Monster Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1299471185' post='2655013'] potato's in another thread claiming your side isn't responsible for all the !@#$-posting in these forums. You'd better get over there and tell him to stop being an idiot. [/quote] Yes, because posting about how you're a superior being is definitely good posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddard Stark Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 I recommend that we stick to the IC use of the forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxfire99 Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Link Gaetz' timestamp='1299463731' post='2654911'] What thin veneer? [/quote] It's a [i]very[/i] thin veneer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1299461794' post='2654873'] What an odd thing to say. Yes, actually. I purchased a 1967 Ghibli that was just shipped in last week and the underbody is in very poor condition. A damned shame too considering all the trouble I went to in getting it. Thank you for your concern. [/quote] [OOC] Beautiful car. Congrats on getting your hands on one. [/OOC] It seems this thread has degenerated to the usual posturing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1299450528' post='2654706'] I have been going along with the whole coalition idea, thus the other thread you referred to. It's you guys who only want to call it coalition warfare when it suits you. [/quote] When have we not called it coalition warfare? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmia Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Free Quebec' timestamp='1299469196' post='2654992'] Ok tool do something for your partners at NPO. [/quote] You do know that TOOL isn't allied to NPO, right? We entered due to our defensive treaty with TPF. Nice that you can't tell the difference though. Enjoy your war with NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 You might as well be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmia Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1299480351' post='2655164'] You might as well be. [/quote] So allies of allies now determine who we should be allied to? TOOL has a diverse amount of allies, so do others who have entered on the DH-NPO front. We enter when called upon and in this case, we ended up being called upon. The treaty web works the way it does. Let me know when you actually become part of TOOL and dictate where our allegiance lies. Our sole tie to this conflict is TPF, not NPO, not Legion, not NSO, not any other alliance fighting, it is [b]TPF[/b] alone. Anyways, as I said, have a good fight and all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Salmia' timestamp='1299480732' post='2655181'] So allies of allies now determine who we should be allied to? TOOL has a diverse amount of allies, so do others who have entered on the DH-NPO front. We enter when called upon and in this case, we ended up being called upon. The treaty web works the way it does. Let me know when you actually become part of TOOL and dictate where our allegiance lies. Our sole tie to this conflict is TPF, not NPO, not Legion, not NSO, not any other alliance fighting, it is [b]TPF[/b] alone. Anyways, as I said, have a good fight and all that. [/quote] You're forgetting that Umbrella has a strict code of throwing treaties out the window during a "coalition war" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1299481150' post='2655192'] You're forgetting that Umbrella has a strict code of throwing treaties out the window during a "coalition war" [/quote] It isn't really that. You choose what side you are on based on your treaties and other relationships. Once that has been decided, your goal is not to only assist your allies (although that is a direct consequence), but to assure the overall victory of your side. Mapping treaty chains to whoever you attack is thus superfluous: you are attacking not to honor a treaty, but to win a victory for your coalition. That is coalition warfare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmia Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1299482375' post='2655206'] It isn't really that. You choose what side you are on based on your treaties and other relationships. Once that has been decided, your goal is not to only assist your allies (although that is a direct consequence), but to assure the overall victory of your side. Mapping treaty chains to whoever you attack is thus superfluous: you are attacking not to honor a treaty, but to win a victory for your coalition. That is coalition warfare. [/quote] Yet here you run into a perspective difference. That may be how [i]you[/i] think about treaties but that is not how everyone thinks about it. Some are there not to fight greater wars but to fight for when their allies are attacked. Others choose to view it differently and we're never going to agree on that aspect, so I will agree to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Salmia' timestamp='1299482898' post='2655212'] Yet here you run into a perspective difference. That may be how [i]you[/i] think about treaties but that is not how everyone thinks about it. Some are there not to fight greater wars but to fight for when their allies are attacked. Others choose to view it differently and we're never going to agree on that aspect, so I will agree to disagree. [/quote] I think focusing only on your own individual obligations is short-sighted and missing the big picture. You are far more likely to actually win if everyone on your side is committed to a coalition-wide victory, as opposed to simply wanting to put in their two-weeks of war or whatever they feel fulfills their obligations and then withdrawing as soon as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) Pretty much that. Solely focusing on individual obligations is definitely missing the big picture. For example, TPF is pretty much tied at the hip with NPO, it's an MADP. In essence, TPF is NPO as far as wars go, so you roll with one and you're rolling with the other. qq from Hizzy is great, though. Wars are fought with coalitions and aren't a bunch of small isolated conflicts. I'd think you were new around here. Edited March 7, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Jacapo Saladin' timestamp='1299397743' post='2654241'] As someone who spent a considerable time "over there", I can tell you flatout that you are lying. The entire NPO sphere politics consisted of burying your head into the ground and praying things worked out for you. There was no moving forward, and there was no attempt to change the course at all, just a constant desire to move back into a time when big daddy Pacifica took care of things for you. [/quote] I'm sorry, were you talking about your alliance's policy or mine? Sounds more like yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Except I don't recall a time where Hydra relied on NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles the Great Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 just because you want it to be a coalition war does not make it so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 I do not mind another alliance entering against us. The more the merrier! I just wish it was an alliance I do not respect. I believe NoR entered without malice and is simply honoring a treaty. Hope we give you a good fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1299482375' post='2655206'] It isn't really that. You choose what side you are on based on your treaties and other relationships. Once that has been decided, your goal is not to only assist your allies (although that is a direct consequence), but to assure the overall victory of your side. Mapping treaty chains to whoever you attack is thus superfluous: you are attacking not to honor a treaty, but to win a victory for your coalition. That is coalition warfare. [/quote] That's pretty retarded "logic" coming from a guy allied to RoK with treaties to both sides of this war, but I guess when SF feels comfortable throwing members under the bus we shouldn't expect any nuance outta ya. Edited March 7, 2011 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qazzian Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Charles the Great' timestamp='1299506599' post='2655418'] just because you want it to be a coalition war does not make it so. [/quote] As the DH side has shown: Unless people are willing to turn around and punch them in the jaw, they're going to make it what they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1299492865' post='2655299'] Pretty much that. Solely focusing on individual obligations is definitely missing the big picture. For example, TPF is pretty much tied at the hip with NPO, it's an MADP. In essence, TPF is NPO as far as wars go, so you roll with one and you're rolling with the other. qq from Hizzy is great, though. Wars are fought with coalitions and aren't a bunch of small isolated conflicts. I'd think you were new around here. [/quote] Just because you choose to look at it as a war with a "big picture" doesn't mean the rest of us have to give a rat's ass how important it is to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Charles the Great' timestamp='1299506599' post='2655418'] just because you want it to be a coalition war does not make it so. [/quote] The only time wars are limited and aren't coalition-based is when two micros go at it or when it's a very limited curbstomp of one alliance. [quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1299514010' post='2655472'] Just because you choose to look at it as a war with a "big picture" doesn't mean the rest of us have to give a rat's ass how important it is to you. [/quote] Did you complain this much when NoR helped FAN before? When FAN hit IRON? Or during Karma when NSO hit ML? Or when Dark Fist hit NEW? Edited March 7, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Disagreement = complaining, gotcha. You should probably learn to understand that when you justify something based on subjective interpretations there's bound to be people who simply say "no". Your justification is worth as much as no justification at all under those circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT Jag Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Charles the Great' timestamp='1299506599' post='2655418'] just because you want it to be a coalition war does not make it so. [/quote]This is a moot point, considering that in another thread various members of Pacifica's side repeatedly insist that this is a coalition war and that their actions are thus entirely justified. We're FAR past arguing whether it's a coalition war or not. Edited March 7, 2011 by JT Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Trail Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Salmia' timestamp='1299480732' post='2655181'] So allies of allies now determine who we should be allied to? TOOL has a diverse amount of allies,[/quote] IRON for one. I guess by their logic if we had to enter on a counter for TOOL we would be NPO lapdogs aswell right? >.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1299504753' post='2655399'] Except I don't recall a time where Hydra relied on NPO. [/quote] Obviously you know their history just as well as I do, given that they are a merger of a group of Purple alliances, one of which was a splinter of us. (And no. You probably want to change the alliance in question from NPO to some alliance that begins with the letter V.) 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.