Fireandthepassion Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Well there you go. They hit \m/ because they could. That's why \m/ hit FoA. Welp, I'm done here. If we wanted to hit \m/ because we could Grub wouldn't have issued an ultimatum to avoid war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted January 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Well there you go. They hit \m/ because they could. That's why \m/ hit FoA. Welp, I'm done here. Because people not from our Imperial Command, but from a different alliance altogether, have told you something? Seriously, get some caffeine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 wait I thought I killed \m/ already You did. This is zombie \m/. And I have a chainsaw and a shotgun. Also hello. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 And no one called AlmightyGrub has ever suggested you won't, shouldn't or can not. Then why the hell are we fighting this war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireandthepassion Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I think you're arguing with yourself there. From my understand of "community standards" alliances without a treaty are valid raid targets. "Community standards" also dictate that when you raid it's a smaller alliance. Unless you're saying community standards are wrong? Where are you getting your community standards? The precedence is that an alliance over so many nations is a recognized alliance. You want to know why that is? It's quite simple. Even though, like many other people, I become annoyed by the number of DoEs that people make they have a right to do that. They have a right to solidarity and peace. You should not have to fret about a bunch of pathetic bullies from taking those rights from you. Making protectorates or MD(oA)Ps mandatory is taking away sovereign rights of those alliances to have the right to be isolated and living in peace. Not all isolated and politically neutral alliances should have to have a declaration of neutrality that other people have to sign. Again that is partially taking away their sovereign right to exist because you have to clear yourself off people's radars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Where are you getting your community standards? The precedence is that an alliance over so many nations is a recognized alliance. You want to know why that is? It's quite simple. Even though, like many other people, I become annoyed by the number of DoEs that people make they have a right to do that. They have a right to solidarity and peace. You should not have to fret about a bunch of pathetic bullies from taking those rights from you. Making protectorates or MD(oA)Ps mandatory is taking away sovereign rights of those alliances to have the right to be isolated and living in peace. Not all isolated and politically neutral alliances should have to have a declaration of neutrality that other people have to sign. Again that is partially taking away their sovereign right to exist because you have to clear yourself off people's radars. So you agree that "community standards" are crap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireandthepassion Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 So you agree that "community standards" are crap? Yeah sure lets just go with that since lately you have not shown any sort of capacity that you once had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Yeah sure lets just go with that since lately you have not shown any sort of capacity that you once had. They have a right to solidarity and peace. You should not have to fret about a bunch of pathetic bullies from taking those rights from you. Making protectorates or MD(oA)Ps mandatory is taking away sovereign rights of those alliances to have the right to be isolated and living in peace. Not all isolated and politically neutral alliances should have to have a declaration of neutrality that other people have to sign. Again that is partially taking away their sovereign right to exist because you have to clear yourself off people's radars. That right there is the implementation of community standards. Standards polar is trying to uphold, is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Well there you go. They hit \m/ because they could. That's why \m/ hit FoA. Welp, I'm done here. yes, cuz that is what i said. i was not disputing an argument at all. come on Megaros, you are better than that. I think you're arguing with yourself there. From my understand of "community standards" alliances without a treaty are valid raid targets. "Community standards" also dictate that when you raid it's a smaller alliance. Unless you're saying community standards are wrong? so since tech raiding began, alliances the size of FoA, KoN, and California have always been raided? prove yourself true, and you might have a leg to stand on WC. So you agree that "community standards" are crap? actually, i think he said your "community standards" are crap as they are false. otherwise, everyone, even those on \m/'s side would be saying that \m/ did nothing wrong. but thus far, most alliances are stating that \m/ raiding FoA was in fact wrong. thus proving that the "community standards" that Grub described do in fact exist. but you can state that they don't, i just want to see the proof? don't forget the public outcry against the Athens/FoB raid on KoN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 so since tech raiding began, alliances the size of FoA, KoN, and California have always been raided? prove yourself true, and you might have a leg to stand on WC. I said they were valid targets, not that they had been raided in the past. actually, i think he said your "community standards" are crap as they are false. otherwise, everyone, even those on \m/'s side would be saying that \m/ did nothing wrong. but thus far, most alliances are stating that \m/ raiding FoA was in fact wrong. thus proving that the "community standards" that Grub described do in fact exist. but you can state that they don't, i just want to see the proof? don't forget the public outcry against the Athens/FoB raid on KoN. If you read his post, even his community standards are crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 If we wanted to hit \m/ because we could Grub wouldn't have issued an ultimatum to avoid war. Because people not from our Imperial Command, but from a different alliance altogether, have told you something? Seriously, get some caffeine. yes, cuz that is what i said. i was not disputing an argument at all. come on Megaros, you are better than that. For avoiding war: Then why did war happen? Why was Polar the aggressor? Even if you offer peace you attacked. Wait, are you all debating the fact that you could attack \m/? You noticed we had little treaties, and you attacked. I'm not bothered by it, it's just what happened. You have your opening, your indignation, and you struck. You could. You even had a lot of public opinion on your side. Besides Grub, you should know that Moridin is a dirty spy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taget Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 The dragon slips into the water. And the tiger bites its claws. And we'll sing only as angels sing. The floor will clear, we'll walk with eyes fixed forward and fists raised high. The world is our shining oyster and we're its precious pearls. And nothing, no one will stand in our way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I said they were valid targets, not that they had been raided in the past. If you read his post, even his community standards are crap. Didn't you say you were fine with \m/ getting attacked, or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Didn't you say you were fine with \m/ getting attacked, or something? Congratulations once again you reference a post with an argument that has nothing at all to do with the conversation that was happening. Welcome to my ignore list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Congratulations once again you reference a post with an argument that has nothing at all to do with the conversation that was happening. Welcome to my ignore list. How classy of you, well, it's not like the rest of your arguments aren't filled with blatant hypocrisy anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistledown Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Is it slightly ironic that this made me dislike the CB even more? It's one thing to take a stand against an action. It's another to start setting "community standards" which you can act upon in an unrelated incident. I mean, take \m/ to task for making the action- as well as the others who did it, I might add- but this truly does make you world police. If you're willing to go to war for community standards, will you now seek war against alliances which have spied on other alliances? After all, the community generally accepts that spying is not okay, and as far as I know every alliance agrees, at least outwardly- and "if the community has a standard, if the alliance in question has a standard and then that standard is broken, surely there is an obligation for the community to say something? Polaris is a part of the community is it not?" Punishing them for their actions is one thing, but you are trying to out and out set a moral code for the game. Each alliance must do that for themselves. You can punish them if it's against your values, but you can't try to force them to accept your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I said they were valid targets, not that they had been raided in the past. If you read his post, even his community standards are crap. for one, the fact that they have not been raided in the past, proves that by community standards it is unspoken that they should not be raided. the fact that there was such an outcry every time they were, shows that the community wishes for that unspoken rule to remain intact. the above proves your last sentence false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Guys, guys! Hold on a second here. I just realized that as a result of this war my nation has become slightly weaker: I've lost infrastructure & tech... many of my soldiers are dead. Some unpleasant fellow even launched a nuclear missile at me. I really didn't sign up for this; I think we'd better call the whole thing off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferinrothaic Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Guys, guys! Hold on a second here. I just realized that as a result of this war my nation has become slightly weaker: I've lost infrastructure & tech... many of my soldiers are dead. Some unpleasant fellow even launched a nuclear missile at me. I really didn't sign up for this; I think we'd better call the whole thing off. Wait, nobody said anything about losing pixels. /me heads for the resignation thread and joins GPA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Wait, nobody said anything about losing pixels. /me heads for the resignation thread and joins GPA In before Woodstock Techraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted January 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Besides Grub, you should know that Moridin is a dirty spy. I know he is, I am watching him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted January 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Is it slightly ironic that this made me dislike the CB even more? It's one thing to take a stand against an action. It's another to start setting "community standards" which you can act upon in an unrelated incident. I mean, take \m/ to task for making the action- as well as the others who did it, I might add- but this truly does make you world police. If you're willing to go to war for community standards, will you now seek war against alliances which have spied on other alliances? After all, the community generally accepts that spying is not okay, and as far as I know every alliance agrees, at least outwardly- and "if the community has a standard, if the alliance in question has a standard and then that standard is broken, surely there is an obligation for the community to say something? Polaris is a part of the community is it not?" Punishing them for their actions is one thing, but you are trying to out and out set a moral code for the game. Each alliance must do that for themselves. You can punish them if it's against your values, but you can't try to force them to accept your own. That would be a wonderful statement if I had dreamed up the notion relating to the protocols of tech raiding wouldn't it. But alas, it appears to be the standard of most of the people crying a river right here... check the actual statement you are making here, it is simply ridiculous. Polars standard for tech raiding is zero... but thats not what we are asking for is it? mmm? no? right then, so get your knickers out of a knot and actually look objectively at the whole situation and attack me from a different angle, I am not wearing that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred von Tirpitz Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Just curious...but what gives NpO or any alliance for that matter to dictate how another manages/enforces their charter? That'd be like me telling an alliance that per their charter all members are to be on (for sake of example) the red team. Then declaring on that alliance because they have a couple of people on the blue team. Surely you can give a better reason then "we're trying to enforce their own charter"? Planet Bob is cool that way, no one has any rights to do anything to anyone; at the same time every one and their pet fish have the right to do anything they want. It is mostly by a general sense of what most people find acceptable, that things are kept from blowing up. Seemingly, this mechanism has ceased to function, i blame those funny men in white coats blasting shock waves into the planet's core. Something had to give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 That would be a wonderful statement if I had dreamed up the notion relating to the protocols of tech raiding wouldn't it. But alas, it appears to be the standard of most of the people crying a river right here... check the actual statement you are making here, it is simply ridiculous. Polars standard for tech raiding is zero... but thats not what we are asking for is it? mmm? no? right then, so get your knickers out of a knot and actually look objectively at the whole situation and attack me from a different angle, I am not wearing that one. No, you have stated you desired \m/ to adhere to the "community standard for tech raiding". This "community" you spoke of seems to be largely divided in this, so how can you claim to be speaking for the "community"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 That would be a wonderful statement if I had dreamed up the notion relating to the protocols of tech raiding wouldn't it. But alas, it appears to be the standard of most of the people crying a river right here... check the actual statement you are making here, it is simply ridiculous. Polars standard for tech raiding is zero... but thats not what we are asking for is it? mmm? no? right then, so get your knickers out of a knot and actually look objectively at the whole situation and attack me from a different angle, I am not wearing that one. How can you go around telling your allies to look at the big picture when you are horribly short sighted? You told me I was the new Hegemony when I asked you to look at the big picture. If you were to look at the whole situation objectively, you would realize that your actions are ill advised. I appreciate you standing up for the little guy but at what cost? Have you really taken a step back and looked at what this has done to your allies? Listen, most of us despise \m/ and love watching them burn but at the same time most of us have an issue with your "enforcing" the community standards. And before you accuse me of having a side, I am displeased with both sides in this conflict and you both share equal amounts of blame for how far this is gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts