Haflinger Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 [quote name='azrhei' timestamp='1297008382' post='2622177'] To the first point; I don't think so. The second point is the point, however, to all of the derogation of this new stance. People did switch to the NEW AA for the explicit purpose of joining in combat - NOT for joining the NEW alliance.[/quote] Yes, and this is something to be encouraged, not discouraged. If individual nations are viewed as sovereign entities capable of making their own decisions, then they should be allowed to lend their strength to causes that they believe in. What you are trying to do is supplant the individual nation ruler's power to control a nation's destiny, and replace it with an absolute power by alliance leaders to govern over the choices of their members. This is in so many ways a terrible idea, it's hard to even guess where to start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krack Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1297018725' post='2622408'] Yes, and this is something to be encouraged, not discouraged. If individual nations are viewed as sovereign entities capable of making their own decisions, then they should be allowed to lend their strength to causes that they believe in. What you are trying to do is supplant the individual nation ruler's power to control a nation's destiny, and replace it with an absolute power by alliance leaders to govern over the choices of their members. This is in so many ways a terrible idea, it's hard to even guess where to start. [/quote] You comment doesn't make a lick of sense. If you are an individual nation that has chosen to go to war with FARK nations, then FARK is telling you that they will decide when (and under what terms) your war concludes. They are being explicit about this and warning all of Planet Bob up front in their declaration of war. They are telling bandwagoners that they will be treated differently by FARK than the member nations of the alliance(s) they have declared on. They couldn't treat these nations more as "individuals ... capable of making their own decisions" if they tried. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fireguy15207 Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1297018725' post='2622408'] Yes, and this is something to be encouraged, not discouraged. If individual nations are viewed as sovereign entities capable of making their own decisions, then they should be allowed to lend their strength to causes that they believe in. What you are trying to do is supplant the individual nation ruler's power to control a nation's destiny, and replace it with an absolute power by alliance leaders to govern over the choices of their members. This is in so many ways a terrible idea, it's hard to even guess where to start. [/quote] Keep grasping at straws. If they can choose their own destiny, they can therefore suffer the consequences of their actions. We're not going to PZI or EZI them. They just have to get separate peace. Edited February 7, 2011 by fireguy15207 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prozenz Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 To the war! [quote name='seanvdb' timestamp='1296941665' post='2620963'] Except this is a game, not real life. Relax brohan, you'll get over it. [/quote] You'll get over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='fireguy15207' timestamp='1297048660' post='2623075'] Keep grasping at straws. If they can choose their own destiny, they can therefore suffer the consequences of their actions. We're not going to PZI or EZI them. They just have to get separate peace. [/quote] [color="#0000FF"]Yeah, like a beer review is any better than PZI or massive reparations. No matter how you put it, Fark is still made up of monsters. Nice job at self-delusion though. Considering I'm master of it myself, you should trust my authority on the subject.[/color] Edited February 7, 2011 by Rebel Virginia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='fireguy15207' timestamp='1297048660' post='2623075'] Keep grasping at straws. If they can choose their own destiny, they can therefore suffer the consequences of their actions. We're not going to PZI or EZI them. They just have to get separate peace. [/quote] Alliance members get peace when an alliance gets peace. You're trying to use a war to determine who another alliance is allowed to accept into its ranks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Vicarious Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 I don't think we are trying to do anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fireguy15207 Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1297068354' post='2623844'] [color="#0000FF"]Yeah, like a beer review is any better than PZI or massive reparations. No matter how you put it, Fark is still made up of monsters. Nice job at self-delusion though. Considering I'm master of it myself, you should trust my authority on the subject.[/color] [/quote] lol I can see that you're quite good at self-delusion just by that post. [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1297081131' post='2623924'] Alliance members get peace when an alliance gets peace. You're trying to use a war to determine who another alliance is allowed to accept into its ranks. [/quote] But they're not alliance members, they're ghosts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBob Kenobi Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1297081131' post='2623924']Alliance members get peace when an alliance gets peace.[/quote] Gee, whatever happened to viewing individual nations "as sovereign entities capable of making their own decisions?" [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1297081131' post='2623924']You're trying to use a war to determine who another alliance is allowed to accept into its ranks. [/quote] This talking point hasn't stopped being wrong simply because you repeat it [i]ad nauseum[/i]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='fireguy15207' timestamp='1297114714' post='2624494'] But they're not alliance members, they're ghosts. [/quote] What if the alliance gives them membership, masks them on their forums, etc? Are they exempt from this policy then? -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anu Drake Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 [quote name='Mr Vicarious' timestamp='1297087611' post='2623970'] I don't think we are trying to do anything. [/quote] Oh come now. You are trying your best to set the stage for a monumental NATO announcement that we've crossed the 3 million mark for the 8th time. That's what this whole war is about! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBob Kenobi Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 [quote name='BamaBuc' timestamp='1297122925' post='2624690'] What if the alliance gives them membership, masks them on their forums, etc? Are they exempt from this policy then? -Bama [/quote] See [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=98242&view=findpost&p=2620864"]this comment[/url] from earlier in the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 [quote name='Billy-Bob Kenobi' timestamp='1297123543' post='2624705'] See [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=98242&view=findpost&p=2620864"]this comment[/url] from earlier in the thread. [/quote] Does this apply if they're just joining for the duration of the war? It doesn't specify either way. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBob Kenobi Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 [quote name='BamaBuc' timestamp='1297124169' post='2624723'] Does this apply if they're just joining for the duration of the war? It doesn't specify either way. -Bama [/quote] There would be little point in enacting a policy intended to prevent people from AA-jumping into a war and then skating out afterwards to avoid facing the same terms as the defeated alliance if it didn't apply to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jocko Homo Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 The solution is simple. Make a list of all nations flying an alliance AA and/or fighting in the alliance war. Keep it updated. Everybody on the list is involved in the surrender and goes down together regardless of the aa they change to after the war. That's what we are doing this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrhei Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) [quote name='BamaBuc' timestamp='1297124169' post='2624723'] Does this apply if they're just joining for the duration of the war? It doesn't specify either way. -Bama [/quote] Well if they leave alliance A and join alliance B just long enough to lob some nukes, and then immediately return to alliance A, they really aren't joining alliance B now are they. You, and others, are arguing about semantics. Whatever term or definition you want to apply to it, it is the [i]intent[/i] behind the actions that is the basis of contention here. And contrary to what you seem to be arguing (referring to your questioning of whether it would be exempted by the alliance having an application on their forums), it is not hard to derive intention based upon the collective information available. People that [i]temporarily[/i] leave their alliance and join another for the express purpose of war-time actions are doing the same thing as a ghost/rogue/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. When one, or two, or even a dozen people do it - yes, each would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. When OVER TWO MILLION NS worth of people do it, all in the span of two days from the point of a war being declared, you would have to be unequivocally bereft of intelligence and lacking anything remotely being recognizable as a sentient being if you look at that and try to say they "really were joining the alliance but then just changed their minds." So that brings us back around to "they are only joining for the duration of the war." To this, I would simply refer to my previous post. You completely invalidate the point of having treaties, or even alliances, if you are going to simply mob-transfer from alliance to alliance based on the wind and who - as an individual - you want to fight at any given time. People making the choice, as an individual, to attack another individual or alliance is the very definition of what a rogue is. Whether the individual chooses to hold no alliance affiliation, or throw someone else's flag up, is entirely inconsequential to the [i]intent[/i] behind the actions. Edited to clarify a point. Edited February 8, 2011 by azrhei 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.