mmansfield68 Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) Wait, it wasn't disbanding it was to be an eternal tech farm. Later he said it was a joke, but at that time no one knew that. So did sponge force us to disband over that? \m/ didn't disband because ES deemed it....they disbanded of their own accord. I was a Polar General, I was there. Anyone whose ever played this game knows that no one can force an alliance to disband. It can only EVAR disband of its' own accord. \m/ made the decision, not ES. Edit: [sp?] Edited January 25, 2010 by mmansfield68 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 the NPO got rolled for revenge. Morals are a perversion to get what you want and look good doing it. What do you call NPO attacking OV then? Wasn't that the reason NPO got rolled, or just an excuse? If it was an excuse, then why did NPO give them that excuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 the NPO got rolled for revenge. Morals are a perversion to get what you want and look good doing it. I don't believe that's what Archon, the former voice of Karma, stated. If you have proof that he was lying or using morals as a tool, I would like to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternalis Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 So they have control over what infra or tech is lost? Nah.. I must be dreaming, because there is no way this line of thinking is catching on. Wake up spoil, wake up. you obviously have no idea what sovereignty is or means. Nations that are attacked still have every freedom to act as they wish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Meanĕ Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 So they have control over what infra or tech is lost? Nah.. I must be dreaming, because there is no way this line of thinking is catching on. Wake up spoil, wake up. Sorry, but this has been the way of thinking since the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Yawn. This community has descended into a new level of petty pathetic behavior. When multiple alliances who fought for a better world, will accept that \m/ are allowed to do whatever they like because they are sovereign, and that no one can touch anyone for any reason unless they happen to land on the opposite side of the ''treaty web'' you have a giant Charlie Foxtrot of stagnation spiralling into complete anarchy backed by the appearance of order. To all and sundry, I started what I started because I believe, I still do. I am just ashamed that some of my allies and their friends have such a desire for their own political agenda that they will not look at a slightly bigger picture. You will get what you want, your shot at the title, but it will be at a great cost, one I don't think you can comprehend just yet. If this ends in peace today, there will still be a massive fall out, things will never ever be the same. Reap what you sow, so plant while you may. Damn you for making me agree with you! But I still reserve the right to raided the unalined/untreatied Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Meanĕ Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 \m/ didn't disband because ES deemed it....they disbanded of their own accord. I was a Polar General, I was there. Anyone whose ever played this game knows that no one can force an alliance to disband. It can only EVAR disband of its' own accord. \m/ made the decision, not ES. Edit: [sp?] And thus the point I am making how we did not force FoA to do anything. Everything they did was of their own accord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Obama Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Except their charter, until the recent changes, see http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki//m/_(2nd) , that recognized the community standard and public opinion. Again it was stated in a way that you could not interpret it any other way. Well, \m/ obviously does interpret it in a different way. I see no reason to try to force them too see it your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoiL Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Ok then, the surrender terms do not infringe on \m/'s sovereignty because \m/ has the right to not accept them. This is idiotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innerspeaker Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Keep fighting the good fight, Polaris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 And thus the point I am making how we did not force FoA to do anything. Everything they did was of their own accord. But you greatly influenced their decision. I can beat up a guy and tell him he had the choice to either stop the beatings by giving me his wallet or he can choose not to do so and get beaten. Now, can I claim that I had nothing to do with his decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 And now we've gotten to the point where every alliance that has ever caused damage to another nation or alliance is a heinous criminal. Seriously, read what you're posting and think it over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternalis Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 What do you call NPO attacking OV then? Wasn't that the reason NPO got rolled, or just an excuse?If it was an excuse, then why did NPO give them that excuse? While the CB was absolutely legitimate, the main fuel was revenge. NPO attacking OV was absolutely foolish because it gave people wanting to attack them a good CB. While this situation is near the same, but lacking the legitimate CB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Meanĕ Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Ok then, the surrender terms do not infringe on \m/'s sovereignty because \m/ has the right to not accept them. This is idiotic. The terms are specifically making us act in a certain way. That is infringing on our sovereignty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireandthepassion Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Answer me how are we making them do anything? As far as I see we only provide a reason to act, and we do not force any action to be taken. FoA was outnumbered by 3 alliances. Do you honestly think FoA had anyway to mount a successful counter-attack? I highly doubt you would have allowed FoA to retaliate to defend themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternalis Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 FoA was outnumbered by 3 alliances. Do you honestly think FoA had anyway to mount a successful counter-attack? I highly doubt you would have allowed FoA to retaliate to defend themselves. an alliance is always allowed to counter-attack. Their ability to do so is something completely different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Oh, and I would like to say that I do approve of the use of subtitles in this thread, though they might need to be more descriptive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireandthepassion Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Well, \m/ obviously does interpret it in a different way. I see no reason to try to force them too see it your way. Then \m/ should learn how to comprehend what they write. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
519 Nigras Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 This post acts with impunity as "Ha, I proved you wrong that such a large alliance had never been raided before". But please do take a moment and closely consider your posts, the NPO ended up getting rolled in Karma for actions such as that. So I'm not really seeing how you can use the "BUT GPA WAS RAIDED BEFORE!" argument as a rationalization for why \m/ can raid FoA, clearly NPO paid dearly for such actions, as you guys are doing so now, whether its justified or not Are you just making that stuff up for the sake of arguing on a particular side of this conflict? If so, it is not going to work. GPA was "tech raided" by alliances on both sides of the Karma war and moreover, the Valentines day war and the Karma war were more than a year and a half apart. So if you're trying to say that NPO, and only NPO, paid dearly for their poor actions towards GPA a year and a half after the fact then I have to ask, did you support the Athens/RoK CB against TPF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Obama Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Then \m/ should learn how to comprehend what they write. And you're going to try to force them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acetone Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Then \m/ should learn how to comprehend what they write. I clarified this already, \m/'s charter only states the rules for individual nations. A raid with two other alliances isn't covered, so it's up to the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireandthepassion Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 And you're going to try to force them? Via proxy through Grub yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 And now we've gotten to the point where every alliance that has ever caused damage to another nation or alliance is a heinous criminal. Seriously, read what you're posting and think it over. Mostly just the ones that have done so without just cause, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DictatatorDan Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Most of the commings and goings on this forum are complete and utter drivel. An atmosphere where anything of any intellectual value cannot exist here, but god forbid, I'll try. Alliances derive their sovereignity from their individual ability to get things done. As a group, all of the collective alliances in the Cyberverse have standards that are set and followed. Every alliance has a certain degree of responsibility to one another. However an alliance can only remain soverign so long as it can retain control of its internal and external affairs. This retention of control is the most important aspect of sovereignity. An alliances posses a right to control its affairs, as long as it has the ability to ensure that its affairs can go on unhampered by the will of others. Without the means or desire to back up its claims, an alliances sovereignity is forfeited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmansfield68 Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Ok then, the surrender terms do not infringe on \m/'s sovereignty because \m/ has the right to not accept them. This is idiotic. Idiotic, yes. Predictable, yes. It is what it is.... o/ Polaris! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts