Krack Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 (edited) [quote name='LiquidMercury' date='24 February 2010 - 12:10 AM' timestamp='1266992058' post='2200756'] That's just a byproduct of CnG/SF/the rest of the world not giving us white peace Nobody is forcing them to not give us white peace or forcing them to let their lower-mid-tier to be destroyed for months. That at least is an argument grounded in reality. EDIT: Fixed pronouns. [/quote] Hey, if they're stupid enough to let you off the hook, I can't stop them. Everyone knows these wars are won in the upper tier; remove your's and your alliance is useless for years. If that means the alliances on my side have to let their lower tiers get beaten up for a month or two ... well, that's the price you pay, imo. That lower tier can be rebuilt quickly once the war is over, but if they remove your war chests and/or put a bunch of your nations in bill lock, you can't rebuild your alliance quickly. They'd be foolish to let you have the capability to come back at them again in 6 months;* particularly when your tech advantage will let you rebuild stronger and faster than any of their alliances could. [size="1"]*"Oh, Krack ... that'll never happen!" *Looks at IRON* "Nevermind."[/size] Edited February 24, 2010 by Krack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='Haflinger' date='23 February 2010 - 11:47 PM' timestamp='1266990685' post='2200680'] The guys you're arguing with were mostly all in Grämlins then. Remember this was before Grämlins split in two. [/quote] i know this as i joined Grämlins in Nov after the SPW. [quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='23 February 2010 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1266990811' post='2200687'] Flak's argument is specious at best. TOP didn't just decide on a fair spring day that out of the blue they were going to DoW on C&G while the rest of the world was at peace. My best analogy is you see a streetfight between some of your friends and your enemies, your friend calls out for you to help crack this guys skull open but instead you opt to take out the guy who is a friend of your enemy and is running towards the conflict with a gun ready to shoot you should you jump into the brawl. You make it sound like C&G was a little old lady crossing the street and TOP was a gang-banger who decided to grab a crowbar and start tuning her up [/quote] that would work as an analogy if that is what occurred. instead they(TOP/IRON) see a street fight between some of their friends and their enemies, their friend calls out for them to help crack this guys skull open but instead they opt to take out the guy standing to the sides with a bullhorn telling to two main opponents they need to stop fighting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 Hey Krack, you should read the FOK thread, where C&G are claiming that TOP have the advantage in the upper tier, before talking about 'lower mid tier'. Also, while no-one forced TOP to do the stupid things which they have done, no-one is forcing C&G to prolong the war or refuse to discuss peace either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affluenza Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 February 2010 - 03:56 PM' timestamp='1267027221' post='2201486'] Hey Krack, you should read the FOK thread, where C&G are claiming that TOP have the advantage in the upper tier, before talking about 'lower mid tier'. Also, while no-one forced TOP to do the stupid things which they have done, no-one is forcing C&G to prolong the war or refuse to discuss peace either. [/quote] Exactly we wanna keep those who attacked us locked in war...what's the issue here? You think we care about pixels or stats dropping? Some TOP members have said they would like an eternal war...well lets see if we can't make their Viet-TOP wishes come true... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='Affluenza' date='24 February 2010 - 11:27 AM' timestamp='1267029066' post='2201531'] Exactly we wanna keep those who attacked us locked in war...what's the issue here? You think we care about pixels or stats dropping? Some TOP members have said they would like an eternal war...well lets see if we can't make their Viet-TOP wishes come true... [/quote] Be careful what you wish for...you might just receive it. Actually, I hope you get exactly what you wish for...it will make the second attack wave's job easier in 6 months. Oh wait, you thought this is the war to end all wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affluenza Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='ChairmanHal' date='24 February 2010 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1267029281' post='2201536'] Be careful what you wish for...you might just receive it. Actually, I hope you get exactly what you wish for...it will make the second attack wave's job easier in 6 months. Oh wait, you thought this is the war to end all wars. [/quote] Ofcourse there is no final victory or defeat in war/politics/life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krack Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 February 2010 - 09:56 AM' timestamp='1267027221' post='2201486'] Hey Krack, you should read the FOK thread, where C&G are claiming that TOP have the advantage in the upper tier, before talking about 'lower mid tier'. Also, while no-one forced TOP to do the stupid things which they have done, no-one is forcing C&G to prolong the war or refuse to discuss peace either. [/quote] Oh Bob, you're such the military expert. Two weeks of nuke war and short of having 15,000 tech, you're now fighting in the lower side of the mid tier of nations. You can only have so much nation strength with zero infrastructure. The only difference, of course, between TOP nations and opposing forces, is that the opposing forces largest nations won't be collecting in anarchy in perpetuity; the opposing forces will regain their upper-tier as a result of the sheer numbers of nations involved. It will only take 250 nations at a time to keep TOP pinned in anarchy and, while I haven't run the numbers, I estimate that leaves about 5 to 6 thousand nations to rebuild and grow unencumbered by war. Every week, you cycle in a new set of 250 nations. Will it be a long, tedious process in which TOP's nations will be constantly putting the mid-sized nations of it's opponents in ZI? Yup. But as I stated earlier, once the war is over, those nations can be restored fairly quickly with aid. And it would be worth it to remove TOP's tech and war chest advantages (that they are so fond of holding over peoples' heads) - once it's gone, it'll never come back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Dochartaigh' date='23 February 2010 - 08:20 PM' timestamp='1266974620' post='2200216'] where did i ever say that? i stated that Polaris fought the SPW due to their past. it was the other side who mostly forgave. though that is not entirely true since while in Citadel, i remember many arguments with TOP and others (though mostly TOP) about Polaris and why many in Cit were still wary of Polaris. so to state i ever said they were forgiven is false. nor did i ever state anything about other victims and what not. all i stated was that you seem to want this to end because you are good friends with TOP and nothing more. i never saw this post when Gremlins was fighting Polaris because of Polaris's past and because ES stated he wanted to dance on TOP's/Citadel's graves. i never saw this post in the Karma war either. i am just amused that when it is TOP, all of sudden you are all about "lets end this nonsense." [/quote] You proved my point if anything. I was making a point that just because a few got revenge on Polaris doesn't mean "everyone" who they ever "violated" or "generally offended" has, and if "everyone" were dwellers of the long long past, people would be paying triple jeopardies which isn't moral in my opinion. Just because Polaris paid their dues to one faction doesn't necessarily mean another faction is satisfied, thus, we have hatred, old grudges, and childish petulance existing, though in all fairness, this is subjective based upon said actions. I find it funny you reference Polaris when they have done more foul than TOP has even come close to. In your example, that is exactly what I am speaking of. A few got revenge, or rather, had Polaris 'pay for their past,' but others who didn't single handedly get involved still thirsted it. If this continues, you have grudges, irrationality, and complete nonsense plaguing the foreign front, which has been brilliantly done in the past 3 years. You apparently wish for people to pay for their past, which, I feel is illogical if alliances show their changeability; which, if you deny TOPs' recent progress, you're alluded by illogical biased nonsense rather than observable, constructive analysis. Their views on playability have changed and even their biggest adversaries will admit in recent times they have displayed this. As I said, white peace is subjective, but so is harsh terms. What I have stated numerous times, which you have blatantly ignored, is I am not all for white peace with TOP as I have stated I generally understand how CnG feels, however, I *DID* say it depends on when said terms are given, the socio-economical status of TOP, and other mitigating circumstances which dictate what is and isn't harsh. Before this war, Polaris has had a decent reputation. Why? Because they have shown themselves to be radically different from their former selves, and you know what? People understand that. People understand they as a faction have changed views of playability and general social norms and understanding of social mores as well. Holding grudges, as you are suggesting, and don't deny it, does nothing. [quote] CN has always dwelt on the past. those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it. this has been proven time and time again on CN. [/quote] No. Most people reference the past. People remember the past. Those who do dwell on the past generally have no understanding of general views in which their biased concerns engulf and rational perception. Noting the past is fine, dwelling is of another nature. A girl who sleeps with 5 men in 5 days when she is 19, marries the next man she meets, has children, loving, and loyal, should not be classified as a whore. [quote] you stated that unreasonable reps were akin to forcefully disbanding an alliance. so do not claim you never said anything about reps. extortionist reps have to be the same as unreasonable given your extreme example of unreasonable reps being akin to forceful disbandment. so yes, given what you said and the simile you attempted to draw from it, you mentioned extortionist reps. [/quote] You are confusing your arguments. I stated unreasonable reps were used to disband alliances, I never once stated it was an acceptable norm of society, which YOU thought I was (Read your comment in which you quoted me). I said other things in the past, such as PZI (which is generally looked down upon) was more acceptable in the older days than now; because times have changed. Never once did I say extornist reps were acceptable by everyone, which you thought I did. [quote] i have compared TOP now to the former TOP. they joined the Blue Balls war iirc, just after 6 days of waiting. not to mention LM was involved in the planning of TPF's side of the BBW. before that we saw TOP use "threat to their security" in their aggressive war on Polaris as well as saw their side (including IRON) launch a preemptive strike against many of Polaris's allies. we saw harsh terms at the end of that war as well which can lead one to believe that if TOP had won this war, we may likely see harsh terms from them yet again considering the same "threat to their security" was the reason given. [/quote] TOP did [b]NOT[/b] join the Blue Balls war over the CB I was referencing, they joined for other reasons. They could have technically joined for the moronic, childish reasoning which would have drawn GRE in, but they didn't care about numbers, they refused to follow Ram's advice because they knew his reasoning was unjustifiable. That war was how many years ago? You reference that war, but what about the KARMA war? The war where they DID give white peace? Exactly. [quote] as for the last war, TPF is the one who gave white peace, everyone else just kinda stopped fighting (honestly, could not even tell if anyone besides TPF was involved in peace talks) the war did not escalate beyond that due to the white peace between Athens/Co and TPF. to state that TOP gave white peace in the last war is misleading. [/quote] White peace was offered in Blue Balls AND Karma. So you're right; there last two wars. [quote] i am bringing up logical facts as much as you are. you are stating your opinion that everyone should forget what TOP did and just end whatever cycle you think is ongoing. tell me where i am the one that is not bringing up logical facts, considering mine are based on CN history and evidence, and yours are based pretty much on what you think should happen. [/quote] Mine ARE based off the recent history, just as yours is, the only problem with your LOGIC (Which is reasoning, not knowledge) is you wishing for TOP to pay for actions well over 1.5-2 years ago is moronic, especially since they have shown considerable change in terms of terms they have offered. Also, there are many logs everywhere of TOP stating, right in the beginning of the Blue Balls War, they were after white peace even BEFORE all of this blew up. So yes, I am basing my logic and reasoning off of the recent history and their recent alliance operations rather than that of 2 years ago, or somewhere along those lines. It is funny how you speak highly of Polaris, but not TOP, but yet admit Polaris changed and TOP hasn't, yet, TOP has shown their changing in terms of 'reps' and terms more than Polaris has if I recall correctly; ESPECIALLY with recent events. [quote] as for painting the whole picture, i could go well into TOP's past including things like them hitting GPA (something that even Polaris did not partake in). so yes, TOP fought the Karma war on the side of MK and Karma and fought well and hard (though some do not seem to think so) but Polaris also fought somewhat on that side as well. so in your opinion, TOP/IRON and everyone on both sides should forget and forgive the mistakes of Grub in this war? i doubt from the posts by TOP that that would ever occur, especially given Saber's post a few pages back stating that he hopes no one would ever forget/forgive Polaris. which brings yet another reason why your point is illogical. TOP won't forget/forgive the slights made against them, why should anyone even consider doing it for TOP? [/quote] What is your point of bringing Saber up? Because he is just as wrong, and I will not resort to being illogical and saying otherwise. This is the circle I was speaking about and it gets no one no where. If you want TOP dead, do so because of their stupid recent actions, not because of things happening over 2 years ago. [quote] seriously, WoTC. that is when/where. TOP and friends hit Polaris because ES stated he wanted to dance on their graves. don't even attempt to state otherwise because i remember debating that exact thing while in Gremlins on the TOP forums. that was one of the primary reasons behind the war for TOP and they based it off of Polaris's pension for aggressive wars. i am always up for a logical debate as well so long as you stop stating that because i do not agree with you i am somehow not bringin logic to this debate. [/quote] Ah yes, no, I agree with your statement. My mind is muddled, were they allied to CnG at that point in time? [quote] once again, you are assuming that he ceased bullying period. i simply pointed out that a bully may cease bullying you but could very well have just switched targets. i never called them a bully, i simply used your analogy in a different way than it seems you intended it to be used for. [/quote] You certainly did: [quote]your bully analogy only works if the bully stops bullying everyone. if he stops bullying you and moves onto another target, then he is still a bully. this is essentially what TOP did. they moved on from Polaris and targeted CnG.[/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believland Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 I hope you all stop being so paranoid. JESUS CHRIST TOP MUST BE EBIL THEY'RE FRIENDS WITH MOST OF OUR FRIENDS! Really guys, obviously you can get along or you're both just... well... not good people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Ejayrazz' date='24 February 2010 - 08:04 PM' timestamp='1267063672' post='2202388'] You proved my point if anything. I was making a point that just because a few got revenge on Polaris doesn't mean "everyone" who they ever "violated" or "generally offended" has, and if "everyone" were dwellers of the long long past, people would be paying triple jeopardies which isn't moral in my opinion. Just because Polaris paid their dues to one faction doesn't necessarily mean another faction is satisfied, thus, we have hatred, old grudges, and childish petulance existing, though in all fairness, this is subjective based upon said actions. I find it funny you reference Polaris when they have done more foul than TOP has even come close to. In your example, that is exactly what I am speaking of. A few got revenge, or rather, had Polaris 'pay for their past,' but others who didn't single handedly get involved still thirsted it. If this continues, you have grudges, irrationality, and complete nonsense plaguing the foreign front, which has been brilliantly done in the past 3 years. You apparently wish for people to pay for their past, which, I feel is illogical if alliances show their changeability; which, if you deny TOPs' recent progress, you're alluded by illogical biased nonsense rather than observable, constructive analysis. Their views on playability have changed and even their biggest adversaries will admit in recent times they have displayed this. As I said, white peace is subjective, but so is harsh terms. What I have stated numerous times, which you have blatantly ignored, is I am not all for white peace with TOP as I have stated I generally understand how CnG feels, however, I *DID* say it depends on when said terms are given, the socio-economical status of TOP, and other mitigating circumstances which dictate what is and isn't harsh. Before this war, Polaris has had a decent reputation. Why? Because they have shown themselves to be radically different from their former selves, and you know what? People understand that. People understand they as a faction have changed views of playability and general social norms and understanding of social mores as well. Holding grudges, as you are suggesting, and don't deny it, does nothing. [/quote] frankly, that is up to whomever wishes to try to get vengeance. what you fail to realize it was TOP who made the first move. TOP who struck out against CnG. so what does that say about TOP's recent "progress"? oh wait, it says exactly what i have been saying, while you seem to solely focus on the few good things they have done, while ignoring the wrong they have done. but i am the one that is being alluded by illogical biased nonsense? the fact that TOP hit CnG aggressively in order to "bloody them" because "CnG was a threat to TOP" is a reversal of any of the progress they may have made. TOP is the one who pushed themselves back into July of 2008 all by themselves. not me. i had forgiven TOP for their actions in the SPW, this was evident from my time in Gremlins. so to state i am holding a grudge because unlike you, i can [i]actually[/i] focus on everything and i choose not to ignore the recent and most relevant facts in regards to TOP. you keep stating that you are unbiased but you consistently only state what good TOP has done, while choosing to ignore the bad and the trends. that is like stating that just because NPO in their heyday, gave white peace to a few alliances, they should have their entire history wiped clean (mind you talking about 2007-2008 era). i doubt even you would say that should have happened. so enough with the "oh but they did do some good things and that should wipe out their entire past as well as their most recent wrong doings" bs. [quote]No. Most people reference the past. People remember the past. Those who do dwell on the past generally have no understanding of general views in which their biased concerns engulf and rational perception. Noting the past is fine, dwelling is of another nature. A girl who sleeps with 5 men in 5 days when she is 19, marries the next man she meets, has children, loving, and loyal, should not be classified as a whore.[/quote] so from your viewpoint, the past don't matter. okay then. stop bringing up anything that goes beyond TOP aggressively declaring on CnG because they stated CnG was a threat. anything that TOP did that was good in the past is useless and should not be dwelt upon by your own statements. noting it is fine but only their most recent actions (i.e. aggressive war on alliances with a CB that is basically the CB that NPO used quite often) should be the sole focus. that still works for me then. [quote]You are confusing your arguments. I stated unreasonable reps were used to disband alliances, I never once stated it was an acceptable norm of society, which YOU thought I was (Read your comment in which you quoted me). I said other things in the past, such as PZI (which is generally looked down upon) was more acceptable in the older days than now; because times have changed. Never once did I say extornist reps were acceptable by everyone, which you thought I did.[/quote] where in that paragraph did i mention anything about social acceptance. i clarified what i stated because you said in the post i quoted that you never once said anything about reps. i pretty much proved you wrong that you did in fact state stuff about reps. but you seem to be the one confused as i never once mentioned social acceptance in the paragraph you quoted. [quote]TOP did [b]NOT[/b] join the Blue Balls war over the CB I was referencing, they joined for other reasons. They could have technically joined for the moronic, childish reasoning which would have drawn GRE in, but they didn't care about numbers, they refused to follow Ram's advice because they knew his reasoning was unjustifiable. That war was how many years ago? You reference that war, but what about the KARMA war? The war where they DID give white peace? Exactly.[/quote] 1) the Blue Balls War was in Dec not a number of years ago. 2) if you are refering to the SPW/WoTC it was July of 08, thus less than 2 years ago. 3) not sure what Gre has to do with either one to be honest since Gre fought in the SPW against Polaris, and did not declare in the BBW. so not sure what Gre or Ram has to do with any of it. 4) The Karma war while more recent than the SPW matters only a bit. the SPW/WoTC is important because it shows that TOP has a history of this type of action and thus, will most likely do it again in the future. they have a history of both white peace and harsh terms, though terms and not white peace seem to be far more common for TOP. [quote]White peace was offered in Blue Balls AND Karma. So you're right; there last two wars.[/quote] to my knowledge, only TPF signed the white peace in the BBW. TOP was not a signatory and therefore do not matter. [quote]Mine ARE based off the recent history, just as yours is, the only problem with your LOGIC (Which is reasoning, not knowledge) is you wishing for TOP to pay for actions well over 1.5-2 years ago is moronic, especially since they have shown considerable change in terms of terms they have offered. Also, there are many logs everywhere of TOP stating, right in the beginning of the Blue Balls War, they were after white peace even BEFORE all of this blew up. So yes, I am basing my logic and reasoning off of the recent history and their recent alliance operations rather than that of 2 years ago, or somewhere along those lines. It is funny how you speak highly of Polaris, but not TOP, but yet admit Polaris changed and TOP hasn't, yet, TOP has shown their changing in terms of 'reps' and terms more than Polaris has if I recall correctly; ESPECIALLY with recent events.[/quote] no, i don't honestly care about TOP paying for anything beyond what they did just now to CnG. my argument is that they have a history of doing these actions and thus should not be let off the hook for them. it is not about anything more than that and the fact that you are reading much more into my argument than i am actually putting into it is amusing. i have never once stated that TOP needs to pay for their actions against Polaris, i used it as an example and history lesson showing that this one not a one time mistake on TOP's part, but instead is a tactic that they are more than willing to use whenever they can. so, i would suggest you stop attempting to spin my argument and actually read what i post. you keep putting your thoughts into my arguments instead of reading what is there. how highly i speak of Polaris? i have been amongst the first to state they $%&@ed up majorly. wait- what terms in recent history are you speaking of? Karma- do believe that Polaris either white peaced their opponents or gave slight terms. in the Polar-\m/ war, it was slight terms. nothing harsh or any such. and other than \m/- no aggressive wars (no wars period iirc since Karma) and Polaris's reasoning for \m/ is based on bad diplomacy and OOC insults against Grub. while i have always stated that more diplomacy should have been conducted between both alliances, it is their right to DoW anyone they wish. just like it is TOP's right. i have not once stated anything contradictory. i have praised TOP as much as i have praised Polaris. i have stated both made mistakes recently as well. the fact that you seem to only read what you want means that you will only continue to do so. i know i am biased and will always be, but i do try to limit that as much as possible. in fact, given my dislike of most of CnG, if i was as biased as you are attempting to make me out to be, i would be siding with TOP and stating how wrong CnG are for whatever reasons. so i suggest you stop and think for a bit before you reply to this. look at what i actually post and stop attempting to put your thoughts into my sentences. i read what you state as what you state. i do make mistakes and may misread stuff but if pointed out, i usually correct it and apologize. but i truly don't try to put my thoughts into others sentences. [quote]What is your point of bringing Saber up? Because he is just as wrong, and I will not resort to being illogical and saying otherwise. This is the circle I was speaking about and it gets no one no where. If you want TOP dead, do so because of their stupid recent actions, not because of things happening over 2 years ago.[/quote] see this is what i am talking about. just because i refute what you are saying by using examples, all of a sudden i want TOP dead... and not only that but over stuff i have long since been done with. i am a historian and thus use history as a lesson. does not mean that if i bring it up, zomg i r want kill TOP!!!!!! please. [quote]Ah yes, no, I agree with your statement. My mind is muddled, were they allied to CnG at that point in time?[/quote] Polaris was not allied to CnG i believe. i do believe GR joined CnG after the SPW and not sure if STA was allied to MK. MK however was allied to Hyperion as was GR (possibly Polaris, i know Polaris, GR, and MK defended Hyperion and then TOP/crew hit Polaris and other allies of TOP hit BLEU). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Sitruk Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Dochartaigh' date='24 February 2010 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1266993230' post='2200854'] that would work as an analogy if that is what occurred. instead they(TOP/IRON) see a street fight between some of their friends and their enemies, their friend calls out for them to help crack this guys skull open but instead they opt to take out the guy standing to the sides with a bullhorn telling to two main opponents they need to stop fighting. [/quote] except if IRON helped their friend out, the guy with the bullhorn would've came in and helped the other guy. so why not go straight for the bullhorn and try taking him while he's not ready? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 because everyone else in the street fighting says "what the $%&@? those guys just jumped the dude with the bullhorn, that's not cool... let's stop fighting and help the dude with the bullhorn!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 For the love of god people stop using analogies it never leads to anything good. Actually using analogies is sort of like herding sheeps and then suddenly this man with a cape comes along and say "hey that's some nice sheeps" and then he just gets beaten down for no reason and you're like "oh !@#$ dude what the hell was that?" and the guy that beat him up is all like "i dunno lol" and then your sheep got away. [quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='24 February 2010 - 06:50 AM' timestamp='1266990811' post='2200687'] Flak's argument is specious at best. TOP didn't just decide on a fair spring day that out of the blue they were going to DoW on C&G while the rest of the world was at peace. [/quote] No they picked a time when a large amount of our treaty partners would be tied up elsewhere. I fail to see how this speaks in TOPs favor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcturus Jefferson Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 [quote name='neneko' date='26 February 2010 - 11:37 AM' timestamp='1267202435' post='2205022'] For the love of god people stop using analogies it never leads to anything good. Actually using analogies is sort of like herding sheeps and then suddenly this man with a cape comes along and say "hey that's some nice sheeps" and then he just gets beaten down for no reason and you're like "oh !@#$ dude what the hell was that?" and the guy that beat him up is all like "i dunno lol" and then your sheep got away. [/quote] See now I get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 [quote name='President Sitruk' date='25 February 2010 - 05:32 PM' timestamp='1267140981' post='2203846'] except if IRON helped their friend out, the guy with the bullhorn would've came in and helped the other guy. so why not go straight for the bullhorn and try taking him while he's not ready? [/quote] for one, the guy with the bullhorn has friends that are currently tied up on your side of the conflict. by going straight for the guy with the bullhorn, you turn it from a simple escalation of war, into a "!@#$@#$ idiots hit my treaty partner i am [b]obligated[/b] to defend. oh wait, you are friends or friends of friends with my allies who just got aggressively attacked? heh. oh look, Polaris-\m/ peaced out. aiight, white peace is kewl." so basically instead of entering via treaties, you entered aggressively without treaties causing a chain that ended up with your side losing many alliances that would have stayed had you guys entered via treaties. that is why you don't enter like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Dochartaigh' date='24 February 2010 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1267068341' post='2202469'] frankly, that is up to whomever wishes to try to get vengeance. what you fail to realize it was TOP who made the first move. TOP who struck out against CnG. so what does that say about TOP's recent "progress"? oh wait, it says exactly what i have been saying, while you seem to solely focus on the few good things they have done, while ignoring the wrong they have done. but i am the one that is being alluded by illogical biased nonsense? [/quote] Your first sentence really is pointless, with all due respect. It has little substance and completely evaded the entire point I made. Yes, it is up to the person who wishes for vengeance, but it's a pointless statement. TOP is stupid, but not a bully as you suggest. Please, don't deny saying this or I will have to go digging to find your direct quote again. Preemptive strikes might not be in your favor, but just because YOU don't believe in it doesn't mean no one else can; you oppressing your views on others is hegemony-like, no? They made a militaristic decision even I disagree with, but that is their style of military affairs. Funny thing with their actions on Polaris is ES stated on the radio he would always be against TOP, yes, that is a leader stating it and TOP had reasonings for being concerned. The difference between you and I is I [i]know[/i] their past, like you, but I also weigh it evenly with their recent path. I brought this up because you questioned TOPs' reparation ideal, which I disagreed because though they supported certain terms eight months ago doesn't mean they support harsh terms now. THIS is the argument we also were speaking of, not just of TOP declaring on people for their security. Yes, I understand TOP did it to Polaris, but you never once mentioned the recent GOOD things they did which make your opinion so subjectively biased that is negates anything reasonable you mention, hence me actually replying. Yes, you have validity, problem is you never admit when someone else does and argue for the sake of arguing which seems more selfless rather than an open debate. Just my two cents. [quote] the fact that TOP hit CnG aggressively in order to "bloody them" because "CnG was a threat to TOP" is a reversal of any of the progress they may have made. TOP is the one who pushed themselves back into July of 2008 all by themselves. not me. i had forgiven TOP for their actions in the SPW, this was evident from my time in Gremlins. so to state i am holding a grudge because unlike you, i can [i]actually[/i] focus on everything and i choose not to ignore the recent and most relevant facts in regards to TOP. you keep stating that you are unbiased but you consistently only state what good TOP has done, while choosing to ignore the bad and the trends. [/quote] I state what good TOP does because you only state what they have done wrong, see how this game works? I also have stated NUMEROUS times the things TOP have done wrong, such as actively attacking CnG. Not ONCE did I justify their decision-making, this entire debate [b]began when I said I was against unjustifiable terms[/b]. SO let me span this out so you understand what we are arguing since you have lost yourself in your own words several times thus far: 1. I mentioned unreasonable terms are subjective and I hope TOP doesn't succumb to em. 2. You mention TOP's past and state how they deserve it because of their terms on SPWl stating TOP should pay for their crimes from x months ago. (http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80942&view=findpost&p=2199265) 3. I state you shouldn't judge someone's past in terms of reparations because as the community, as a whole, for the most part, has evolved. I also state this isn't Polaris forcing terms, but rather CnG, who were not directly linked to Polaris and thus even their 'past' has no bearing with CnG. 4. You get confused and believe I said extortionist-like reps were acceptable, when I never said such a thing. 5. I respond by saying alliances acted differently in the past and it is unreasonable to mention what TOP did x amount of months ago, but failing to mention everything they have done right in Karma war AND the Blue Balls War, which LM and Crymson STATED they were after white peace in the very beginning, which the other side even acknowledges. I then told you to compare TOP to the former TOP in terms of reps. 6. You mistook me again and focused on their military actions pertaining to Polaris, which WASN'T the point. Then continued to go on about how I am only saying this because I like TOP (Which, in all fairness, was a result in my response of you being biased) Then stated TOP was a bully. Reference: [quote]if he stops bullying you and moves onto another target, then he is still a bully. this is essentially what TOP did. they moved on from Polaris and targeted CnG. so, again, the past is an important thing.[/quote] 7. I then stated I never agreed with TOPs' actions in terms of attacking CnG, but I don't believe they are a bully. You then said you never said they were bullies, but look at above quote. You did. 8. You then continue to use rather redundant reasoning as to why TOP gave white peace in Blue Balls (Claiming they only did it cause TPF did) even though they were after white peace from the beginning, but somehow you avoided the Karma war and how they did, without a reasonable doubt, DID give white peace. 9. Bunch of other little things happened. See what happened? I spoke of reps, you somehow tried spinning it into speaking of them preemptively striking like they did in Polaris; yes, I get that, but my focus was focusing in on the reps which completely missed in many of your responses. If you're going to bring up their past in terms of reps, bring up their recent views AND actions as well. This was NEVER about their military, but rather the reps. reps. reps. and reps. Which STARTED this all, so let's get on the same page PLEASE. Seems odd at first you state TOP deserves thesew reps cause of their past, but actively state you have forgiven them. Weird stance if I may say so myself, and inb4 "just because I have doesn't mean everyone else has." Yeah, I get that. [quote] that is like stating that just because NPO in their heyday, gave white peace to a few alliances, they should have their entire history wiped clean (mind you talking about 2007-2008 era). i doubt even you would say that should have happened. so enough with the "oh but they did do some good things and that should wipe out their entire past as well as their most recent wrong doings" bs. [/quote] NPO did many things far worse than TOP ever did. Between their EZI/PZI lists (Then denying them lol), their constant bullying of smaller alliances, and MANY other things don't even put the two in the same category. Even placing them remotely close in terms of actions the two have done is political ignorance. TOP isn't great, I get that, but they aren't on the same level as NPO; not many are. GGA isn't even at NPO's level and GGA has done 4x the amount of things TOP has. [quote] so from your viewpoint, the past don't matter. okay then. stop bringing up anything that goes beyond TOP aggressively declaring on CnG because they stated CnG was a threat. anything that TOP did that was good in the past is useless and should not be dwelt upon by your own statements. noting it is fine but only their most recent actions (i.e. aggressive war on alliances with a CB that is basically the CB that NPO used quite often) should be the sole focus. that still works for me then. [/quote] Reps Reps REPS. I am not going to further derail the subject at hand. And I still can't believe you're so polticially ignorant you're placing the two in the same category. Really? Seriously? Do you KNOW all of the things NPO has done the past four or so years? [quote] where in that paragraph did i mention anything about social acceptance. i clarified what i stated because you said in the post i quoted that you never once said anything about reps. i pretty much proved you wrong that you did in fact state stuff about reps. but you seem to be the one confused as i never once mentioned social acceptance in the paragraph you quoted. [/quote] Let me break this down. -I stated the environment has changed and developed over time: [i] "Now, should we try forcing Polaris to pay terrible reps because of the hideous crimes they have supported or done so themselves in the past? Whether you agree or not, essentially you are supporting the demise in Polaris if we are to always judge on the past and actions which we have done in the past. EZI is a social taboo, but it wasn't in the older days; so should I kill them for it? No. Wouldn't I just be adding to the cycle of hatred and unethical profoundness?....Should we consider GOD a terrible alliance for sanctioning someone they tech raided? No, not at all, because it was acceptable then and no longer is now. Anyone can look in the past and laugh as silly actions or ideas because of evolution in terms of how we progress as a society and in how we progress in ourselves. Lets look at funny scientific explanations, or theories, and lets laugh at the way people were punished (EZI/PZI) in the old days. We can look at them as morally unjust, but back then, we were different as a society and dictated by different terms or standards."[/i] -You thought somehow I was saying that extortion-like terms was once accepted: [i]"this whole, "it was acceptable back then" bs is ridiculous. extortionist reps have never been acceptable by everyone in CN. it was only acceptable to Initiative/Q/1V mostly and was used by their allies at the time. those who fought against those parties i sure as hell would bet did not like the unreasonable reps. so to state it was "acceptable" is ridiculous as it was only acceptable by a minority within CN. thus, that whole argument fails based on the fact that a minority=/=CN.[/i] See your mistake? Maybe you interpreted incorrectly or read too quickly, but that is where it stems from. Its not that I sad nothing about reps, it's that I said nothing about 'socially accepted extortion-like terms in the past' which you thought I said they were once socially acceptable. Essentially, you're arguing on my side. [quote] 1) the Blue Balls War was in Dec not a number of years ago. 2) if you are refering to the SPW/WoTC it was July of 08, thus less than 2 years ago. 3) not sure what Gre has to do with either one to be honest since Gre fought in the SPW against Polaris, and did not declare in the BBW. so not sure what Gre or Ram has to do with any of it. 4) The Karma war while more recent than the SPW matters only a bit. the SPW/WoTC is important because it shows that TOP has a history of this type of action and thus, will most likely do it again in the future. they have a history of both white peace and harsh terms, though terms and not white peace seem to be far more common for TOP. [/quote] 1. I was speaking about the GPA war, which I should have clarafied and take full responsibility for. I was jumping around a little bit. 3. Referring to Gre in Blue Balls. GRE stated they would only join TOP if they declared on a certain alliance for the assumption of spying, which TOP felt was utter !@#$%^&* because it was. GRE wanted to join on a technicality, TOP said no. Either join to protect your allies or don't at all, but we wont start a !@#$%^&* CB on them for it. 4. Finally, you got a valid point in terms of REPS, but we must not always dwell on the past in terms of reps. People changed and alliances change, which TOP has SHOWN in TERMS OF REPS not MILITARY action. [quote] to my knowledge, only TPF signed the white peace in the BBW. TOP was not a signatory and therefore do not matter. [/quote] Did you purposely ignore LM's logs? [/quote] no, i don't honestly care about TOP paying for anything beyond what they did just now to CnG. [/quote] That is reasonable. You posted more here but it wasn't really worth responding to. Like I said, you brought up terms from 8 months ago without bringing up terms from the past 2 wars ago which I felt was unreasonable. REPS REPS REPS. [quote]how highly i speak of Polaris? i have been amongst the first to state they $%&@ed up majorly. wait- what terms in recent history are you speaking of? Karma- do believe that Polaris either white peaced their opponents or gave slight terms. in the Polar-\m/ war, it was slight terms. nothing harsh or any such. [/quote] But so hasn't TOP... They have done the exact same thing. Why? Cause people learn. Polaris took a beating, TOP did from allies in the back room. You accept Polaris' white peace but not TOPs? [quote] so i suggest you stop and think for a bit before you reply to this. look at what i actually post and stop attempting to put your thoughts into my sentences. i read what you state as what you state. i do make mistakes and may misread stuff but if pointed out, i usually correct it and apologize. but i truly don't try to put my thoughts into others sentences. [/quote] I hope you understand now how you truly stirred this and jumped around and said things you couldn't remember saying. I have accurately pointed above the things you have mistaken me for, hopefully you're reasonable to admit it like I have with the GPA reference above. We just somewhat on two separate notes. Also, join Ninjas. Edited February 26, 2010 by Ejayrazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 [quote name='Ejayrazz' date='26 February 2010 - 12:35 PM' timestamp='1267209532' post='2205140'] Your first sentence really is pointless, with all due respect. It has little substance and completely evaded the entire point I made. Yes, it is up to the person who wishes for vengeance, but it's a pointless statement. TOP is stupid, but not a bully as you suggest. Please, don't deny saying this or I will have to go digging to find your direct quote again. Preemptive strikes might not be in your favor, but just because YOU don't believe in it doesn't mean no one else can; you oppressing your views on others is hegemony-like, no? They made a militaristic decision even I disagree with, but that is their style of military affairs. Funny thing with their actions on Polaris is ES stated on the radio he would always be against TOP, yes, that is a leader stating it and TOP had reasonings for being concerned. The difference between you and I is I [i]know[/i] their past, like you, but I also weigh it evenly with their recent path. I brought this up because you questioned TOPs' reparation ideal, which I disagreed because though they supported certain terms eight months ago doesn't mean they support harsh terms now. THIS is the argument we also were speaking of, not just of TOP declaring on people for their security. Yes, I understand TOP did it to Polaris, but you never once mentioned the recent GOOD things they did which make your opinion so subjectively biased that is negates anything reasonable you mention, hence me actually replying. Yes, you have validity, problem is you never admit when someone else does and argue for the sake of arguing which seems more selfless rather than an open debate. Just my two cents.[/quote] how does it evade the point? you asked about all the others who wanted vengeance on Polaris and i answered that it is up to them to do something about it. that is not evasion, it is a direct answer to the question you asked. if you were trying to make a point, you failed at it considering your question was not rhetorical at all but could easily be answered. I never suggested TOP was a bully. you brought in the bully analogy, not me. i simply turned it around on you that is all. had i been the one to bring up the bully analogy, you would have something on me calling TOP a bully. but turning your argument against you by no means suggests or states that i feel TOP is a bully. also, lawlz at trying to make it seem like i am oppressing anyone's views, when i have said time and again that TOP, Polaris, \m/, and anyone else is more than capable of aggressively attacking whomever they wish. they just have to deal with the consequences. nice try but does not work Ejay. gonna have to try harder than that. heck, i don't agree with CnG that harsh reps or harsh terms should be used against TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN/whomever else but it is their right to use them. again, they will just have to deal with the consequences of their actions. as for Polaris- i already brought that up. again, you should read what i post. i have stated that Polaris got what it deserved in the SPW/WoTC and never attempted to deny that ES stated he wanted to dance on their graves or that ES did not like TOP at all. i know why TOP/others hit Polaris quite well having had discussions with TOP over it. I have stated that Polaris deserved it. the only issues i had was the harsh terms after the war and the fact that little to no diplomacy was used after Polaris couped ES to try to ascertain Polaris's new position. Polaris received no time to show that they had changed or not changed. yet, you want us to take TOP's change in this war within a couple of weeks, when TOP gave Polaris less time (iirc). honestly, as for TOP and their reparations there is only Karma that shows they have changed some. the BBW was all TPF as TOP did not sign those terms. nor did TOP sign any terms iirc. only TPF on their side signed terms, it just pretty much broke up after that especially since there were so few attacks from the Coincidence Coalition on Athens/RoK/GOD/\m/. so really, one war after however many wars that TOP took reps in does not prove much. in fact, most scientists or analysts would consider it an anomaly. that is because they have not done much. they sided with their allies- most everyone does that. even ODN now. they gave white peace or light terms in Karma- again that is a one time thing and most people analyzing data would see it as an anomaly and not the trend (hint- one time does not make it a trend. usually 3 or more separate times do. in the case of war, it would have to be 3 or more separate wars of which Karma is the first. BBW does not count since TOP did not sign any terms in that war, thus, no terms sign does not mean TOP gave white peace...) actually that is false. i have admitted with others have validity and have admitted when i made mistakes in my argument. (look in the NSO-Polaris treaty cancellation thread where i admitted i was wrong about GOD and them offering white peace to NSO in the beginning) once you have something that actually refutes my arguments, i will acknowledge them and modify or drop my arguments in accordance. but you keep bringing up a single isolated incident and make it into much more than it is. other than that TOP has done nothing as most alliances have done nothing. the only alliances since the Karma war that have really done anything has been Athens, PC, RoK, GOD, NEW, ZDP, \m/, Polaris, TPF, and GOONS that i can think of off the top of my head. other than that, most alliances have been quiet. [quote]I state what good TOP does because you only state what they have done wrong, see how this game works? I also have stated NUMEROUS times the things TOP have done wrong, such as actively attacking CnG. Not ONCE did I justify their decision-making, this entire debate [b]began when I said I was against unjustifiable terms[/b]. SO let me span this out so you understand what we are arguing since you have lost yourself in your own words several times thus far: 1. I mentioned unreasonable terms are subjective and I hope TOP doesn't succumb to em. 2. You mention TOP's past and state how they deserve it because of their terms on SPWl stating TOP should pay for their crimes from x months ago. (http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80942&view=findpost&p=2199265) 3. I state you shouldn't judge someone's past in terms of reparations because as the community, as a whole, for the most part, has evolved. I also state this isn't Polaris forcing terms, but rather CnG, who were not directly linked to Polaris and thus even their 'past' has no bearing with CnG.[/quote] yep, you totally read your own meaning into what i posted there. what i was stating was "where were you when TOP was doing this to Polaris?" not "TOP totally deserves harsh reps due to their past." the other part was that since you stated that unreasonable reps are akin to forced disbandment, why then has TOP never once attempted to pay Polaris back? again, this does not equal "TOP totally deserves harsh reps due to their past." The next set was that TOP should pay for their crimes much like NPO/much of Q and Polaris have done. does that mean that they should pay harsh reps- never said that. i have said that is up to CnG as this war is theirs. i am against harsh reps and do not recall ever stating that TOP should pay harsh reps (if i have, then link me and i will apologize for my lapse in judgment at that time). i have never been a fan of harsh terms even prior to SPW. Polaris did not force terms. TOP did. and Polaris's history has no bearing on CnG but TOP's does as this is not the first time they aggressively attacked an alliance based on "threat to security" style DoW. this is in fact that second time. much closer to a trend than your Karma war incident. not to mention, most in TOP still do not see this war as a mistake more so than they blame Polaris for leaving their side. [quote]4. You get confused and believe I said extortionist-like reps were acceptable, when I never said such a thing. 5. I respond by saying alliances acted differently in the past and it is unreasonable to mention what TOP did x amount of months ago, but failing to mention everything they have done right in Karma war AND the Blue Balls War, which LM and Crymson STATED they were after white peace in the very beginning, which the other side even acknowledges. I then told you to compare TOP to the former TOP in terms of reps. 6. You mistook me again and focused on their military actions pertaining to Polaris, which WASN'T the point. Then continued to go on about how I am only saying this because I like TOP (Which, in all fairness, was a result in my response of you being biased) Then stated TOP was a bully. Reference: 7. I then stated I never agreed with TOPs' actions in terms of attacking CnG, but I don't believe they are a bully. You then said you never said they were bullies, but look at above quote. You did.[/quote] i do believe that i said that you accepted extortionist like reps when TOP did it but now that TOP may face the same thing, it is all of a sudden bad. thus, making your argument hypocritical since it seemed okay for you when TOP did it to Polaris and other alliances, but now that TOP may get extortionist reps you all of a sudden jump to how ebil it is to use extortionist reps even going so far as to describe them as akin to forced disbandment. so again, answer my question about where this opinion was when TOP was doing it to Polaris? if you cannot answer that because either A) you felt TOP justified then this just destroys your entire argument or B) you did not care because it was not TOP on the receiving end this again destroys your entire argument. if there is another answer i would love to hear it. so if this was true, and for now i will take your word, we have 2 out of many wars that TOP fought in which 1 they actually gave white peace and the second, they helped achieve white peace (though again, they did not sign the terms so they did not actually grant as you seem to state). by a true comparison, then you have 2 incidents out of many in which they did not accept reps (and the BBW at that time, they were in no position to get anything but white peace as the war had not even begun, so this war could have ended differently if TPF/CC and CnG/SF had fought. depending on if CC won, who knows if reps would have been asked for. we will not know since it ended prior to really beginning. hence the name. so this is only a pseudo-incident given the parameters with which it happened) so again, by comparison they still have many more times they demanded reps than they didn't. by comparison, they have been party to even harsher terms without speaking out against them at all. so, do you really want me to compare them in an unbiased manner or do you want me to compare them in your biased manner in which you go, "oh the last two were more recent, and thus negate all the rest despite the rest being much more of an overwhelming number". because it seems you are going for the latter biased analysis instead of the former unbiased analysis. but keep saying i am the one that is biased, while you are completely unbiased. at least i admit i do have bias in my arguments but try to eliminate most of it. but when i actually compare and analyze things, i actually [b]compare[/b] them and not just go, zomg this is the most recent and thus negates all the rest... TOP and CnG have been antagonistic towards one another for quite a while (since the Karma war i believe) and now TOP has pulled the same stunt that they did with Polaris in aggressively DoWing CnG because of "threat to security". and again, you are the one who brought up the bully analogy not me. so stop saying i am calling TOP a bully, when i simply used your argument against you. that is all i did and nothing more. had [b]you[/b] not brought up the bully analogy, i would not have used it against you and thus, you would not be stuck on this ridiculous argument. [quote]8. You then continue to use rather redundant reasoning as to why TOP gave white peace in Blue Balls (Claiming they only did it cause TPF did) even though they were after white peace from the beginning, but somehow you avoided the Karma war and how they did, without a reasonable doubt, DID give white peace. 9. Bunch of other little things happened. See what happened? I spoke of reps, you somehow tried spinning it into speaking of them preemptively striking like they did in Polaris; yes, I get that, but my focus was focusing in on the reps which completely missed in many of your responses. If you're going to bring up their past in terms of reps, bring up their recent views AND actions as well. This was NEVER about their military, but rather the reps. reps. reps. and reps. Which STARTED this all, so let's get on the same page PLEASE. Seems odd at first you state TOP deserves thesew reps cause of their past, but actively state you have forgiven them. Weird stance if I may say so myself, and inb4 "just because I have doesn't mean everyone else has." Yeah, I get that.[/quote] 8) never avoided the Karma war. nor in that post did i even mention the BBW. you said that there were two examples of TOP giving white peace. i agree that in Karma they gave white peace so why should i bring it up since i ain't refuting it? i brought up the BBW because that i did refute. so my not bringing up the Karma war was an acknowledgment, albeit an implied one, that you are in fact correct about the Karma war. plus could have sworn i agreed with you earlier. 9) wait, you start off attempting to ridicule me for a pointless statement, and you have this in your argument... my first sentenced stated my position on the reps TOP should have to pay. and wait, you want to talk about spinning when you spun first mate. i was talking of what TOP did to Polaris due to the extreme similarities, and you are the one who started bringing up how TOP gave white peace in Karma. but yeah, keep stating i am somehow spinning things when you are the one who is doing so. Since they have done this in the past, they should not be let off the hook with white peace (which you seem to go back and forth on since it seemed you were stating that TOP should get white peace and now are stating that TOP should pay reps but only light ones. though i am not entirely sure since you arguments are making little sense and while somewhat consistent, you are really outlining anything just stating the same crap over and over again and then thinking you somehow refuted me.) as for me having forgiven them, i have. it is not odd. i have stated that TOP should not be let off the hook because they have a history of aggressively attacking alliances based on "threat to security". you are the one who keeps twisting what i say to get it to form what you want. for example, this whole paragraph of yours is you twisting this "my argument is that they have a history of doing these actions and thus should not be let off the hook for them." where does that state that TOP needs to pay for Polaris? where does that state that they should pay harsh reps? oh wait, it doesn't. the next portion of my paragraph is this: "it is not about anything more than that and the fact that you are reading much more into my argument than i am actually putting into it is amusing. i have never once stated that TOP needs to pay for their actions against Polaris, i used it as an example and history lesson showing that this one not a one time mistake on TOP's part, but instead is a tactic that they are more than willing to use whenever they can." which you ignored completely and continued to state false things. so how about you actually read what i post, see what it [b]actually[/b] says and stop putting lies into my words. and again you keep harping on reps- "no, i don't honestly care about TOP paying for anything beyond what they did just now to CnG" yes, that is me advocating harsh reps instead of TOP paying for the initial damage. (okay i admit it is a bit misworded but that is what i was getting at. either way, that in no way advocates harsh reps for TOP) [quote]NPO did many things far worse than TOP ever did. Between their EZI/PZI lists (Then denying them lol), their constant bullying of smaller alliances, and MANY other things don't even put the two in the same category. Even placing them remotely close in terms of actions the two have done is political ignorance. TOP isn't great, I get that, but they aren't on the same level as NPO; not many are. GGA isn't even at NPO's level and GGA has done 4x the amount of things TOP has. Reps Reps REPS. I am not going to further derail the subject at hand. And I still can't believe you're so polticially ignorant you're placing the two in the same category. Really? Seriously? Do you KNOW all of the things NPO has done the past four or so years?[/quote] sure you can. TOP has handed out harsh reps and been party to harsh terms just like NPO has. thus, in that category they are similar. i never stated that TOP was [b]exactly[/b] like NPO, just that TOP has done NPO-like things. which is true. though in my opinion, many alliances have but only a handful has actually paid for it like Karma made NPO pay for it. and actually, RoK has used viceroys and TOP has been party to removal of people from gov/alliances (much like Gre). so while NPO had done worse that does not mean that all of a sudden we can't compare. i can compare similar actions performed by any and all. i would admit that if Karma had made NPO/Heg out to be so evil, we most likely would not have these comparisons now, but since those who handed down the reps to NPO stated something like "well it is still not as bad as what NPO has done", that essentially started it all. again, i ask you where were you when TOP did the same to Polaris? how come you have not spoken out against TOP for doing it to CnG? because TOP reviewed CnG's past and then hit them based on CnG being deemed "a threat to their security". really, you keep saying that you aren't biased, yet you are harping on me for doing [b]exactly[/b] what TOP did to Polaris and CnG. are you sure that your Present TOP is so much different from the Former TOP? this is the point i have been trying to get to and you keep using Karma and BBW and reps to point out how different they are. reps mean !@#$ in my argument that you have yet to actually address, since you keep using reps to prove it. the fact is that politically and strategically Present and Former TOP are the same. sure, if they won, they may have given CnG white peace or light reps, but that does not matter one iota since my argument has always been on the fact that TOP has in the past looked at the history of an alliance and deemed them a threat based on said alliance's past, and then aggressively attacked them. so you can keep harping on reps, but what the $%&@ does that have to do with the original argument i brought up long before you brought in reps? so stop making it seem like i am the one who is confusing arguments, or spinning !@#$, or ignoring !@#$, or any of the other crap you have spewed at me. heck, even in this latest reply of yours to one of my posts, you ignored, or twisted what i actually said. [quote]Let me break this down. -I stated the environment has changed and developed over time: [i] "Now, should we try forcing Polaris to pay terrible reps because of the hideous crimes they have supported or done so themselves in the past? Whether you agree or not, essentially you are supporting the demise in Polaris if we are to always judge on the past and actions which we have done in the past. EZI is a social taboo, but it wasn't in the older days; so should I kill them for it? No. Wouldn't I just be adding to the cycle of hatred and unethical profoundness?....Should we consider GOD a terrible alliance for sanctioning someone they tech raided? No, not at all, because it was acceptable then and no longer is now. Anyone can look in the past and laugh as silly actions or ideas because of evolution in terms of how we progress as a society and in how we progress in ourselves. Lets look at funny scientific explanations, or theories, and lets laugh at the way people were punished (EZI/PZI) in the old days. We can look at them as morally unjust, but back then, we were different as a society and dictated by different terms or standards."[/i] -You thought somehow I was saying that extortion-like terms was once accepted: [i]"this whole, "it was acceptable back then" bs is ridiculous. extortionist reps have never been acceptable by everyone in CN. it was only acceptable to Initiative/Q/1V mostly and was used by their allies at the time. those who fought against those parties i sure as hell would bet did not like the unreasonable reps. so to state it was "acceptable" is ridiculous as it was only acceptable by a minority within CN. thus, that whole argument fails based on the fact that a minority=/=CN.[/i] See your mistake? Maybe you interpreted incorrectly or read too quickly, but that is where it stems from. Its not that I sad nothing about reps, it's that I said nothing about 'socially accepted extortion-like terms in the past' which you thought I said they were once socially acceptable. Essentially, you're arguing on my side.[/quote] i admit my mistake about misreading your post. [quote]1. I was speaking about the GPA war, which I should have clarafied and take full responsibility for. I was jumping around a little bit. 3. Referring to Gre in Blue Balls. GRE stated they would only join TOP if they declared on a certain alliance for the assumption of spying, which TOP felt was utter !@#$%^&* because it was. GRE wanted to join on a technicality, TOP said no. Either join to protect your allies or don't at all, but we wont start a !@#$%^&* CB on them for it. 4. Finally, you got a valid point in terms of REPS, but we must not always dwell on the past in terms of reps. People changed and alliances change, which TOP has SHOWN in TERMS OF REPS not MILITARY action. Did you purposely ignore LM's logs?[/quote] 1) i understand 3) still confused by this as i have no clue what it is about. but i will take your word 4) i agree that TOP changed in terms of reps, but their political and military actions in this war are the same as that in the SPW. in both wars, TOP reviewed the history of the alliance(s) and deemed them a threat, then aggressively attacked said threat based on a DoW similar to "threat to our security". what logs? [quote]That is reasonable. You posted more here but it wasn't really worth responding to. Like I said, you brought up terms from 8 months ago without bringing up terms from the past 2 wars ago which I felt was unreasonable. REPS REPS REPS.[/quote] covered this above. though if you truly think that is reasonable, then why in this very argument did you accuse me of stating that i wanted harsh reps for TOP? when it is obvious you knew that to be untrue. [quote]But so hasn't TOP... They have done the exact same thing. Why? Cause people learn. Polaris took a beating, TOP did from allies in the back room. You accept Polaris' white peace but not TOPs? I hope you understand now how you truly stirred this and jumped around and said things you couldn't remember saying. I have accurately pointed above the things you have mistaken me for, hopefully you're reasonable to admit it like I have with the GPA reference above. We just somewhat on two separate notes. Also, join Ninjas. [/quote] never stated i didn't accept TOP's white peace in Karma. what i was stating was that TOP was the same in terms of actions going into a war, not reps at the end. to be honest, Grub made Polaris pretty much the Polaris of old when they hit \m/. no, i remember most of what i said sometimes i do forget though. but you are also stirred this up due misinterpreting, misreading, or spinning much of what i said. not sure if the join Ninjas was an actual invitation or not given the rolling eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virillus Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 I'll admit, the effort you guys are putting in to this is impressive:P (In reference to Dochartaigh/Ejayrazz) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some-Guy Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 Roll Ejayrazz! Roll Dochartaigh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 [quote name='Some-Guy' date='26 February 2010 - 10:06 PM' timestamp='1267218598' post='2205307'] Roll Ejayrazz! Roll Dochartaigh! [/quote] We will, don't worry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 [quote name='potato' date='26 February 2010 - 03:19 PM' timestamp='1267219391' post='2205323'] We will, don't worry. [/quote] you promise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 [quote name='Virillus' date='26 February 2010 - 03:54 PM' timestamp='1267217905' post='2205293'] I'll admit, the effort you guys are putting in to this is impressive:P (In reference to Dochartaigh/Ejayrazz) [/quote] Yes. It makes my head hurt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 Because we have so many quotes, I need to unquote a lot. Things you have stated will now be in bold after the quotes. [quote name='Dochartaigh' date='26 February 2010 - 03:47 PM' timestamp='1267217438' post='2205284'] how does it evade the point? you asked about all the others who wanted vengeance on Polaris and i answered that it is up to them to do something about it. that is not evasion, it is a direct answer to the question you asked. if you were trying to make a point, you failed at it considering your question was not rhetorical at all but could easily be answered. [/quote] It was a general statement which really had no bearing, though accurate. Though I will admit you are right, likewise with my assertion. If we have a cycle of hatred continuously going, people will always wish for *their* vengeance. Normally this isn't the issue, it is how they go about getting their vengeance. "They made me do this 4 years ago, and even though they changed, imma make them do the same even though they have evolved from their former selves!" You are not considered in this category in the sense of your theoretical talks, but others are; and that is where it becomes a problem. If I attacked POlaris for supporting NPO in WuT over 3 years ago, would I be justified? In all seriousness? POlaris has changed their views and rationalizing decision making, which I feel it would be unjustified to attack someone dwelling on the past, but if we change this to the context at hand which this discussion was initially about reps, I feel it is unjustified to give unreasonable reps for actions done 2+ years ago for alliances such as Polaris, TOP, etc. [quote] I never suggested TOP was a bully. you brought in the bully analogy, not me. i simply turned it around on you that is all. had i been the one to bring up the bully analogy, you would have something on me calling TOP a bully. but turning your argument against you by no means suggests or states that i feel TOP is a bully. [/quote] Did you not read your direct quote in you saying they essentially are what a bully is? I already referenced the quote earlier, which I have no idea how you could even begin arguing. Perhaps you didn't mean to say it or it came off as something other than what you intended, but you did state and actively compare the two, being "essentially the same." [quote] also, lawlz at trying to make it seem like i am oppressing anyone's views, when i have said time and again that TOP, Polaris, \m/, and anyone else is more than capable of aggressively attacking whomever they wish. they just have to deal with the consequences. nice try but does not work Ejay. gonna have to try harder than that. heck, i don't agree with CnG that harsh reps or harsh terms should be used against TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN/whomever else but it is their right to use them. again, they will just have to deal with the consequences of their actions. [/quote] It seems you are somewhat shifting positions. Initially when I said TOP shouldn't receive harsh terms, you commented with this: [i]man where were all you people when TOP was forcing reps from Polaris? i mean all this talk about excessive reps and it being like forcing an alliance to disband and yada yada yada, is all well and good, except that TOP has done that thing in the past.[/i] You actively disagreed with my notions and here we are, but now state you are not in favor of harsh terms? I would assume you're more so for saying, as you said, "it is their right [CnG] to impose what they wish." So was it for GGA. So was it NPOs' right to do what they wished. So was it for GOONS to act brutal to people in diplomatic discussions. Just because they can shouldn't mean they should. We are arguing over harsh reps, not military action, which has lead us to this point. In terms of comparing you to the hegemony, that was more so as an example rather than a factual suggestion. YOu have gone up in arms about how they have mlitariyl attacked Polaris and now CnG, I get that, but it doesn't make them rough mousers. It doesn't making them immoral. It is THEIR military strategy and although they deserve a beating, they don't deserve a death if you know what I mean. As I said, militarily we're somewhat on the same page, it's the reps in which LM and I were discussing which you actively disagreed with in terms of what TO has *DONE* in the past and how they coordinated rep agreements. [quote] as for Polaris- i already brought that up. again, you should read what i post. i have stated that Polaris got what it deserved in the SPW/WoTC and never attempted to deny that ES stated he wanted to dance on their graves or that ES did not like TOP at all. i know why TOP/others hit Polaris quite well having had discussions with TOP over it. I have stated that Polaris deserved it. the only issues i had was the harsh terms after the war and the fact that little to no diplomacy was used after Polaris couped ES to try to ascertain Polaris's new position. Polaris received no time to show that they had changed or not changed. yet, you want us to take TOP's change in this war within a couple of weeks, when TOP gave Polaris less time (iirc). [/quote] This is better explained, and I can understand this statement with this clear wording. It should be noted most alliances do not change in a snap of a finger, but I agree. Diplomacy should have been used. But, with this brings up what I said earlier: Though WE don't agree with what occurred in Polaris (iirc), it also happened eight months ago. Militarily, they have the right, as you speak of, to attack anyone they wish if they feel the alliance is a threat, but I feel no one *SHOULD* impose harsh reps. An alliance should consider two things: 1. If they ask for reps, consider their position and capabilities, as well as their NS. 2. If you wish no reps, beat them down to rubbles and ask for no reps. By doing number 2 AND asking for reps is what I find unreasonable, as it would be nearly impossible. As Airme stated, he doubts CnG will do this, and honestly, I hope he is right. [quote] honestly, as for TOP and their reparations there is only Karma that shows they have changed some. the BBW was all TPF as TOP did not sign those terms. nor did TOP sign any terms iirc. only TPF on their side signed terms, it just pretty much broke up after that especially since there were so few attacks from the Coincidence Coalition on Athens/RoK/GOD/\m/. so really, one war after however many wars that TOP took reps in does not prove much. in fact, most scientists or analysts would consider it an anomaly. [/quote] As I stated, TOP stated from the gecko they were after white peace and most of those on their side were advocating it as well. You stated earlier you didn't remember LM's logs, which Lord Fingolfin submitted. (Reference: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80942&view=findpost&p=2200544) It did count, because if TOP was against said terms they would have stated it. Your name doesn't need to be embolden on paper to mean you represent something. That war was suppose to blow up mind you, and here they are stating from the beginning they were after white peace. It shows a shift in terms of reparation acceptance. [b]" that is because they have not done much. they sided with their allies- most everyone does that. even ODN now. they gave white peace or light terms in Karma- again that is a one time thing and most people analyzing data would see it as an anomaly and not the trend (hint- one time does not make it a trend. usually 3 or more separate times do. in the case of war, it would have to be 3 or more separate wars of which Karma is the first. BBW does not count since TOP did not sign any terms in that war, thus, no terms sign does not mean TOP gave white peace...)" [/b] As I said, signing paper means nothing in terms of how an alliance stands. Yes, they joined Karma war, but also stated they were up for white peace to us Gremlins the first day the conflict broke out. There is no set amount in terms what makes an alliance change their opinion, especially with political stagnation and infrequent war rampaging. However, using your number, which I find is silly as there should never be a mandatory amount since wars do not happen as frequently, there are 3 times. 1 was karma, whether you agreed or not, they gave white peace. 2 was blue balls, which has been proven numerous times (Even CnG acknowledges it) and 3, this war, as TOP stated no harsh terms would be given from the start, but since they are taking a spanking, it doesn't matter since they wont be the one giving the terms. Mind you, this was stated when they thought they actually would win. As I stated, set fixes are a little obnoxious. If alliance A gave harsh terms their first war which occurred in January, gave white peace in February, gave white peace in July, but another war didn't occur for another 8 months and were attacked, I feel your mandatory fixed amount would, without a doubt, not represent this alliance's new reparation representation, particularly because technically, since you like using technicalities often, TOP has represented your number. YOu also state TOP didn't give Polaris a chance after ES, but what about your number here? That is why mandatory sentencing has always been looked down up. [b]" actually that is false. i have admitted with others have validity and have admitted when i made mistakes in my argument. (look in the NSO-Polaris treaty cancellation thread where i admitted i was wrong about GOD and them offering white peace to NSO in the beginning) once you have something that actually refutes my arguments, i will acknowledge them and modify or drop my arguments in accordance. but you keep bringing up a single isolated incident and make it into much more than it is. other than that TOP has done nothing as most alliances have done nothing. the only alliances since the Karma war that have really done anything has been Athens, PC, RoK, GOD, NEW, ZDP, \m/, Polaris, TPF, and GOONS that i can think of off the top of my head. other than that, most alliances have been quiet." [/b] Let me span on this subject. You are an intelligent person, I have realized that ever since you were a brother in Gremlins, and though you do admit when you're wrong, some times you try using technical nonsense, i.e because TOP didn't sign anything doesn't mean they were for white peace, EVEN though their are logs of them supporting it before all others? How in your right mind is that logical, Doch? Because it isn't. You also stated TOP was essentially a bully where I REFERENCED the quote and you still deny it? Honestly, you mine as well say it came out wrong or you didn't mean to convey it as such, but to outright deny written words is mind bottling. Other than that, I agree, you do seem to admit when you're wrong or when you at least made a mistake, which I also do. [b]" yep, you totally read your own meaning into what i posted there. what i was stating was "where were you when TOP was doing this to Polaris?" not "TOP totally deserves harsh reps due to their past." [/b] Why state it unless you're refuting a point? Because not only I, but several others who also commented you (at least LM) took at similar to as I. I stated no to harsh reps, you said "WHAT? DONT YOU REMEMBER WHAT THEY DID 8 MONTHS AGO?" Paraphrase, of course. [b]" the other part was that since you stated that unreasonable reps are akin to forced disbandment, why then has TOP never once attempted to pay Polaris back? again, this does not equal "TOP totally deserves harsh reps due to their past." [/b] No, I said harsh reps can LEAD to disbandment (in most cases) or LEAD to political stagnation, not many carefully plan a number purposely hoping the other side disbands, but as I said, harsh reps are subject; [i]which I stated in my second post after LM's assertions.[/i] It depends on the situation, which I laid out beforehand in this very statement. [b]" The next set was that TOP should pay for their crimes much like NPO/much of Q and Polaris have done. does that mean that they should pay harsh reps- never said that. i have said that is up to CnG as this war is theirs. i am against harsh reps and do not recall ever stating that TOP should pay harsh reps (if i have, then link me and i will apologize for my lapse in judgment at that time). i have never been a fan of harsh terms even prior to SPW." [/b] We got this here where you stated TOP shouldn't pay for their past, you only plan on mentioning it, but here is another where you're stating they should: "so, just like in Karma- TOP should pay for their current and past crimes in some way shape or form." (Reference: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80942&view=findpost&p=2199265) To the point, another is when I bring up the terms of ending the cycle in which plagues this Bob. When I suggest CnG should end the cycle and set an example, you state: " i simply stated what i said because TOP has done some rather unsavory things in the past and you are stating that CnG could do something akin to disbanding them (forcing them to pay unreasonable reps). you also stated "Somewhere along the lines someone needs to completely and utterly destroy the cycle". why could it not have been the SPW this was done? why should it occur now [meaning, the avoidance of harsh terms]? just because you like TOP?," which you refuted. So Yes, it is logical for myself and others to believe you refuted unreasonable terms. Problem is, why would CnG, who was not affected by TOPs' past, make them 'pay for it'? They were no where near being affected by the Polaris incident 8 months ago. [b] "Polaris did not force terms. TOP did. and Polaris's history has no bearing on CnG but TOP's does as this is not the first time they aggressively attacked an alliance based on "threat to security" style DoW. this is in fact that second time. much closer to a trend than your Karma war incident. not to mention, most in TOP still do not see this war as a mistake more so than they blame Polaris for leaving their side." [/b] Look at what you quoted. As I stated in term three; "3. I state you shouldn't judge someone's past in terms of reparations because as the community, as a whole, for the most part, has evolved. I also state this isn't Polaris forcing terms, but rather CnG, who were not directly linked to Polaris and thus even their 'past' has no bearing with CnG." Like you said, Polaris isn't forcing terms - as I stated. CnG is NOT related to TOPs history whatsoever. Yes, they have been attacked, yes they did this before, but when TOP attacked Polaris, CnG was [b]NOT[/b] affected by it too my knowledge, so for them to 'want vengeance' is politically redundant and most CnG leaders will tell you the same. They want vengeance for THESE actions, not actions done in the past which had no bearing on them. Furthermore, you did it again. You keep blending the military vs reparation amounts. I bring up TOPs' history in temrs of reps, you bring their military action. Yes, militarily one could easily stated TOP hasn't changed, but in terms of reps? Which is the entire point of this argument? One can EASILY provide reasoning as to why TOP has changed within the past few months in terms of reps amount, which has been provided numerous times in which you don't accept because "They didn't sign it on paper," which is ridiculous. Keep this subject on reps, as I stated in the terms which you quoted and disputed while trying to avoid the military aspect. [b] i do believe that i said that you accepted extortionist like reps when TOP did it but now that TOP may face the same thing, it is all of a sudden bad. thus, making your argument hypocritical since it seemed okay for you when TOP did it to Polaris and other alliances, but now that TOP may get extortionist reps you all of a sudden jump to how ebil it is to use extortionist reps even going so far as to describe them as akin to forced disbandment. so again, answer my question about where this opinion was when TOP was doing it to Polaris? if you cannot answer that because either A) you felt TOP justified then this just destroys your entire argument or B) you did not care because it was not TOP on the receiving end this again destroys your entire argument. [/b] Your first sentence means little as you later, in your own response, state you misread. In terms of TOP-Polaris, I was against their actions and even agreed with your assertions in this response, which hopefully you'll acknowledge. [i]Let me break this down. -I stated the environment has changed and developed over time: "Now, should we try forcing Polaris to pay terrible reps because of the hideous crimes they have supported or done so themselves in the past? Whether you agree or not, essentially you are supporting the demise in Polaris if we are to always judge on the past and actions which we have done in the past. EZI is a social taboo, but it wasn't in the older days; so should I kill them for it? No. Wouldn't I just be adding to the cycle of hatred and unethical profoundness?....Should we consider GOD a terrible alliance for sanctioning someone they tech raided? No, not at all, because it was acceptable then and no longer is now. Anyone can look in the past and laugh as silly actions or ideas because of evolution in terms of how we progress as a society and in how we progress in ourselves. Lets look at funny scientific explanations, or theories, and lets laugh at the way people were punished (EZI/PZI) in the old days. We can look at them as morally unjust, but back then, we were different as a society and dictated by different terms or standards." -You thought somehow I was saying that extortion-like terms was once accepted: "this whole, "it was acceptable back then" bs is ridiculous. extortionist reps have never been acceptable by everyone in CN. it was only acceptable to Initiative/Q/1V mostly and was used by their allies at the time. those who fought against those parties i sure as hell would bet did not like the unreasonable reps. so to state it was "acceptable" is ridiculous as it was only acceptable by a minority within CN. thus, that whole argument fails based on the fact that a minority=/=CN. See your mistake? Maybe you interpreted incorrectly or read too quickly, but that is where it stems from. Its not that I sad nothing about reps, it's that I said nothing about 'socially accepted extortion-like terms in the past' which you thought I said they were once socially acceptable. Essentially, you're arguing on my side. You: i admit my mistake about misreading your post. [/i] [b]" so if this was true, and for now i will take your word, we have 2 out of many wars that TOP fought in which 1 they actually gave white peace and the second, they helped achieve white peace (though again, they did not sign the terms so they did not actually grant as you seem to state). by a true comparison, then you have 2 incidents out of many in which they did not accept reps (and the BBW at that time, they were in no position to get anything but white peace as the war had not even begun, so this war could have ended differently if TPF/CC and CnG/SF had fought. depending on if CC won, who knows if reps would have been asked for. we will not know since it ended prior to really beginning. hence the name. so this is only a pseudo-incident given the parameters with which it happened)" [/b] If you take my word, there are three since they stated in the beginning they were against harsh terms. You brought up TOPs' old past in terms of Polaris and their reparations, but failed to mention the past three wars (including this one) in which TOP was for white peace and reasonable terms, though they always gave white peace. You once again mention the Blue Balls War, but it was stated from the beginning TOP was after white peace before the conflict even stirred them in as they knew they'd be drawn in but stagnated because of New Years. [b] "so again, by comparison they still have many more times they demanded reps than they didn't. by comparison, they have been party to even harsher terms without speaking out against them at all. so, do you really want me to compare them in an unbiased manner or do you want me to compare them in your biased manner in which you go, "oh the last two were more recent, and thus negate all the rest despite the rest being much more of an overwhelming number". because it seems you are going for the latter biased analysis instead of the former unbiased analysis. but keep saying i am the one that is biased, while you are completely unbiased. at least i admit i do have bias in my arguments but try to eliminate most of it. but when i actually compare and analyze things, i actually [b]compare[/b] them and not just go, zomg this is the most recent and thus negates all the rest..." [/b] By comparison, you're comparing TOP from 8 months ago versus TOP from now in terms of reps. As stated, the factual data doesn't prove your point as the past three wars (Including this one) they have either stated or given white peace from the very beginning. So yes, it leads me to believe they no longer believe in their methods, but do remember, Polaris once imposed harsh terms on other alliances when NPO was the big dog. You state you're comparing things, but you're doing it incorrectly. This argument stemmed off reps, not military action. You have done a fairly decent job in terms of TOPs' military action, but lacked in reparation comparison. Yes, TOP did somethings in the past even I do not agree with (Polaris), but do know people and entities change and TOP has done so within the past three wars. I wish they would have won this war to show you their different intake of reparation amount, but stating BBW doesn't count merely because they weren't "on paper" is ludicrous and ignorant my friend, which you are not either. I am hoping your senses will at least make you realize how incorrect you are towards the BBW incident; which is an incident of fact, not opinion. They not only supported white peace in the end, but supported white peace from the beginning which was stated so in official diplomatic channels, referenced above. In terms of you saying "The last two weeks...", it has been the last few months my friend, ever since Karma they began shifting views and have actively DONE so. [b]" TOP and CnG have been antagonistic towards one another for quite a while (since the Karma war i believe) and now TOP has pulled the same stunt that they did with Polaris in aggressively DoWing CnG because of "threat to security". and again, you are the one who brought up the bully analogy not me. so stop saying i am calling TOP a bully, when i simply used your argument against you. that is all i did and nothing more. had [b]you[/b] not brought up the bully analogy, i would not have used it against you and thus, you would not be stuck on this ridiculous argument. " [/b] Of course I brought the bully analogy into play, but as you said, TOP is essentially the same as a bully. [quote]if he stops bullying you and moves onto another target, then he is still a bully. this is essentially what TOP did. they moved on from Polaris and targeted CnG. so, again, the past is an important thing.[/quote] How can you even think of possibly changing this and turning it on me? What you said is what you said, it is what it is, perhaps you didn't mean it in such a manner, but that is certainly how you conveyed it. And as I said, you proved nothing with your rebut towards my analogy and as stated, essentially called TOP a bully. LOOK AT THE QUOTE lol, it says it quite bluntly Doch. You actually took the typical approach and expanded a hypothetical situation further than intended which doesn't prove your point, but rather changes the situation. If someone is a bully in grade 6 , you see them when they are 24 and are afraid they are going to be punched and do the swing first, it doesn't make them a bully, but rather someone stupidly attacking first. If anything, you should agree: It doesn't make them a bully, it makes them stupid. [b]" 8) never avoided the Karma war. nor in that post did i even mention the BBW. you said that there were two examples of TOP giving white peace. i agree that in Karma they gave white peace so why should i bring it up since i ain't refuting it? i brought up the BBW because that i did refute. so my not bringing up the Karma war was an acknowledgment, albeit an implied one, that you are in fact correct about the Karma war. plus could have sworn i agreed with you earlier. [/b] BBW arguments referenced above, but point acknowledged. [b]" 9) wait, you start off attempting to ridicule me for a pointless statement, and you have this in your argument... my first sentenced stated my position on the reps TOP should have to pay. and wait, you want to talk about spinning when you spun first mate. i was talking of what TOP did to Polaris due to the extreme similarities, and you are the one who started bringing up how TOP gave white peace in Karma. but yeah, keep stating i am somehow spinning things when you are the one who is doing so. Since they have done this in the past, they should not be let off the hook with white peace (which you seem to go back and forth on since it seemed you were stating that TOP should get white peace and now are stating that TOP should pay reps but only light ones. though i am not entirely sure since you arguments are making little sense and while somewhat consistent, you are really outlining anything just stating the same crap over and over again and then thinking you somehow refuted me.)" [/b] When this argument began from reparation amounts and you spinning it into military action -- yes, that is spinning things, completely off the focused subject, Karma related to TOP in terms of reps -- which was the initial subject at hand. Let me make this VERY clear so you are no longer confused, as I have mentioned it numerous times. [i]I mostly agree with Ivan's assertions pertaining to reps. I also have heard the argument "We fear they will attack us again in the future and we wish to avoid that," which to be honest, sounds like the former hegemony. Now before anyone jumps on my case, I am not comparing the two indefinitely, just a mere observation on the terms of this ideology of being fearful of others and completely destroying them so they're unable to recover. Will CnG do this? Who knows, I hope not, but it really comes down to the certain mitigating circumstances MK, CnG, and allies alike will need to consider. Will they demand TOP and allies pay for everything, even when they are down to barely anything? Will white peace only be offered when TOP is around 2m NS? Ivan laid it down beautifully and sometime soon in the future is when we really will find out who is unreasonable and who is merciful; as mercifulness is what has lead us to where we are now. [/i] [i]As LM stated, reparations in extensive amounts only further stagnates this world, which nearly all of us complain about. I have always been an active supporter of white peace merely because forcing unrealistic reparations is indirectly forcing an alliance to disband in some, or even most, cases. Though subjective, if they decide to choose not to disband and pay unrealistic amounts of cash and technology, that is indeed their choice, but with heavy burden. Too many people often use the choice as an argumentative stance and therefore believe because they "chose it," that is what they "truly wish," but in reality, it was a choice based off of limited, astringent choices. I can understand if some reparations are demanded in some situations, but what I do not agree with is when someone is utterly destroyed and the party expects massive reparations; hard to pay when they themselves are barely able to stand. Now, someone can stir this view with unimportant "what ifs," which exist in "every situation," but ultimately we need this world to continue spinning. Somewhere along the lines someone needs to completely and utterly destroy the cycle, some may say it occurred in Karma, but did it really? Time will tell. [/i] What I have stated is terms are subjective. Let me further explain in a short manner: 1. If they ask for reps, consider their position and capabilities, as well as their NS. (Ex: Ask for reps if they really didn't suffer to much damage, thus, they can pay for damages in most cases) 2. If you wish no reps, beat them down to rubbles and ask for no reps. Destroying them and THEN asking for reps to pay damages not only take months months and months to pay, it could also lead to disbandment and eternal war, which both of us have seen numerous times. [b]" as for me having forgiven them, i have. it is not odd. i have stated that TOP should not be let off the hook because they have a history of aggressively attacking alliances based on "threat to security". you are the one who keeps twisting what i say to get it to form what you want." [/b] I've never twisted what you stated, it just seems you have not since you're more focused on their negative aspects and nothing positive, such as their recent action in the past few months, but yet you like them? And as you said, you feel you're somewhat biased due to CnG. "but will admit i am biased due to my associations with CnG." (Reference: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80942&view=findpost&p=2199300) [b]" for example, this whole paragraph of yours is you twisting this "my argument is that they have a history of doing these actions and thus should not be let off the hook for them." where does that state that TOP needs to pay for Polaris? where does that state that they should pay harsh reps? oh wait, it doesn't. the next portion of my paragraph is this: "it is not about anything more than that and the fact that you are reading much more into my argument than i am actually putting into it is amusing. i have never once stated that TOP needs to pay for their actions against Polaris, i used it as an example and history lesson showing that this one not a one time mistake on TOP's part, but instead is a tactic that they are more than willing to use whenever they can." [/b] The argument was based on reparations versus military actions which put us on different pages. Nothing more, nothing less. [b] "which you ignored completely and continued to state false things. so how about you actually read what i post, see what it [b]actually[/b] says and stop putting lies into my words. and again you keep harping on reps- "no, i don't honestly care about TOP paying for anything beyond what they did just now to CnG" [/b] Referenced before where you are the one bringing up TOPs' history which was use to refute my idea of unreasonable terms. Perhaps it was your method of conveyance in the beginning. You have done better since then, but when someone says unreasonable reps are bad and you come along and say "DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THEY DID TO POLARIS?", yeah, it isn't illogical to take your initial, beginning posts as refuting ideas of unjust terms towards TOP, which as I stated, is purely subjective based on which terms are giving. And as you stated: [i] yes, that is me advocating harsh reps instead of TOP paying for the initial damage. (okay i admit it is a bit misworded but that is what i was getting at. either way, that in no way advocates harsh reps for TOP)[/i] That is what it is about. Right here. You admitting to 'miswording'. This is what I have been waiting for and praise your admittance. We all do it, but that is what the argument stems from. That mixed in with the reps vs. military action, we are somewhat on the same page, just a minor difference in recent acts. [b]" sure you can. TOP has handed out harsh reps and been party to harsh terms just like NPO has. thus, in that category they are similar. i never stated that TOP was [b]exactly[/b] like NPO, just that TOP has done NPO-like things. which is true. though in my opinion, many alliances have but only a handful has actually paid for it like Karma made NPO pay for it. and actually, RoK has used viceroys and TOP has been party to removal of people from gov/alliances (much like Gre). so while NPO had done worse that does not mean that all of a sudden we can't compare. i can compare similar actions performed by any and all. i would admit that if Karma had made NPO/Heg out to be so evil, we most likely would not have these comparisons now, but since those who handed down the reps to NPO stated something like "well it is still not as bad as what NPO has done", that essentially started it all." [/b] NPO has decimated alliances for the littlest things ever, much more irrelevant than TOP. NPO has politically back stabbed NUMEROUS allies for self-gain, where TOP has not. NPO has placed 'viceories' in alliances, where TOP has not. NPO has oppressed the opinions of others, where TOP has not. NPO has disbanded alliances, TOP has not. However, lets try avoiding another 239487 page arguments pertaining to this. And in all fairness, almost all alliances did NPO-like actions at one point in another, if you know what I mean. [b] "again, i ask you where were you when TOP did the same to Polaris? how come you have not spoken out against TOP for doing it to CnG? because TOP reviewed CnG's past and then hit them based on CnG being deemed "a threat to their security". really, you keep saying that you aren't biased, yet you are harping on me for doing [b]exactly[/b] what TOP did to Polaris and CnG. are you sure that your Present TOP is so much different from the Former TOP? this is the point i have been trying to get to and you keep using Karma and BBW and reps to point out how different they are. reps mean !@#$ in my argument that you have yet to actually address, since you keep using reps to prove it. the fact is that politically and strategically Present and Former TOP are the same. sure, if they won, they may have given CnG white peace or light reps, but that does not matter one iota since my argument has always been on the fact that TOP has in the past looked at the history of an alliance and deemed them a threat based on said alliance's past, and then aggressively attacked them. so you can keep harping on reps, but what the $%&@ does that have to do with the original argument i brought up long before you brought in reps?" [/b] I was against their actions on Polaris and CnG, they shouldn't have done it in the manner they did. Militarily, I am not arguing them facing Polaris and CnG, in terms of reps, I am.I have stated NUMEROUS times TOP has not changed militarily, but rather in terms of reps they HAVE. Why argue when we're on the same subject. [b] 1) i understand 3) still confused by this as i have no clue what it is about. but i will take your word 4) i agree that TOP changed in terms of reps, but their political and military actions in this war are the same as that in the SPW. in both wars, TOP reviewed the history of the alliance(s) and deemed them a threat, then aggressively attacked said threat based on a DoW similar to "threat to our security".[/b] This is what I have been waiting for. We are on the same page. I am exactly in the same position. Exactly. [b]READ THIS[/b]. Haha. [b] what logs? [/b] Referenced above. Should be on page 53 or so. [b] not sure if the join Ninjas was an actual invitation or not given the rolling eyes. [/b] I can't tell you. Figure out why and you'll understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 Wow, that is a lot of stuff. Did you really say that NSO has been quiet since the end of the Karma War? That, I believe, is a first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 Who did? Because NSO never has remained silent. 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.