Balkan Banania Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 [quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1296024533' post='2602310'] [color="#FF0000"]"Karma" was nothing more than a convienent buzzword to rally against Pacifica. Nothing more, nothing less.[/color] [/quote] [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1296024955' post='2602323'] I'm pretty sure I said these exact words in a post somewhere [/quote] This was obvious from the begining, but by repeating again and again the same moralistic propaganda you made the OWF a sad place to be. On this ground I would like some compensation for all the moralistic posts by MK et al. during the Karma war. A post by Bob with the above quote will be sufficient On a serious note, I don’t have a problem with this war. My problem is that you firstly downgraded the OWF by overusing the moralistic rhetoric along with a ton of trolling. At the same time by using Vox you revised history to your liking (just to avoid unneeded trolling, we were indeed a hegemony and did many things that can fully justify the Karma war). Then you decided to make the lulz your flag, and now, after you have made this place a beacon of stupidity, you decided to do something “for” the game. As I see it your action can potentially kill a significant aspect of the politics of the game if it becomes a norm, while at the same time I think that the OWF degradation drove many players out of the game. I feel sympathy for the people that decided to play this game as moral leaders and for some reason believed that MK et al. could hold the principles espoused by the Karma war, but I think that the path you follow was clear from the beginning. Concerning the recent war it is also obvious that you do not do this for the game, or even for fun, you are doing this in order to neutralize a potential enemy, so please cut the propaganda. Your actions have as sole purpose to benefit MK and PB which is of course logical, but please stop claiming that you are doing the game a favor, you don’t. Concluding, this war is not bad and I will entertain myself, but please improve your propaganda, or stop it and let's try to speak about politics. The audience is a bit less naïve than during the Karma era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjaminperdomo Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 Great read, and I agree. Sadly, it won't change a thing, at least in the short term Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1296022358' post='2602234'] This is the sort of moralist daydreaming that is throttling this planet. You plead and plead that we should end this war so that 'rationality and discourse reign supreme' so I ask of you; Where have you been for the past year? Since the closure of the Bi-Polar war we have had nothing more than 'rationality' and discourse. Every potential conflict drew to a close far too soon because "cooler heads prevailed" A perfect example would be the Superfriends-NSO war in August, which drew to a close because the allies of the New Sith Order did not defend them because they were not ready for a large scale conflict, so once again 'cooler heads prevailed' in the name of 'rationality' We have seen the amount of world leaders decline at an alarming rate, many of these people leaving simply because there is nothing for them to do, they cannot engage in any wars, or anything vaguely aggressive for fear of being judged by the community for being "immoral" As apparently it is the business of just about everybody and anybody when someone does something a little questionable. Everyone comes out in full force to denounce this immoral scumbag for going against their pre-defined way of how to be a good leader. All this man had was some ambition, and you destroyed it with your ethics and your moral codes. Of course it is not just our unwritten moral code that chokes us, it is our warped sense of diplomacy too. For years now, each alliance has made a point to further its relations with other alliances in the form of Mutual/optional defense/aggression pacts. We have so many of these worthless treaties that nothing can possibly escalate without fear of it evolving into a global conflict long before people have set up the chess board for another round. We are also now at a point where there are so many treaties, many are being ignored in favour of other allies and many people are being forced to fight on both sides of the war because of their obligations, and should they choose to pick one side over the other they will be denounced and their own treaties will be e-lawyered by the baying mobs of the "honourable" community. How is this productive? How is this good for the community? All of these points considered, you would still have us return to the world where tech raiding was the biggest problem facing the community, and where micro alliances with their protectorates sprouted up daily while the total nation count continued to drop? You will kill this planet with your dreamy idealist ways. [/quote] ahh so what you and others are saying is that what NPO did (ie all those wars) is perfectly legit since moralism means nothing? it was perfectly acceptable for NPO to hit GPA? not to mention during said time- MK was a moralist scumbag alliance that was the true reason CN was dying back then not NPO? cuz NPO attacking alliances is the only way to have fun? amidoinitrite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1296077061' post='2603276'] Kalasin is a very good person and her opinion is respected as a difference of view. Please do not personally attack her or GATO just because she has a different view than you. Read down a little latter and you'll see her post was somewhat misunderstood by some. [/quote] nope, can't see where her post could possibly be misunderstood. i read it carefully and read her other post. if she does not want to be called petty, then she should drop the whole "NPO deserve this" bit. and my view of GATO has not changed. i simply view the fact that she is in GATO, considering what i know of GATO, to be basically not good. she can have a differing opinion, but that by no means stops me from having my own opinion. and my opinion of her is that she is a petty little person. if she does not want me to hold this opinion of her, then she needs to stop being so petty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296080717' post='2603377'] nope, can't see where her post could possibly be misunderstood. i read it carefully and read her other post. if she does not want to be called petty, then she should drop the whole "NPO deserve this" bit. and my view of GATO has not changed. i simply view the fact that she is in GATO, considering what i know of GATO, to be basically not good. she can have a differing opinion, but that by no means stops me from having my own opinion. and my opinion of her is that she is a petty little person. if she does not want me to hold this opinion of her, then she needs to stop being so petty. [/quote] Her post was more of a..... "If there is anyone at all in the world who deserves this it's NPO. I would never support EZI for anyone, but they supported it for many so if it happens to them then so what" I don't completely agree with what she says, but it's true if I had to pick any alliance that deserved this it would in fact be NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimaera Posted January 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 It is intriguing to me that, for the most part, both the defenders and aggressors in this conflict are noticeably silent here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1296081468' post='2603393'] Her post was more of a..... "If there is anyone at all in the world who deserves this it's NPO. I would never support EZI for anyone, but they supported it for many so if it happens to them then so what" I don't completely agree with what she says, but it's true if I had to pick any alliance that deserved this it would in fact be NPO. [/quote] she said that NPO deserves to be punished multiple times for the same crime. to me that is the equivalent of EZI since the NPO of now is nothing like the NPO of before, yet they deserve to be punished a second time for crimes they were already punished for with Karma. i don't agree with that sentiment in the least and i stick by my opinion that she is a petty person. i doubt she would like to be punished again for crimes she had already paid for and i don't believe anyone or any alliance should suffer that fate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K1L1O Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1296076898' post='2603270'] NEW war was fairly airtight. The only complaint I saw was from NEW themselves. [/quote] Kinda out of of topic in this thread but i need to ask when did we complain about our war? In fact we did attack DF for our revenge and that time almost everyone on CN said that we were the fools that couldn't move on. But now everyone hails DoomHouse attacking NPO for the very same reason as us Now i agree with a post in this thread somewhere that might makes right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='Chimaera' timestamp='1296091924' post='2603823'] It is intriguing to me that, for the most part, both the defenders and aggressors in this conflict are noticeably silent here. [/quote] Radio silence, only official spokespersons from their propaganda departments will be speaking. the serfs will be ordered to remain silent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Balkan Banania' timestamp='1296078057' post='2603293'] On a serious note, I don’t have a problem with this war. My problem is that you firstly downgraded the OWF by overusing the moralistic rhetoric along with a ton of trolling. At the same time by using Vox you revised history to your liking (just to avoid unneeded trolling, we were indeed a hegemony and did many things that can fully justify the Karma war). Then you decided to make the lulz your flag, and now, after you have made this place a beacon of stupidity, you decided to do something “for” the game. As I see it your action can potentially kill a significant aspect of the politics of the game if it becomes a norm, while at the same time I think that the OWF degradation drove many players out of the game. I feel sympathy for the people that decided to play this game as moral leaders and for some reason believed that MK et al. could hold the principles espoused by the Karma war, but I think that the path you follow was clear from the beginning. Concerning the recent war it is also obvious that you do not do this for the game, or even for fun, you are doing this in order to neutralize a potential enemy, so please cut the propaganda. Your actions have as sole purpose to benefit MK and PB which is of course logical, but please stop claiming that you are doing the game a favor, you don’t. Concluding, this war is not bad and I will entertain myself, but please improve your propaganda, or stop it and let's try to speak about politics. The audience is a bit less naïve than during the Karma era. [/quote] What people are forgetting is that the moralist rhetoric was appropriate for its time, it is however now heavily outdated and yet we are incapable of discarding it. In my opinion it is likely the result of a basic human instinct to want to do good (or at least to do what you think is morally good) which is why we cannot move on from this particular train of thought and develop something fresh. So when you claim we made 'lulz' our flag, it was simply a change in political ideology, a necessary change every alliance must make at least once during their existence. OWF degradation is not something you can blame on one alliance. Everyone is responsible for a large majority of terrible posts being made, even alliances in your sphere of influence and alliances in ours. Everyone needs to suck it up and take responsibility for the god awful posting. I feel no sympathy for those who followed the Mushroom Kingdom believing them to be moral crusaders who would save us all. Only a fool would believe that of anyone, especially in the world of politics. With regards to your claim that we are not doing this for the game or for fun but to only eliminate potential opponents; Why can we not be doing all three? I'm certainly having fun, and I do feel that this war is good for the game, not just because we've declared on the NPO, but because we've actually declared on [i]someone[/i]. I don't think that because we declared on NPO without a "legitimate CB" that it will be the end of the CB, but it will at least show to people that sometimes having no reason is the best reason. And I'm pretty sure I have been talking politics. Edited January 27, 2011 by Johnny Apocalypse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordliam Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 You know, I know that it's "wrong" to say this, but I can't help but think that current and future players would enjoy this game a lot more if wars didn't need casus belli. If "we don't like the way you smell" was a solid CB, more people would go to war, there would be more players, and although everybody would be in control of smaller nations, would have a lot more fun. We're not playing the game as Admin intended us to play it. Stop trying to make yourselves think that you're the revolutionary-turned-dictator, or the lone freedom fighter, or the great superpower, or that you're fighting for some obscure thing called "justice" that doesn't even exist in the world that you're fighting in. Admit it. You like war and you would be overjoyed if you could routinely slaughter not only others, but even your own virtual men, without reason. If only the status-quo imposed by those who wanted to avoid war to keep their power was so rigid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='K1L1On1Mr4' timestamp='1296096727' post='2603960'] Kinda out of of topic in this thread but i need to ask when did we complain about our war? In fact we did attack DF for our revenge and that time almost everyone on CN said that we were the fools that couldn't move on. But now everyone hails DoomHouse attacking NPO for the very same reason as us Now i agree with a post in this thread somewhere that might makes right [/quote] Sorry complain was the wrong word to use. More like the only person who tried to justify what NEW did was NEW. Also, Doomhouse is catching a lot of flack for what they're doing too. The problem was we could stop you guys from doing things we thought were wrong. It's not as easy to stop MK and co. [quote] she said that NPO deserves to be punished multiple times for the same crime. to me that is the equivalent of EZI since the NPO of now is nothing like the NPO of before, yet they deserve to be punished a second time for crimes they were already punished for with Karma. i don't agree with that sentiment in the least and i stick by my opinion that she is a petty person. i doubt she would like to be punished again for crimes she had already paid for and i don't believe anyone or any alliance should suffer that fate[/quote] Nah, NPO hasn't changed a bit. Still hitting someone for crimes they may commit in the future is retarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='lordliam' timestamp='1296098393' post='2604029'] You know, I know that it's "wrong" to say this, but I can't help but think that current and future players would enjoy this game a lot more if wars didn't need casus belli. If "we don't like the way you smell" was a solid CB, more people would go to war, there would be more players, and although everybody would be in control of smaller nations, would have a lot more fun. We're not playing the game as Admin intended us to play it. Stop trying to make yourselves think that you're the revolutionary-turned-dictator, or the lone freedom fighter, or the great superpower, or that you're fighting for some obscure thing called "justice" that doesn't even exist in the world that you're fighting in. Admit it. You like war and you would be overjoyed if you could routinely slaughter not only others, but even your own virtual men, without reason. If only the status-quo imposed by those who wanted to avoid war to keep their power was so rigid. [/quote] Not really.... that was tried in TE, but it kind of fizzled out, because if you just go to war because you're bored you end up not really wanting to fight. Keeping long term grudges, fighting for stuff you believe in, keeping long term friends, etc.... is what keeps people in this game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K1L1O Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1296099107' post='2604060'] Sorry complain was the wrong word to use. More like the only person who tried to justify what NEW did was NEW. Also, Doomhouse is catching a lot of flack for what they're doing too. The problem was we could stop you guys from doing things we thought were wrong. It's not as easy to stop MK and co. [/quote] No worries about the wrong word dude, honestly i do pray for Pacifica in this war. I just can't barely accept that MK and Co really did what they once against. About CB 'I don't like you so die please', some of you maybe support it. But i want to see in the future if that CB used against you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordliam Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='K1L1On1Mr4' timestamp='1296099742' post='2604093'] About CB 'I don't like you so die please', some of you maybe support it. But i want to see in the future if that CB used against you [/quote] I'd be completely fine about it, because I'd only have to wait a few months and hit them back with a "I'm taking revenge on what you did to me half a year ago" CB. It's just a game. Chill out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owned-You Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='Prime minister Johns' timestamp='1296097131' post='2603975'] Radio silence, only official spokespersons from their propaganda departments will be speaking. the serfs will be ordered to remain silent [/quote] [font="Tahoma"]Actually it's a combination of factors; all of which exclude any sort of Radio Silence...and I certainly wouldn't consider myself a propagandist, only a realist. That said I'll take the bait you've thrown out because I have a high tolerance for dealing with this sort of non-sense and I'm certainly not one to shy away from anything, let alone debate. The long and short of what I'm going to say is essentially the same. The idealistic nonsense that's been spewed in this thread has been spewed in countless others; by like minded people such as yourself. We have been debating it to the point of infuriating repetition. Albeit, this was much better construed and posted; I'll give credit where it is due and Chimaera you've made a well thought out and typed thesis. However, the fact of the matter is simple; I along with countless others did not participate in Karma to rid ourselves from some sort of "evil" but rather I fought to rid myself of a threat. While I certainly disagreed with the practices NPO committed while at the helm of the world. I didn't seek to create a world of idealism filled with the various morals you've espoused in your thesis, those being the stagnation from timid politics cloaked behind a curtain of good intentions. No, the very notion is sickening for it puts a great deal of stress thinking of a world where the only form of excitement possible is a curbstomp over some 'morally' accepted CB. See, because the morals that you and others hold true only hold true for you all; I do not care to play by your rules nor will I allow you to force them down my throat. Which is exactly what your proposing, considering we will not idly sit and watch as you force us into inactivity, boredom, and ultimately from the game entirely. What your so called morals are is nothing more then a scourge akin to some biblical plague on an city, wiping it out entirely. In this context, your morals are wiping out any enjoyment from this game by placing; or rather lulling us into a state where we must simply wake up every morning, pay bills every 20 days and collect taxes after a nice share of tech is bought in between. Alternatively, some of us make use of these forums and other alliance forums along with IRC to keep us somewhat distracted. But for many, myself included; this is not enough. Had I wanted to sit in a community where aggression was frowned upon, nay a physical impossibility, I would have played !@#$%* or joined GPA. Gladly however, this world runs on vitriol, violence, and vengeance; and I for one enjoy this greatly.[/font] [font="Tahoma"]I for one know that I seldom post in peace-times on these forums because I care little for the political pleasantries exchanged in carbon-copy treaty threads in the alliance announcements, nor do I care for the waste of space polls constantly being pinned up for the peanut gallery to lavish in. Rather, I enjoy destroying peoples nations, plotting in corners against alliances, political antics, robust and intelligent discourse, and other things of that nature. But if we are to enter your idealistic nature of morality; I will see my very world, my enjoyment in this game destroyed. So no, I will not stand for it.[/font] [font="Tahoma"]Now addressing the laughable notion that we are hypocritical from our actions. To put it bluntly, countless players were forced to roll with the "feel-good" notion of a better world. For political reasons it was a necessity in order to ensure the solidarity of our war-time coalition. I didn't believe any of that propaganda, and anyone who did is a full for it. So to somehow accuse us of being hypocrites for our actions then is to ignore the conditions under which that coalition was formed and our reasons for participating in it. I didn't fight for some 'brave new world' I fought to eliminate a threat. If I had to roll with this idealism to see it done, then so be it.[/font] [font="Tahoma"]Furthermore, the notion that although not outright stated in the topic but insinuated that we are by any means on a level of 'evil' (it's all subjective) as Pacifica is laughable at best. We have yet to disband any communities, let alone a handful. We have yet to blacklist countless players from this game, nor destroy them for their statements on this forum. We have yet to seek to create a political apparatus to suffocate the politics of this game. What we have done, which is levy large reparations and attack our antagonist pails in comparison to their actions. Now, should we begin actively seeking these things then the allegations of our evil are nothing more or less then unfounded strawman arguments construed to undermine our name by people whom seek to create a new order with themselves at the top. Because in order to create this order, you'll have to commit the same acts your espousing against now. So honestly, who is the hypocrites? We the alliances seeking to allow the freedom of action of any at their wills desire. Or you, the moralists seeking to place an apparatus upon the world from which you can squeeze the world into your liking? Which is more damning? Because I believe it is the latter which you moralists propose.[/font] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='K1L1On1Mr4' timestamp='1296099742' post='2604093'] No worries about the wrong word dude, honestly i do pray for Pacifica in this war. I just can't barely accept that MK and Co really did what they once against. About CB 'I don't like you so die please', some of you maybe support it. But i want to see in the future if that CB used against you [/quote] lol I hear you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K1L1O Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='lordliam' timestamp='1296100158' post='2604110'] I'd be completely fine about it, because I'd only have to wait a few months and hit them back with a "I'm taking revenge on what you did to me half a year ago" CB. It's just a game. Chill out! [/quote] That's the true gentleman, i have the same opinion as you All warriors of NEW always think this is just a game, that's why we always go to battlefields even we're often on losing side Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1296099107' post='2604060'] [b]Nah, NPO hasn't changed a bit.[/b] Still hitting someone for crimes they may commit in the future is retarded. [/quote] So that make's it okay to punish someone twice for a crime? Alliance: "For tech raiding one of our members, you must pay $9 million." Raider: "Okay. I'm sorry for what I've done. Sending my cash." Alliance: "No problem." [i]-About two years later-[/i] Alliance: "WE'RE GOING TO CURBSTOMP YOU!" Former raider: "What did I do?" Alliance: "For your past crimes." Former raider: "But that was nearly two years ago, and you already punished me..." Alliance: "Fine, because $%&@ you, that's why." Edited January 27, 2011 by HHAYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1296101212' post='2604157'] So that make's it okay to punish someone twice for a crime? Alliance: "For tech raiding one of our members, you must pay $9 million." Raider: "Okay. I'm sorry for what I've done. Sending my cash." Alliance: "No problem." [i]-About two years later-[/i] Alliance: "WE'RE GOING TO CURBSTOMP YOU!" Former raider: "What did I do?" Alliance: "For your past crimes." Former raider: "But that was nearly two years ago, and you already punished me..." Alliance: "Fine, because $%&@ you, that's why." [/quote] Apparently you didn't read the rest of my sentence buddy. I'm on your side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1296101529' post='2604166'] Apparently you didn't read the rest of my sentence buddy. I'm on your side. [/quote] My bad, your statement seemed to contradict in my point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1296102032' post='2604179'] My bad, your statement seemed to contradict in my point of view. [/quote] I was just pointing out I don't have a love affair with NPO, but hitting them for what they may possibly do in the future is retarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1296101212' post='2604157'] So that make's it okay to punish someone twice for a crime? Alliance: "For tech raiding one of our members, you must pay $9 million." Raider: "Okay. I'm sorry for what I've done. Sending my cash." Alliance: "No problem." [i]-About two years later-[/i] Alliance: "WE'RE GOING TO CURBSTOMP YOU!" Former raider: "What did I do?" Alliance: "For your past crimes." Former raider: "But that was nearly two years ago, and you already punished me..." Alliance: "Fine, because $%&@ you, that's why." [/quote] You haven't read the FAN DoW yet have you? Perhaps that will give you some perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1296102564' post='2604196'] You haven't read the FAN DoW yet have you? Perhaps that will give you some perspective. [/quote] Pre-emptive attack on NPO in fear of NPO joining the war, yes, I know that. My statement was pointed towards people who assume that NPO still deserved to get rolled even if they didn't plan on joining the war. Besides, I see Doomhouse's DOW nothing more than a statement of; "Because we don't like you, that's why." Edited January 27, 2011 by HHAYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1296103539' post='2604442'] Pre-emptive attack on NPO in fear of NPO joining the war, yes, I know that. My statement was pointed towards people who assume that NPO still deserved to get rolled even if they didn't plan on joining the war. Besides, I see Doomhouse's DOW nothing more than a statement of; "Because we don't like you, that's why." [/quote] No, that's not what mpol was saying. You have not read the thread and as such I feel no need to continue arguing in circles with you. 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.