blueski Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 [quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1299546037' post='2655996'] Well, yes it is. You're in GOONS, an alliance I have no issue with, but doesn't know anything about the internal workings of Ragnarok. [/quote] The internal working of Ragnarok don't retroactively put words in their charter that were never there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 [quote name='blueski' timestamp='1299547858' post='2656031'] The internal working of Ragnarok don't retroactively put words in their charter that were never there. [/quote] No, but the founder and ex-leader of the alliance said that such a policy does indeed exist. That sort of overrules you. You can say that you don't agree with it. You can say that you think it is lame. But, saying that it is made up is just flat out stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1299547406' post='2656022'] But had their not been a war already going on you would not have been able to extort an alliance. You almost didn't get away with it anyway. [/quote] Had we not been called upon to support the Viridian Entente's war of aggression, we would have had no motive to take reparations from anyone. Note that I am not saying that their war was unjust. It is quite ironic though that Bob is accusing us of using their strength to take reparations, when it was in fact them using our strength to wage war on the New Polar Order. Two-way street and all that. Edited March 8, 2011 by Lord Brendan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 I've seen another Aqua alliance ruin their alliance and image over misconstrued notions of "pride" or "honor". Look where it got them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 My signature could says everything but I'll add this: RoK was there when we needed them and now I couldn't ask or agree with RoK doing something that they don't believe in, I understand their point of view and support their decision even if I don't understand their it when looking to the big picture of the war and this let me with a heavy heart because I know the consequence of this to the others allies of Polaris. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1299548109' post='2656036'] Had we not been called upon to support the Viridian Entente's war of aggression, we would have had no motive to take reparations from anyone. Note that I am not saying that their war was unjust. [/quote] Yea that's why I used the word extortion. If you would have tried to extort DT over something else then you would have ended up losing. Edit: just saw your edit. I can understand the sentiments in your second statement I guess. Edited March 8, 2011 by Omniscient1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1299548424' post='2656046'] Yea that's why I used the word extortion. If you would have tried to extort DT over something else then you would have ended up losing. [/quote] First, you're using extortion as if it's a bad word that's going to offend me. All reparations are extortion, that is obvious. Do you actually think we had some kind of weird grudge against DT and this war was our chance to fulfill it? That's ridiculous. You may not agree with our rationale, but for better or for worse we felt DT's conduct in their war against us and Legacy was worthy of reparations, it had nothing to do with who they were and everything to do with how they acted. And I daresay that if we had started an aggressive war of our own against DT outside of this conflict, we would have won just the same, probably with less effort since none of our allies would be tied up elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 [quote name='berbers' timestamp='1299547009' post='2656017'] Wow... Aren't you involved in a huge demonstration of abuse of power as we speak right now? Flimsy CB's, unequal firepower and from what I understand from your PB friends, GOONS and Umbrella, reps on an unforseen scale? I keep a kettle here for just such an occasion. [/quote] I don't consider our CB to be 'flimsy', though there seems to be some disagreement on this across CN. Attacking someone for spying on you is [i]use[/i] of power, not abuse. If you've actually been reading the boards instead of trying to score cheap points you'll see that at no point have I supported the attack on NPO. But even there, it's Doomhouse's own power that they're abusing, which while not a good thing is still better than abusing someone else's power. I don't believe that the CSN's strength, such as it is, was a major factor in the decision to go to war with Polar. PB's strength, yes; we're not suicidal and do take strength into account before taking action on a CB, however good it is. The use of quite a bit of PB's strength on another front changed that somewhat and did bring SF into play on the Polar half of the war, but (obviously) the decision to go in had already been made before then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueski Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 [quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1299547972' post='2656032'] No, but the founder and ex-leader of the alliance said that such a policy does indeed exist. That sort of overrules you. You can say that you don't agree with it. You can say that you think it is lame. But, saying that it is made up is just flat out stupid. [/quote] You're putting words in my mouth again to evade the point. No one has disputed RoK has a policy against surrender, claims that it was a clause within the charter have been irrefutably proven false. That's it. That's all that needed to be said. You can twist words around all you want but I haven't said any of the things you're supposedly responding to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1299549272' post='2656069'] I don't believe that the CSN's strength, such as it is, was a major factor in the decision to go to war with Polar. PB's strength, yes; we're not suicidal and do take strength into account before taking action on a CB, however good it is. The use of quite a bit of PB's strength on another front changed that somewhat and did bring SF into play on the Polar half of the war, but (obviously) the decision to go in had already been made before then. [/quote] Ironically, the SuperFriends are actually more obligated treaty-wise (through the GOD-VE MADP) to support the Viridian Entente than Pandora's Box itself is (since it's just a MDoAP). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 [quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1299548764' post='2656056'] First, you're using extortion as if it's a bad word that's going to offend me. All reparations are extortion, that is obvious. Do you actually think we had some kind of weird grudge against DT and this war was our chance to fulfill it? That's ridiculous. You may not agree with our rationale, but for better or for worse we felt DT's conduct in their war against us and Legacy was worthy of reparations, it had nothing to do with who they were and everything to do with how they acted. And I daresay that if we had started an aggressive war of our own against DT outside of this conflict, we would have won just the same, probably with less effort since none of our allies would be tied up elsewhere. [/quote] Nah, I was just using the word extortion to mean any sort of scenario where you decided to over-step your actual power. When I mention it honestly I was thinking of the MK-NSO situation. If CSN tried to do that to someone like DT they'd fail miserably. I do disagree on your last point though. I guess it all depends on who you'd hit though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 [quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1299547972' post='2656032'] No, but the founder and ex-leader of the alliance said that such a policy does indeed exist. That sort of overrules you. You can say that you don't agree with it. You can say that you think it is lame. But, saying that it is made up is just flat out stupid. [/quote] And I'll confirm what Hoo is saying. It was understood to be alliance policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1299549668' post='2656076'] Nah, I was just using the word extortion to mean any sort of scenario where you decided to over-step your actual power. When I mention it honestly I was thinking of the MK-NSO situation. If CSN tried to do that to someone like DT they'd fail miserably. I do disagree on your last point though. I guess it all depends on who you'd hit though. [/quote] I am ignorant of a MK-NSO situation, could you explain it and its relevance? I think if the Commonwealth declared war on The Dark Templar during a time of global peace we would emerge victorious. If you disagree feel free to PM me about it, but I'm not sure it's really relevant to this topic since we would have no reason to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 [quote name='blueski' timestamp='1299549585' post='2656074'] You're putting words in my mouth again to evade the point. No one has disputed RoK has a policy against surrender, claims that it was a clause within the charter have been irrefutably proven false. That's it. That's all that needed to be said. You can twist words around all you want but I haven't said any of the things you're supposedly responding to. [/quote] How far are you [i]seriously[/i] willing to go to get some sort of personal satisfaction? It has been stated numerous times by current and former RoKkers that the alliance has a policy of never surrendering. You asked a question, you got an answer. Multiple times from different people. Is there another goal to your reasoning or are you ready to shut up and move on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 [quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1299550656' post='2656094'] How far are you [i]seriously[/i] willing to go to get some sort of personal satisfaction? It has been stated numerous times by current and former RoKkers that the alliance has a policy of never surrendering. You asked a question, you got an answer. Multiple times from different people. Is there another goal to your reasoning or are you ready to shut up and move on? [/quote] It wasn't written down, Bob. Clearly RoK are lying about it. Eventually you'll give up arguing with him as he continually repeats himself and doesn't read a word that you say. It doesn't matter if the policy/clause/whatever is written in the charter, was stated internally at RoK, or jotted down on a napkin ... it still exists and RoK adheres to it. I'm not sure what blueski is actually arguing anymore, to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 [quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1299550569' post='2656090'] I am ignorant of a MK-NSO situation, could you explain it and its relevance? I think if the Commonwealth declared war on The Dark Templar during a time of global peace we would emerge victorious. If you disagree feel free to PM me about it, but I'm not sure it's really relevant to this topic since we would have no reason to do so. [/quote] The MK-NSO situation is not relevant. It's just what I think of these days when I hear extortion. If you guys hit DT in a time of peace I would say you lose. Even if you guys had PB fight with you in that situation. (which would be kind of likely in this case) you have Duckroll, CnG, Synergy, Polar and Co, Invict-o all against you. I'm not 100% sure of the number then, but I do know that is about Polar's side in this current war plus CnG and Duckroll. I don't think you guys would get enough of a push from PB to win that war. I could be completely wrong though. It'd probably all be decided on who was the aggressor etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemfailure Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 RoK no surrender clause is tattoo'd under each rokkers eye lid,its a subliminal thing which we re-enforce with kool-aid and haikus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 [quote name='Systemfailure' timestamp='1299551099' post='2656101'] RoK no surrender clause is tattoo'd under each rokkers eye lid,its a subliminal thing which we re-enforce with kool-aid and haikus. [/quote] It was not written on the right sort of paper and signed in triplicate and is therefore void. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Yukon Don' timestamp='1299541863' post='2655906'] Hell, look at our slogan...TO HELL AND BACK TOGETHER. AKA...we don't care if we burn...we don't care about the consequences, we care about the alliance and what it stands for. Surrender is giving up...it is crying UNCLE. We don't do this...and never will. ..... Shake hands and walk away, or keep fighting. We offered a haiku or a beer review, but that's about the best terms you'll get from Ragnarok. If you want surrender go ask someone who cares about their pixels... [/quote] [quote name='welshgazza1992' timestamp='1299543961' post='2655946'] [i]wow, this thread is still going. [/i] [i] So I'll repeat what has been said many times. Ragnarok doesn't surrender. We don't give up. Yes, we have been defeated in a war statistically, but we don't give up, we don't feel like we've had enough, not enough blood has been spilt yet... We're happy to keep fighting, we're content to go until we have all 151 nations at ZI. I, along with all the other RoKKers would rather that than us give up. [/i] [i] [/i] [i]Surrendering is not what we do. We never have and we never will.[/i] [i] [/i] [i]Poison Clan, either accept we don't give up and accept white peace... or continue fighting us. I really do not care which you chose, but please for the love of God, stop complaining.[/i] [/quote] What y'all don't seem to realize is that accepting white peace in this situation, is giving up. Whether it's white peace, or white peace plus a "surrender" clause. You are giving up this war. You are effectively admitting defeat, whether it is stated in the terms or not. Leaving the war when your coalition has lost is giving up on winning the war, either individually or collectively, no matter how you try to spin it, and no matter what the terms are. Edit: And it isn't some great shameful act. Most alliances have lost a war and had to give up at some point or another. Edited March 8, 2011 by Azaghul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Whimsical Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 [quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1299478813' post='2655121'] Its ok maybe one day GOD will come to power. They've been around longer than some of the sanctioned alliances and still sit down there with the Young Alliances. Sad day, Sad Sad Day. [/quote] NS = Political power? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 [quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1299551341' post='2656106'] It was not written on the right sort of paper and signed in triplicate and is therefore void. [/quote] I didn't see a flag, therefore it isn't an official alliance declaration of policy. [img]http://demonsdesire.org/god/Smileys/GOD-Smileys/eng101.gif[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendoftheSkies Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 (edited) GOD I used to like you guys, how could you disappoint me like this [img]http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/earthbound/images/5/5a/Negative_Man.png[/img] Edited March 8, 2011 by LegendoftheSkies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Don Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1299553782' post='2656135'] What y'all don't seem to realize is that accepting white peace in this situation, is giving up. Whether it's white peace, or white peace plus a "surrender" clause. You are giving up this war. You are effectively admitting defeat, whether it is stated in the terms or not. Leaving the war when your coalition has lost is giving up on winning the war, either individually or collectively, no matter how you try to spin it, and no matter what the terms are. Edit: And it isn't some great shameful act. Most alliances have lost a war and had to give up at some point or another. [/quote] We'll have to agree to disagree on that... Surrender = Crying Uncle... White Peace = Both sides saying the reason to fight (treaties) has passed, it was fun, let's go our separate ways. If you don't see it that way it is your prerogative...but alas, we have more blood to give. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 (edited) Haiku: Poison Clan won war Ragnarok stands defeated Will not re-enter Agreeable? Edited March 8, 2011 by goldielax25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In Spades Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1299557528' post='2656212'] Haiku: Poison Clan won war Ragnarok stands defeated Will not re-enter Agreeable? [/quote] Agreeable that you spent too much time on it man 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.