KainIIIC Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 [quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1296716120' post='2617401'] Notice the o part of the bold part. Bandwagoning. [/quote] okay, what reality are you living in now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thom98 Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 No you guys need to give OSA a break, they didn't understand that just because the bandwagon started with the dogpile on NPO for no reason at all. Then when the same logic is applied to the Goonies they want to cry about it. ASU I would not worry to much about OSA they were in a bind to find a new target after a failed spy attempt on us led to them funding one of our nations continued attack on the goonies. Now they are standing up for something they don't believe in. Sounds like pure quality to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Ryan Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 [quote name='AtheistRepublican' timestamp='1296715430' post='2617380'] Well, on the one hand, no one likes bandwagoners. On the other hand, GOONS & Co. [i]are[/i] bandwagoners for hitting NPO in the first place. So I guess some people do like bandwagoners! EDIT: Realized my post made it seem like I was calling OSA bandwagoners. I was replying to OP's comment about not like bandwagoning. Sorry, OSA. You guys are cool with a capital K in my book for defending GOONS when you did not have an obligation and it is, furthermore, not a very popular stance to have. That takes courage and guts and good for you. [/quote] You already know I respect you (and quite a few others in NATO) a good deal. You get another +1 reps for this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Just out of curiosity, why not declare war on NSO instead? We're a much better fit for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktarthan Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Wow, there are a lot of people in this thread that literally don't know what "bandwagon" means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtheistRepublican Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1296715740' post='2617391'] That's not really a bandwagon. Well unless you think the entire NpO front was going to help NPO, which is possible I suppose. [/quote] No, no. Just had to talk about this when I realized I was kind of vague in my post and rephrased. In [i]my[/i] definition, which is by no means the fact of the definition, bandwagoners are people who attack when they have no treaty link to attacker or defender (or no other "legit" CB) [i]and[/i] it is opportunistic for them to do so. So while Sparta went in without a treaty link, it was not opportunistic and thus not bandwagoning. So by this definition, DH were bandwagoners for attacking NPO because it was an opportunistic time for them to do so given the situation with NpO/VE. It was their way of limiting/controlling the battlefield, but is bandwagoning by the definition set out above. Now...of course, someone could say "We don't like you" is a legit CB and thus they are simply opportunistic aggressors and not bandwagoners...and I would be hard-pressed to disagree because the definition of a "legit CB" is completely subjective. So...in that case I would personally disagree, but not call it a matter of fact? If that makes sense. Edited February 3, 2011 by AtheistRepublican Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD Hammer Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1296716575' post='2617416'] Just out of curiosity, why not declare war on NSO instead? We're a much better fit for you. [/quote] With pretty much all your upper tier in PM k lets DoW and wait for you to come out and hit us.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 [quote name='Tinton' timestamp='1296716394' post='2617411'] Well if any nation from ASU wants to attack me they can. I am at Defcon 5, waiting for anyone from their alliance to attack and will be until war time comes. ASU you guys are probably a great alliance, but sorry we can't break our treaties even if it means we get blown up or if it means supporting a side we do not agree with one bit. [/quote] Right, you just sitting there doing nothing will help out GOONS alot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President S O Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 [quote name='Joe32320' timestamp='1296712295' post='2617259'] Good luck OSA. [/quote] NO. Nolissar would have declared on us. Hi OSA. I can't wish you luck, but I hope you don't get too hurt. o/ ASU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktarthan Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 [quote name='AtheistRepublican' timestamp='1296716623' post='2617419'] No, no. Just had to talk about this when I realized I was kind of vague in my post and rephrased. In [i]my[/i] definition, which is by no means the fact of the definition, bandwagoners are people who attack when they have no treaty link to attacker or defender (or no other "legit" CB) [i]and[/i] it is opportunistic for them to do so. So while Sparta went in without a treaty link, it was not opportunistic and thus not bandwagoning. So by this definition, DH were bandwagoners for attacking NPO because it was an opportunistic time for them to do so given the situation with NpO/VE. It was their way of limiting/controlling the battlefield, but is bandwagoning by the definition set out above. Now...of course, someone could say "We don't like you" is a legit CB and thus they are simply opportunistic aggressors and not bandwagoners...and I would be hard-pressed to disagree because the definition of a "legit CB" is completely subjective. So...in that case I would personally disagree, but not call it a matter of fact? If that makes sense. [/quote] Well unfortunately when your definition of a word is different from the real definition of a word, it becomes entirely useless as a word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 [quote name='MD Hammer' timestamp='1296716745' post='2617423'] With pretty much all your upper tier in PM k lets DoW and wait for you to come out and hit us.... [/quote] By my count there're only 6-8 ASU nations within range (and not in PM) of what I presume are your active members. For NSO, there's at least 20, with lots of open slots. And since we have limited open offensive slots, we have a limited ability to hit you. So, you would have done a lot better helping GOONS by hitting us... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 I'm curious how a numerically superior force(DOOMHOUSE + committed treaty chains in) ambushing an alliance (NPO) out of the blue, with basically the sole purpose of beating them into oblivion is ok. However a numerically inferior force countering that aggressive alliance and targeting one alliance [b]initially[/b] is "cowardice" you can't condone. You join a side that is larger and highly aggressive with reprehensible goals and call us the cowards? Ok, GOONS are your treaty partners and you are going in to defend, we get that. However declaring alliances that [b]will[/b] be fighting greatly outnumbered in the near future against a purely aggressive attack, a group of cowards is intellectually lazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtheistRepublican Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 [quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1296716862' post='2617429'] Well unfortunately when your definition of a word is different from the real definition of a word, it becomes entirely useless as a word. [/quote] Well, okay, my definition of the [i]Bob[/i] definition of bandwagoning. I have yet to see any real consensus to the [i]Bob[/i] definition of bandwagoning as just about everyone gets called one at some point by someone. We all know it when we see it but do not know the actual definition. When I try to define it, it perhaps then jumps outside the scope of Popular Opinion of bandwagoning. Fine, fine. I won't call GOONS bandwagoners if it hurts your feelings. You are opportunistic aggressors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beefspari Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) [quote name='kevin32891' timestamp='1296716277' post='2617405'] Pot calling the kettle black? [/quote] I don't know. I'd say doing an oA to cover NS ranges effectively on the first wave is different than doing an oA several days after the fact when there are already 10 alliances fighting your target. But that's just me. I don't believe at all ASU jumped in to help cover targets. Rather just because they could. Or we're GOONS. Edited February 3, 2011 by Beefspari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktarthan Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 [quote name='AtheistRepublican' timestamp='1296717130' post='2617437'] Well, okay, my definition of the [i]Bob[/i] definition of bandwagoning. I have yet to see any real consensus to the [i]Bob[/i] definition of bandwagoning as just about everyone gets called one at some point by someone. We all know it when we see it but do not know the actual definition. When I try to define it, it perhaps then jumps outside the scope of Popular Opinion of bandwagoning. Fine, fine. I won't call GOONS bandwagoners if it hurts your feelings. You are opportunistic aggressors. [/quote] Last time I checked the majority of Bob spoke English, and we use the accepted definitions of English words. It doesn't hurt my feelings, it's literally incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinton Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1296716575' post='2617416'] Just out of curiosity, why not declare war on NSO instead? We're a much better fit for you. [/quote] Do not you guys have a Mutual Defense Pact with ASU? All your top alliances are all in Peace MODE TOO!!!!! Like I said we didn't want this war, but are forced too. Atleast we are not breaking our treaties like I see a couple alliances doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightningjim Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) [quote name='AtheistRepublican' timestamp='1296717130' post='2617437'] I have yet to see any real consensus to the [i]Bob[/i] definition of bandwagoning as just about everyone gets called one at some point by someone. We all know it when we see it but do not know the actual definition. When I try to define it, it perhaps then jumps outside the scope of Popular Opinion of bandwagoning. [/quote] Or the usage of certain words to deride people that are used to mean different things is more an [b]abuse[/b] of a word used in the [b]politics[/b] than a non-consensus definition. Edited February 3, 2011 by lightningjim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President S O Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 [quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1296716120' post='2617401'] Notice the o part of the bold part. Bandwagoning. [/quote] See those strings attached to your shoulders. Puppeteering. [quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1296716609' post='2617418'] Wow, there are a lot of people in this thread that literally don't know what "bandwagon" means. [/quote] Several of them GOONS members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shavar Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 [quote name='Tinton' timestamp='1296717255' post='2617441'] Do not you guys have a Mutual Defense Pact with ASU? All your top alliances are all in Peace MODE TOO!!!!! Like I said we didn't want this war, but are forced too. Atleast we are not breaking our treaties like I see a couple alliances doing. [/quote] True ..you stand up for your treaty partners , and also pay reps when caught spying for them .. I have to admit I thought TheNAC would be your target but I forgot we wasn't the only smaller AA hitting GOONs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinton Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 [quote name='rodrod' timestamp='1296713332' post='2617312'] Oh hello, I'd just like to clear something up. ASU declared with NSO. As part of Terra Cotta, when our brothers went into battle we joined them. No, there is no Optional Aggression clause in the Terra Cotta treaty, but we went in with our allies, and our friends. Your logic here fails, and to keep this from being brought up in the future, I'll be sure to push for a oA clause added to the treaty. Seriously, declare on us because we attacked your ally, not because we "attacked without a treaty." I'll be sure to pay a special visit to some OSA nations as soon as I get out of this god forsaken peace mode. [/quote] So when are you coming out of Peace Mode? I mean it is perfectly understandable if you want to stay in Peace Mode. I was thinking about doing that at first, but then I said I would only make my alliance look bad. So I am ready to fight with my 10 day warchest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinton Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 [quote name='shavar' timestamp='1296717677' post='2617451'] True ..you stand up for your treaty partners , and also pay reps when caught spying for them .. I have to admit I thought TheNAC would be your target but I forgot we wasn't the only smaller AA hitting GOONs [/quote] Well seems like one of our alliance members accidently saved someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beefspari Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 [quote name='Griff' timestamp='1296716793' post='2617425'] Right, you just sitting there doing nothing will help out GOONS alot. [/quote] This reminds me of a similar situation wherein someone's allies were also sitting there doing nothing to help them out. Like, they're all in peace mode and only hitting tiny nations while the main ally's upper tier burns. I wish I could remember what it was though. [quote name='President S O' timestamp='1296717405' post='2617446'] See those strings attached to your shoulders. Puppeteering. [/quote] I consider myself thoroughly burned. GOONS [i]never[/i] goes to war simply because we find it fun. People have to trick or force us into fighting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 A shame that the OSA has elected to support the aggressive actions of GOONS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KainIIIC Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 [quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1296717199' post='2617439'] I don't know. I'd say doing an oA to cover NS ranges effectively on the first wave is different than doing an oA several days after the fact when there are already 10 alliances fighting your target. But that's just me. I don't believe at all ASU jumped in to help cover targets. Rather just because they could. Or we're GOONS. [/quote] Actually if you've listened to some of what we were saying in other threads, we were originally to provide counters for those who declared originally on GOONS. Seeing as how none of them came, and seeing as how the real need of providing counters and filling staggers and GOONS were needed, as evidenced that we are currently at 120 war slots with GOONS. ASU, a smaller alliance with a much more new, low NS, inactive/ghost-like nations, has still managed 36 war slots with GOONS. Our two alliances are kind of more or less perfect matches for countering GOONS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinton Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1296718075' post='2617462'] A shame that the OSA has elected to support the aggressive actions of GOONS. [/quote] Yes, but we have honour. I actually think most of us voted no but then remembered the treaty. 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.