Everything. Must. Die.

[Crymson]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1296070643' post='2603076']
Right, because NPO wouldn't know anything about attacking people for no reason solely to destroy them.
[/quote]

Aye. That's the hilarious irony inherent to so many of the posts supporting the NPO in this thread. And the worst many can seem to say about Doomhouse is, "You've proven that you're just as bad as the NPO!"

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1296066880' post='2602942']
To be frank, we'd find it hard to believe MK will not hold on to a grudge for 4 years that they have held on to for 3. We'd find it hard to believe that after creating a coalition to roll us, and taking lead role in collecting reps from Karma[/quote]
I haven't been following this thread closely but in skimming the last page this jumped out at me.

We didn't take a "lead role in collecting reps from Karma". We weren't on your front and didn't have much say in the matter.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Willaim Kreiger' timestamp='1296072910' post='2603144']
Your analysis of my psyche is both deep, and factual. I was a member of an Order and from my perspective he didn't seem to be much more than a loose cannon but if you wish to idolize him that is your prerogative. You have obviously never seen someone get me "riled up".

But point taken, next time I wish to call someone an !@#$%^& for attempting to get under people's skin for no other reason except for their own amusement, I'll simply just go with the adjective rather than the reference to one of their old heroes.
[/quote]


If you have an issue, grab a tissue!

[Khyber]

[quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1296065315' post='2602915']
No. My argument is you were a close treaty partner to us back then, fulfilling your treaty duties during that time.

It doesn't need to be drowned in walls of texts to get lost, as it is quite simple and it has simple to spot ramifications.
No Sir, I have no need for many words, things are clear. I reject preaches from your AA. That is all.
[/quote]

Our treaty duties were to defend the NPO if they should be attacked where they had not started a war hence MDP rather then MADP and why TOP does not sign MADPs, ever. I guess that escaped you too, much like the definition of the word enable. We didn't have to defend you when you got attacked in any wars because let's face it, NPO did the attacking. So no not much backing there either, or as you like to say no "enabling". However if we were still allied now we would come to your defense by the treaty we shared and that was what the treaty duties were, since this is the first war NPO is in where it did not go on the offensive first.

What is quite simple is you, who simply spits out what other people say without even knowing what the words mean. Things are always clear to a simple mind. I remember now why I don't argue with those in the NPO. They like the simple view of the world where all they have to sacrific is their ability to reason, read, or even understand english. Instead they simply have to swallow what their leaders put infront of them to prove their loyalty.

MK is doing us all a favor I'm starting to think. I may have been skeptical with this declaration initially, but now I'm thinking stamping out Pacifica would help lower the amount of stupid in Planet Bob, and I could never disargee with that.

[Branimir]

[quote name='Khyber' timestamp='1296074213' post='2603188']What is quite simple is you, who simply spits out what other people say without even knowing what the words mean. Things are always clear to a simple mind. I remember now why I don't argue with those in the NPO. They like the simple view of the world where all they have to sacrific is their ability to reason, read, or even understand english. Instead they simply have to swallow what their leaders put infront of them to prove their loyalty. [/quote]
Yes, dish out insults once you can not wiggle out from your silly argument.

You were closely allied to us for years. You fulfilled your treaty duties all that time! Actually, quite a loyal ally, was proud to have you with us.

If we were monsters, what that makes you for all those years?

[b]Stop preaching![/b]

[quote name='Khyber' timestamp='1296074213' post='2603188']MK is doing us all a favor I'm starting to think. I may have been skeptical with this declaration initially, but now I'm thinking stamping out Pacifica would help lower the amount of stupid in Planet Bob, and I could never disargee with that.[/quote]
Seems to me I hit a nerve and now you fully degenerate into insults. NPO U STUPIDZ hurrrrrrr

I am sorry, but facts are clear and no walls of text, no treaty of convenience change them. Deal with it.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Branimir

[Trouble Terrible]

[quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1296074620' post='2603207']blah blah blah[/quote]

When Umbrella, GOONS, and MK declare on you, attempt to hurl poo at TOP. Pacifican strategery at its finest.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Trouble Terrible

[Branimir]

[quote name='Trouble Terrible' timestamp='1296076213' post='2603247']When Umbrella, GOONS, and MK declare on you, attempt to hurl poo at TOP. Pacifican strategery at its finest.[/quote]
Wait until we unleash our other strategeries RAWR!

It was a tangent that developed. That happens in threads, especially long ones like this.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Branimir

[Khyber]

[quote name='Wad of Lint' timestamp='1296070675' post='2603078']
Fundamentally, your alliance supported their actions. Whether or not you "disagreed" with them is irrelevant. You supported such actions politically and militarily. Without support, alliances cannot accomplish objectives. Therefore, in providing the support you did, you allowed them to accomplish said objectives in question. To me, that's pretty damn near the definition of enabling.
[/quote]

That there is a pretty damn near silly argument. We didn't support some and supported others, politically and militarily. You can't say being allies means you supported everything your ally does in either sense. We've seen allies not support other allies time and time again politically and militarily.

You yourself just stated how bad it was that TOP wanted a piece of CnG in BiPolar. Well, hate to break it to you, IRON was a part of that, your ally at the time. Did you support it politically? If so, why the turn about and complaining about what we did when you supported it? Or does the arguement only work one way, but when applied to you it doesn't make sense.

Really I love your double standards.

[Monster]

[quote name='Khyber' timestamp='1296077161' post='2603279']
That there is a pretty damn near silly argument. We didn't support some and supported others, politically and militarily. You can't say being allies means you supported everything your ally does in either sense. We've seen allies not support other allies time and time again politically and militarily.

You yourself just stated how bad it was that TOP wanted a piece of CnG in BiPolar. Well, hate to break it to you, IRON was a part of that, your ally at the time. Did you support it politically? If so, why the turn about and complaining about what we did when you supported it? Or does the arguement only work one way, but when applied to you it doesn't make sense.

Really I love your double standards.
[/quote]

In their defense, they didn't support it.

[Ramirus Maximus]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1296078132' post='2603296']In their defense, they didn't support it.[/quote]
No one did, but because they were beaten, no one cared because that meant free tech. They got away with it, essentially.

You guys will too, and likely you won't even have to pay out tech. Might even get some more.

[iamthey]

[quote name='neneko' timestamp='1296054776' post='2602714']
That was a rule book written by NPO. The days when we were forced to play by your rules are long gone. May they never return.
[/quote]

Hardly, considering it was a book that NPO is supposed to be getting rolled for violating. CB's, what constitutes a CB, the divide between aggressor and defender, when and how much you can impose as reps, what a ToS can contain excetra exist solely as a safeguard informally imposed by 'the web' against any would be hegemon. It has evolved overtime from a basic set of principles, to become the complicated jumble of precedents and heuristics we now have today. It was a collaboration created out of this discourse over the course of this world's life, neither NPO, nor their allies and opponents were its exclusive authors.

In the past it was implied that at least in theory if you committed a true unprovoked act of aggression, your treaties would not be applied and you would be alone to face whatever your enemy could muster. Therefore to this point alliances had to acquire a CB (historically often through exaggeration or invention) in order to justify a war and therefore ensure their allies support. This looming threat of indifference is what has maintained the careful balance necessary to create the thriving political culture between and within alliances today. The strong always contained and encompassed the weak, while the weak were free to maneuver and battle it out through PR. It is that community which gives this [ooc]game[/ooc] any meaning, not the exciting and riveting activity of [ooc]clicking a series of red buttons and entering your password into a browser game[/ooc].

While this development is treated as an evolutionary leap within the present state of affairs, I would actually consider it a regression. I see something productive and fulfilling in the political interplay of alliances and the machinations perpetrated on both sides of the web, while I find open and frequent warfare to be dry repetitive and ultimately boring. Indeed I was among those calling for more honest DoW's, but only in lieu of what essentially amounts to fraud. I say this not because I think the world it renders, if conducted on a wide scale, will be better, simply that at least then those who do it are removed from the war paradigm entirely and can be seen openly for what they are: contemptible brutes.

If you have indeed trashed the old tradition based rule book, then I hope for the sake of continued interest in bob that you are by some miracle defeated. Otherwise it is quite possible that the political culture itself (and thus all that makes this world engaging and interesting), not simply the NPO, will fall victim to doomhouse.

Edited January 26, 2011 by iamthey

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' timestamp='1296078706' post='2603310']
No one did, but because they were beaten, no one cared because that meant free tech. They got away with it, essentially.

You guys will too, and likely you won't even have to pay out tech. Might even get some more.
[/quote]
His excellency emerges~

[Quinoa Rex]

[quote name='iamthey' timestamp='1296079146' post='2603325']
Otherwise it is quite possible that the political culture itself (and thus all that makes this world engaging and interesting), not simply the NPO, will fall victim to doomhouse.
[/quote]
What you and yours continually fail to recognise is that our pro-war methodology and your newly embraced pro-politics methodology are two distinct and equally valid modes of operation that both need to exist in order for this world to be engaging. If one dominates the other, things get dull fast.

[Roadie]

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1296081576' post='2603396']
What you and yours continually fail to recognise is that our pro-war methodology and your newly embraced pro-politics methodology are two distinct and equally valid modes of operation that both need to exist in order for this world to be engaging. If one dominates the other, things get dull fast.
[/quote]

This hits the nail on the head. Though I think what isn't being recognized here is that the pro-war methodology is stopping short the pro-politics methodology.

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='Khyber' timestamp='1296077161' post='2603279']
That there is a pretty damn near silly argument. We didn't support some and supported others, politically and militarily. You can't say being allies means you supported everything your ally does in either sense. We've seen allies not support other allies time and time again politically and militarily.[/quote]

When you join an alliance, you give it your support. Without nations, an alliance does not exist. When you treaty an alliance, you extend the support of your nations to that other alliance. You help to support it's goals and objectives.

[quote]
Really I love your double standards.
[/quote]

A double standard would require I hold myself to different standards than you. I have done no such thing. I have refuted your opinion. I have not made a judgment on whether the actions are right or wrong, only that your statement is incorrect.

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1296072778' post='2603140']
Actually it is completely !@#$@#$ irrelevant.

Eve if NpO and STA were hell bent to protect Pacifica's pixels, in grand scheme of things wouldn't matter one single bit. Because there is still this conglomeration of alliances around MK that as well wouldn't then be in war, intact, and grossly bigger then anything NPO and its few other allies could muster.

And if so we would do our wicket ways again, they could still do exactly what they are doing now.

But this way, they have managed to settle their future destiny. Nothing what evil/devil NPO could do could ever come close to what they did to themselves by letting their nature show here. GG
[/quote]

I think you need to recalibrate your sarcasm meter.

[Quinoa Rex]

[quote name='Roadie' timestamp='1296082058' post='2603403']
This hits the nail on the head. Though I think what isn't being recognized here is that the pro-war methodology is stopping short the pro-politics methodology.
[/quote]
I don't agree. Politics and war don't share the same complexities in the same ways; i.e. you can play politics with anyone of any size but war is something you have to figure carefully in order to avoid getting your skull kicked in. "I don't like you and want to wipe you off the face of the earth just for kicks" is a perfectly valid reason to go to war; then the other side tries to politick themselves onto the high ground and the world keeps turning and so on and so forth.

(edited for clarification)

Edited January 26, 2011 by Quinoa Rex

[King Srqt]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1296073859' post='2603171']
Aye. That's the hilarious irony inherent to so many of the posts supporting the NPO in this thread. And the worst many can seem to say about Doomhouse is, "You've proven that you're just as bad as the NPO!"
[/quote]
It would be hilarious irony if the NPO hadn't already been defeated in a war because of that,paid enormous amounts of reps and remained peaceful since then.

[Roadie]

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1296083428' post='2603456']
I don't agree. Politics and war don't share the same complexities in the same ways; i.e. you can play politics with anyone of any size but war is something you have to figure carefully in order to avoid getting your skull kicked in. "I don't like you and want to wipe you off the face of the earth just for kicks" is a perfectly valid reason to go to war; then the other side tries to politick themselves onto the high ground and the world keeps turning and so on and so forth.

(edited for clarification)
[/quote]

I think what's missing is a recognition that military power is key to gaining political power. IE a micro will never have any significant political influence simply because they don't have the military powered required to garner political influence.

[Alpha Dawg]

I find reading these 75 pages of "I hate you, blah blah blah" to be pointless, so I am going to make a pointless post too kinda like this one.
Enjoy war. k bye

[Branimir]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1296083308' post='2603448']I think you need to recalibrate your sarcasm meter. [/quote]
No, I know that the ginger guy was making sarcastic fake quote lines. I just piggybacked on them to just point out that the entire thing in it self, doesn't make much sense either way considering all.

That the DoW so heavily relied on it, it is just,...ludicrous, really is what it is.

Welp anyway, I suppose there really isn't anything left to say after so many pages.

[JoshuaR]

Finally, war for the sake of war, of hate and want of destruction. And now an actual reason for an opposition to grow, and for the chance of a truly equal war, one day in the future, not too long from now.

[Letum]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296074035' post='2603179']
I haven't been following this thread closely but in skimming the last page this jumped out at me.

We didn't take a "lead role in collecting reps from Karma". We weren't on your front and didn't have much say in the matter.
[/quote]

You collected 50,000 tech for what now appears to be no reason, and were one of the main alliances we'd talk to when inter-alliance organization was needed. I'd call that a lead role.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Letum

[Ivan Moldavi]

At least those declaring realize they need to preempt their superiors in Pacifica. Without cause or justification but out of warranted fear.

You should fear the Orders.

That is the way of the Cyberverse.

[neneko]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1296090142' post='2603762']
At least those declaring realize they need to preempt their superiors in Pacifica. Without cause or justification but out of warranted fear.

You should fear the Orders.

That is the way of the Cyberverse.
[/quote]
I'm just thrilled you're all on the same page again.

I for one fear all of the orders. The only thing I can't decide on is wich of them I fear the most sith, polar, pacifica or sakura.