such in grub's thread and told him in private. What I disagree with was inserting himself into a situation that was resolved.

The rest of this thread is all fluff off of your false assertion of how I think this matter should have been handled, considering the matter was handled correctly and I applauded the situation for it being handled diplomatically, which is exactly what my alliance preaches. If the FoA fiasco hadn't been completed when Grub put himself in then I'd agree I was hypocritical, but it was and therein lies my problem with this war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read the thread further, I answered that.
I did, and you never did answer that.
What? I enjoy diplomacy when it's warranted. The FoA situation required diplomacy and it was solved. If I had complained about that then you'd have an argument.
So why do you have a problem with Grub trying it? Or simply being in the room at the time?
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.
There's no problem with declaring war for what you believe in, I've even stated as such in grub's thread and told him in private. What I disagree with was inserting himself into a situation that was resolved.
Simply being in the room without doing anything provocative makes him at fault? Good one.
The rest of this thread is all fluff off of your false assertion of how I think this matter should have been handled, considering the matter was handled correctly and I applauded the situation for it being handled diplomatically, which is exactly what my alliance preaches. If the FoA fiasco hadn't been completed when Grub put himself in then I'd agree I was hypocritical, but it was and therein lies my problem with this war.
But Grub didnt do anything. Or are do you know better than Van Hoo? Edited by Chron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did, and you never did answer that.

I did actually and even the STA guy was satisfied.

So why do you have a problem with Grub trying it? Or simply being in the room at the time?

What? I'm referring to the original issue at hand which was the tech raiding. The issue was already handled diplomatically.

Simply being in the room without doing anything provocative makes him at fault? Good one.

Not relevant at all to the actual argument at hand unless you're claiming the only reason he went to war was because he was called bad names.

But Grub didnt do anything. Or are do you know better than Van Hoo?

I'm pretty sure I see a war going on right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is about \m/?

Here I thought I was calling out a hypocritical would-be moralist? I mean, I don't see \m/ in the title, it's pretty clear who it's addressed to. At least to me.

Would be moralist? I'm doing what I believe is right and taking more active measures regarding that than near any alliance in history in regards to the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did actually and even the STA guy was satisfied.
Oh, you mean
I'd say that's fair. And yeah they pretty much would until someone else stepped in (be it from their allies or others such as The Corporation). In a sense then Corporation did act as world police and handled it splendidly.

I quoted that in the OP, and then pointed out how you're saying that you're fine with folks playing world police.

lol.

What? I'm referring to the original issue at hand which was the tech raiding. The issue was already handled diplomatically.

And Grub was provoked without any instigation on his part, just for being there. lol.

Not relevant at all to the actual argument at hand unless you're claiming the only reason he went to war was because he was called bad names.

How is it? It's pretty obvious that \m/ pissed off Grub, provoked him, and then he declared war because they were asking for it. Stemming from that incident. It's entirely relevant, and is the damn root of this war.

Clearly you're just spouting nonsensical crap, now. lol.

I'm pretty sure I see a war going on right now.
Ha ha. How did Grub provoke \m/, Warriorconcept? Come now, clearly you have some kind of ironclad reason for this 180 degree change in positions aside from being full of crap. Or don't you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be moralist? I'm doing what I believe is right and taking more active measures regarding that than near any alliance in history in regards to the matter.

I dunno, GATO would disagree with you on that count, Pauline. :awesome:

Then again, Walford was just trying to preen in the first place, so I guess that makes your current project just as big a sham as that was?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quoted that in the OP, and then pointed out how you're saying that you're fine with folks playing world police.

He wasn't really saying that at all.

"In a sense then Corporation did act as world police" != "I support having world police"

Although I'm still confused as to why you made a thread solely to address the posts made by one person in another thread.

Edited by Lord Brendan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He wasn't really saying that at all.

"In a sense then Corporation did act as world police" != "I support having world police"

In a sense then Corporation did act as world police and handled it splendidly.

In response to:

So a police action would be just fine and you have no problem with a world police, you just don't like extreme consolidation of power. Is that a fair characterization?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, you mean

I quoted that in the OP, and then pointed out how you're saying that you're fine with folks playing world police.

lol.

Hey notice how when The Corp handled it there was a matter to be resolved and it was solved without a war? Big difference but keep trying to shift the basis of your argument.

And Grub was provoked without any instigation on his part, just for being there. lol.

Really? I thought you were claiming it was for "trying diplomacy". Pick one mate.

How is it? It's pretty obvious that \m/ pissed off Grub, provoked him, and then he declared war because they were asking for it. Stemming from that incident. It's entirely relevant, and is the damn root of this war.

Clearly you're just spouting nonsensical crap, now. lol.

Who provoked who? The matter was already handled and grub came in asking for "diplomatic solution". Regardless of any profanity made I don't think \m/ had a reason to submit to any of his "diplomatic efforts" at all.

Ha ha. How did Grub provoke \m/, Warriorconcept? Come now, clearly you have some kind of ironclad reason for this 180 degree change in positions aside from being full of crap. Or don't you?

Refer above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey notice how when The Corp handled it there was a matter to be resolved and it was solved without a war? Big difference but keep trying to shift the basis of your argument.
If this was about tech raiding, you'd be right.

Then again, if it were, you wouldn't have a problem with \m/ being rolled, right? Or if it were due to Grub playing "world police", right?

Really? I thought you were claiming it was for "trying diplomacy". Pick one mate.
I was talking about something I didnt know the circumstances around, however, clearly you do, and now that it's been cleared up to me, it becomes all the more apparent just how full of crap you are. lol.
Who provoked who? The matter was already handled and grub came in asking for "diplomatic solution". Regardless of any profanity made I don't think \m/ had a reason to submit to any of his "diplomatic efforts" at all.
So what did Grub do to provoke them? Hoo says he didn't do squat, and I'm pretty sure as a direct ally of both parties, he's more of an authority on the subject than you. Who is just posturing.
Refer above.
Saying to refer to the above when you don't have a case to begin with doesnt answer anything. lol. Edited by Chron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this was about tech raiding, you'd be right.

Then again, if it were, you wouldn't have a problem with \m/ being rolled, right? Or if it were due to Grub playing "world police", right?

So the war isn't about tech raiding then? Make up your mind and try to find an argument to stick to.

I was talking about something I didnt know the circumstances around, however, clearly you do, and now that it's been cleared up to me, it becomes all the more apparent just how full of crap you are. lol.

And what would that be? Oh right you're pulling the "I know more dirty secrets I just can't say it because I'm actually full of hot air line"

So what did Grub do to provoke them? Hoo says he didn't do squat, and I'm pretty sure as a direct ally of both parties, he's more of an authority on the subject than you. Who is just posturing.

Saying to refer to the above when you don't have a case to begin with doesnt answer anything. lol.

Grub provoked \m/ when he came into a situation that didn't require him to. I believe Hoo was referring to the profanity used against grub when he's speaking about provoking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the war isn't about tech raiding then? Make up your mind and try to find an argument to stick to.
I never said it was. But you're the one who did.
Considering the main motivator for polar being involved at all was because \m/ raided, that similarity holds a lot more true.

So it's against tech raiding alliances? I know several alliances whom allow that.

It's funny to see you just throwing out nonsense.
And what would that be? Oh right you're pulling the "I know more dirty secrets I just can't say it because I'm actually full of hot air line"

Oh, not me.

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.

Ha ha.

Grub provoked \m/ when he came into a situation that didn't require him to. I believe Hoo was referring to the profanity used against grub when he's speaking about provoking.
Grub didn't say anything to \m/ to start the commentary in \m/'s channel.
Riiiiight.

Who's the one full of hot air, again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said it was. But you're the one who did.

So the war is over the profanity used against Grub? Not at all about raiding alliances like all the polars are talking about? Thanks for confirming that

It's funny to see you just throwing out nonsense.

Really? You just pulled out a quote relating to a separate line of argument from a separate thread and just threw it in here? I knew I shouldn't have expected any better of you.

Oh, not me.

Ha ha.

Like I said before, if this war is just about him being butt hurt over being called bad names that's fine. Disguising it as a crusade against tech raiding alliances is just sneaky and not something he needs to do.

Riiiiight.

Who's the one full of hot air, again?

<Hoo[AWAY]> As far as my comments in the DoW, I meant in their channel

<Hoo[AWAY]> He didn't do anything to cause them to insult him or go after him

Yes see he was referring to the comments in the channel. I'm referring towards the whole situation altogether with grub needing to go there on a "diplomatic mission" Funny enough we still haven't found out what that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm flattered to have such a starring role. :P

Having only skimmed the thread, I feel compelled to point out that extending a statement in support of world police to condoning all police actions is a fallacy.

As much as people want to seem to distance themselves from "morality," this conflict is simply a competition between two moral standards.

\m/ would have no room to complain about Polar if the CB were "tech raid, pm for peace."

That's not Polar's reason, so the issue becomes more complicated. Some people want to call Polar hypocrites for pushing around a smaller alliance for pushing around a smaller alliance. They would be correct if Polar were justifying it as "but they did it first!" Polar is doing it because bullying smaller alliances is wrong and they believe in a self-limiting community that provides consequences for irresponsible actions. As it is a reactionary move with different motivations and goals it is not hypocritical.

Others think that the CB given was disingenuous, a stance that I cannot demonstrate to be false, but is pretty silly.

Polar is neither dishonest nor hypocritical. The clash between the supporting and objecting camps is a moral one. The Polar camp asserts that tech raiding alliances is a deplorable act and it is reasonable to apply consequences to those who do it. I happily ascribe to that.

Those objecting, in spite of trying to use "moralist" as a pejorative, are also taking a moral stance. They hold that tech raiding in this fashion is acceptable and that enforcing a moral code to the contrary is wrong. I'm not a moral relativist. I believe that I am right and they are wrong, but by the nature of the beast it is not demonstrable which is "correct."

Warrior Concept is not a hypocrite for being in favor of world police but not in favor of police actions that conflict with his morals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the war is over the profanity used against Grub? Not at all about raiding alliances like all the polars are talking about? Thanks for confirming that
All they've said is that \m/ went out of their way to piss off Grub, and provoked him. Thats the only reason given. Besides, if it actually were about raiding alliances, shouldnt you be in support of Polaris rolling \m/ as a consequence? You did say they'd have no business complaining about it, after all.
Really? You just pulled out a quote relating to a separate line of argument from a separate thread and just threw it in here? I knew I shouldn't have expected any better of you.
Mind explaining how it's separate? I'm pretty sure the context was well established by the OP.
Like I said before, if this war is just about him being butt hurt over being called bad names that's fine. Disguising it as a crusade against tech raiding alliances is just sneaky and not something he needs to do.
So if you're fine if it's about them tech raiding. And you're fine if it's because \m/ asked for it, then why are you throwing a hissy fit over it being for either reason? Unless you're full of crap, in which case, everything is reconciled.
<Hoo[AWAY]> As far as my comments in the DoW, I meant in their channel

<Hoo[AWAY]> He didn't do anything to cause them to insult him or go after him

Yes see he was referring to the comments in the channel. I'm referring towards the whole situation altogether with grub needing to go there on a "diplomatic mission" Funny enough we still haven't found out what that is.

How does that even make a difference? It doesn't. So are you saying if a civilian steps onto a land mine without knowing it was there, does that make them the one at fault?

Because it's more or less the same thing, the only crime they made was "being there". [ooc]If you're gonna say that idling in a channel that you ostensibly had no business being in is a crime now, then let's see you launch a faux crusade against 90% of folks who use IRC.[/ooc]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said, bzelger. I agree with everything you've said. But here's the crux of what I'm saying:

Warrior Concept is not a hypocrite for being in favor of world police but not in favor of police actions that conflict with his morals.

What are Warriorconcept's morals? He's done a wonderful job railing against both reasons, so I look forward to seeing where exactly his beliefs lie, which somehow reconcile the positions he's taken.

Edited by Chron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All they've said is that \m/ went out of their way to piss off Grub, and provoked him. Thats the only reason given. Besides, if it actually were about raiding alliances, shouldnt you be in support of Polaris rolling \m/ as a consequence? You did say they'd have no business complaining about it, after all.

So the war is just because he got pissed they called him names. OK.

Mind explaining how it's separate? I'm pretty sure the context was well established by the OP.

That was in relation to talking about CNARF and regarding tech raiding as being the reason for war. Didn't you just say it had nothing to do with tech raiding?

So if you're fine if it's about them tech raiding. And you're fine if it's because \m/ asked for it, then why are you throwing a hissy fit over it being for either reason? Unless you're full of crap, in which case, everything is reconciled.

I said the problem was if it was being disguised as it being a crusade against tech raiding alliances. Reading comprehension, it helps.

How does that even make a difference? It doesn't. So are you saying if a civilian steps onto a land mine without knowing it was there, does that make them the one at fault?

Because it's more or less the same thing, the only crime they made was "being there". [ooc]If you're gonna say that idling in a channel that you ostensibly had no business being in is a crime now, then let's see you launch a faux crusade against 90% of folks who use IRC.[/ooc]

First of all I never care for analogies and I never argue them, so don't expect anything there.

As well:

<Hoo[AWAY]> I believe he said "as long as you follow common raid guidelines" or something like that

He was there doing something, basically putting his nose where it didn't need to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are Warriorconcept's morals? He's done a wonderful job railing against both reasons, so I look forward to seeing where exactly his beliefs lie, which somehow reconcile the positions he's taken.

Well I and my friends and even bzelger seem to grasp what that is. Just because you can't is your own fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...