Jump to content

Some More Peace


OsRavan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 425
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='cheezy' timestamp='1296539504' post='2614201']
What policy is that now?
[/quote]

The NPO-Doomhouse war started because the latter chose to start an unprovoked blitz to eliminate someone they didn't like and who could grow into a political threat. Demanding alliances not join that war under pain of a beatdown means you are giving that action your support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1296539407' post='2614194']
I realise "reviews" are meant as a lighthearted measure of showing superiority, but if we start a trend of an individual review for each alliance you're surrendering to, soon we'll have terms approaching almost an essay's length of stuff. Now, of course, there are world leaders who like to post walls of text, but still, some measure of restraint is needed; though these specific ones don't seem to have reached that level.
[/quote]
You're right. They should demand tech. instead.

Edit: Or even demand that MCXA support their senate candidate and threaten war when voter turnout is less than optimal.

Edited by Goose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Venizelos' timestamp='1296538168' post='2614126']
watch and review Pan's Lybrinth.ormake a poem about how great anarchy isorwatch David Lynch's Dune and write a review about it.
[/quote]

None of those sound bad to me. Whoever deals with the Christmas Special deserves a place of high honor in the annals of MCXA.

It is a hard thing to surrender. Hopefully your allies that you came to defend will find peace soon as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1296539407' post='2614194']
I realise "reviews" are meant as a lighthearted measure of showing superiority, but if we start a trend of an individual review for each alliance you're surrendering to, soon we'll have terms approaching almost an essay's length of stuff. Now, of course, there are world leaders who like to post walls of text, but still, some measure of restraint is needed; though these specific ones don't seem to have reached that level.

Also:



It is saddening to see that ODN, LOST, LSF, NEAT, GRUE, DICE, Tetris, and INT seemingly support a policy of unprovoked attacks on other alliances.
[/quote]
That was my first thought, heh; they must have been really desperate for peace to be willing to take all those on at once.

Don't know about all of them, but I can name one who does if you're interested in a long story. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/PYU3Q.gif[/IMG]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Wyrmon' timestamp='1296539598' post='2614203']
We support a policy of preventing our allies from being attacked.
[/quote]

If you give a carte-blanche to someone to act without consequence, then you are supporting their aggressive policies. You can't skirt around that based on "obligations" and "friendships".

[quote]
You're right. They should demand tech. instead.
[/quote]

I assume you know what the point of a review is. There's a reason nobody is asking for a 10,000 word essay on the evolution of Bobian politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1296539407' post='2614194']
It is saddening to see that ODN, LOST, LSF, NEAT, GRUE, DICE, Tetris, and INT seemingly support a policy of unprovoked attacks on other alliances.
[/quote]

We just wanted to prevent MCXA from having to review the two Ewok specials for us a week from now :smug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fyfe XIV' timestamp='1296537723' post='2614097']
The only time I request you add a term and you leave it out? For shame.

Also, people complaining about terms... you just encourage us :v:
[/quote]
It's stupid. It isn't in character and it's stupid, stupid, stupid. If I'm ever in an alliance that makes such dumb terms and thinks its original or funny I'm leaving ASAP solely on principle that they have an awful sense of humor. It doesn't affect me what terms you give MCXA, I could care less about what happens to MCXA and I doubt your alliance is going to be putting me through any of those terms any time soon. I just think its in bad taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1296539675' post='2614207']
Did you forget what it looks like? Is that why you have to ask somebody else?
[/quote]
If it was the case I'd be asking someone who actually know what it is...

Edited by D34th
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1296539689' post='2614209']
The NPO-Doomhouse war started because the latter chose to start an unprovoked blitz to eliminate someone they didn't like and who could grow into a political threat. Demanding alliances not join that war under pain of a beatdown means you are giving that action your support.
[/quote]

*WE* view it as one war with two fronts. Also, as was said, a means of preventing people from hitting our allies. We recognize some do not agree with us. Rather then waste our time or yours over a semantics debate, we spelled out what we meant. So there would be no confusion down the road.

Surely you approve of us being clear in our interpretation now, rather then accusing our enemies (your friends) of violating terms down the line and then demanding serious reparations as punishment next time?

And you can spin that however you want. I don't have much patience for debating semantics. When you win the war, you can insist that *your* interpetation is what is used in peace terms. As long as *we* are winning, our interpetation will be used. Simple as that.

So if you want to know why the clause was included, the above is the reason. If you want to spend an hour debating the definition of war or whatever else, count me personally out.

Edited by OsRavan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1296539407' post='2614194']
I realise "reviews" are meant as a lighthearted measure of showing superiority...

It is saddening to see that ODN, LOST, LSF, NEAT, GRUE, DICE, Tetris, and INT seemingly support a policy of unprovoked attacks on other alliances.
[/quote]

Oh my, NPO teaching us modesty.

no attack on NPO is unprovoked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Weirdgus' timestamp='1296539969' post='2614229']
When can we expect a more formal DoW, then ?
[/quote]

Lol, maybe you should focus on getting beat down by one group at a time, instead of trying to provoke another group of allies stronger than yourself into joining the curbstomp.

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1296540207' post='2614243']
*WE* view it as one war with two fronts. Also, as was said, a means of preventing people from hitting our allies. We recognize some do not agree with us. Rather then waste our time or yours over a semantics debate, we spelled out what we meant. So there would be no confusion down the road.

Surely you approve of us being clear in our interpretation now, rather then accusing our enemies (your friends) of violating terms down the line and then demanding serious reparations as punishment next time?

And you can spin that however you want. I don't have much patience for debating semantics. When you win the war, you can insist that *your* interpetation is what is used in peace terms. As long as *we* are winning, our interpetation will be used. Simple as that.

So if you want to know why the clause was included, the above is the reason. If you want to spend an hour debating the definition of war or whatever else, count me personally out.
[/quote]

^^^ That's my SecGen. Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Comrade Korey' timestamp='1296540116' post='2614235']
It's stupid. It isn't in character and it's stupid, stupid, stupid. If I'm ever in an alliance that makes such dumb terms and thinks its original or funny I'm leaving ASAP solely on principle that they have an awful sense of humor. It doesn't affect me what terms you give MCXA, I could care less about what happens to MCXA and I doubt your alliance is going to be putting me through any of those terms any time soon. I just think its in bad taste.
[/quote]

Next time we make come up with reps for an alliance, we'll take into account what members of the New Polar Order, New Pacific Order and New Sith Order think. :rolleyes:

Or should I say ~*~The Orders~*~

Edited by Fyfe XIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1296540207' post='2614243']
*WE* view it as one war with two fronts.
[/quote]

YOU also viewed TOP's pre-empt in Bi-polar as a totally separate war.


So would you care to expand on your logic on how that was a separate war, but yet this pre-empt is a related conflict?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...