Marty McFly Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 It sure is if I have anything to say about it. I, for one, didn't fight in Karma just to change which Order got to curbstomp any alliance they didn't like. I'm speechless... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabonnobar Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Heh, decent terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 You're asking them to surrender and give over their sovereignty wholesale by aligning their techraiding policies to "community standards" which is high-horse speak for "public opinion." I'd cuss you out, too. \m/ sort of gave up their leeway to cry about sovereignty when they trampled all over someone else's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheyCallMeJeezy Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 It sure is if I have anything to say about it. I, for one, didn't fight in Karma just to change which Order got to curbstomp any alliance they didn't like. Right, you fought in Karma so that alliance may raid whomever they want without consequence. Noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingEd Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Indeed. I thought the world police era was over. That's the conclusion I've come too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilber Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 It sure is if I have anything to say about it. I, for one, didn't fight in Karma just to change which Order got to curbstomp any alliance they didn't like. No, you fought in Karma so that you guys could curbstomp any alliance you didn't like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I'm speechless... Hard to argue with the truth, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 It sure is if I have anything to say about it. I, for one, didn't fight in Karma just to change which Order got to curbstomp any alliance they didn't like. \m/ doesn't have "Order" in their name. :-s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 \m/ sort of gave up their leeway to cry about sovereignty when they trampled all over someone else's. Attacking someone does not infringe on their sovereignty; it infringes on their territory. Forcing alliances or rulers to act in a certain way does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 This is zombie \m/. You have to use better weapons to kill zombies. Or at least aim better. That being said, one man's sovereignty ends when it interferes with another's. Or at least, that's my personal thought on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 No, you fought in Karma so that you guys could curbstomp any alliance you didn't like. How many alliances have been curbstomped after Karma just out of dislike for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLights Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Seems like tech raiding is about to go out of style... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilber Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 How many alliances have been curbstomped after Karma just out of dislike for them? You guys tried for TPF. That one didn't work out so great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 How dare you insist they follow their charter! You outrageous fiend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Seems like tech raiding is about to go out of style... No, making terrible decisions while tech raiding is going out of style..oh wait it never was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingEd Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Seems like tech raiding is about to go out of style... If Polar gets its way, then yes, it will. But why should we be held accountable or better yet, at the mercy of what Polaris deems to be "politically correct" ? In essence they are violating every alliance's sovereignty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fingolfin Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 It sure is if I have anything to say about it. I, for one, didn't fight in Karma just to change which Order got to curbstomp any alliance they didn't like. Obligatory, do something about it. NpO aren't violating anything anymore than \m/ did. \m/ decided they had the right to attack FoA and did so. Polaris decided that they didn't think that move was acceptable so they attacked \m/. Alliances exercising their own free will and backing up their opinions with force. Kudos to both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voytek Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) Hard to argue with the truth, huh? Didn't Archon already tell you guys to stop making these kinds of posts? Edited January 25, 2010 by Voytek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozenrpg Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 No, you fought in Karma so that you guys could curbstomp any alliance you didn't like. No, I fought in the Karma war because I don't like Order(s). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 \m/ sort of gave up their leeway to cry about sovereignty when they trampled all over someone else's. And, I'm not in \m/. This is no longer about \m/; it's about everyone, just as Polaris claims that FOA is about everyone. If I decide that CoJ needs practice and I direct the Cult to attack a small alliance tomorrow, Polaris is asserting that they may attack me not as an exercise of their right to declare war as they see fit, too, but in order to prevent CoJ from acting in a way they dislike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 How dare you insist they follow their charter! You outrageous fiend. Why, if they didn't want to adhere to their own vague generalizations, why even include them at all? They would have been better off not including that section to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Attacking someone does not infringe on their sovereignty; it infringes on their territory. Forcing alliances or rulers to act in a certain way does. Hey guess what Schatt -- use of force to coerce people out of performing a certain action is an infringement on their sovereignty. Guess what \m/ et al did? Threatened use of force on FOA if they retaliated against those "raiding" them. You can split hairs all the time. \m/ is reaping the whirlwind. I never thought I'd see you advocating alliances randomly curbstomping other alliances just because they can. Again, I yield back to August 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 You guys tried for TPF. That one didn't work out so great. Try harder Dilber. You may argue Athens was incompetent for that decision to proceed on those logs etc, but they felt it was justified. There was no attempt to roll TPF because they didn't like them, it was because of what Zero Hour told them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 You're asking them to surrender and give over their sovereignty wholesale by aligning their techraiding policies to "community standards" which is high-horse speak for "public opinion." I'd cuss you out, too. No, we are asking them to follow their own charter that is aligned with the community standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acetone Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 How dare you insist they follow their charter! You outrageous fiend. "VI. Nation-on-Nation War: 1. \m/ does not promote or encourage single-nation war, but will allow individuals to fight in accordance with the following guidelines..." We never broke it. A group raid with two friends along for the ride isn't covered in our charter, it's at the discretion of the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts