A Statement from Doomhouse

[Hiro Nakara]

[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1300731994' post='2672407']
Isn't a lumberjack also a traditional part of GOONS artistic creations? Shouldn't that be included too?
[/quote]


It should be a self portrait in cartoon MS paint style. Wielding an axe, fair terms and would provide much laughter. These are terms that I can get behind. Money is good and Tech is good also, but terms that make you laugh are even better.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Hiro Nakara

[Varianz]

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1300732280' post='2672409']
It should be a self portrait in cartoon MS paint style. Wielding an axe, fair terms and would provide much laughter. These are terms that I can get behind. Money is good and Tech is good also, but terms that make you laugh are even better.
[/quote]
It's clearly been a while since you were in Evil Oppressor School- crippling reps are the only way to go.

[Hiro Nakara]

[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1300732362' post='2672410']
It's clearly been a while since you were in Evil Oppressor School- crippling reps are the only way to go.
[/quote]

My bad, I had a moment of weakness, you should be made to disband! NSO

[Varianz]

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1300732607' post='2672412']
My bad, I had a moment of weakness, you should be made to disband! NSO
[/quote]
Muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch better.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' timestamp='1300691055' post='2672016']
The issue isn't one person being in peace mode. If it was just one or two NPO members who were in peace mode and the rest were actually engaged with us, there wouldn't be an issue. It becomes an issue when it is a large part of an alliance.

OOC: No matter what side of the war you find yourself on, or what you think about IC politics, I would find it hard to believe that people think that an alliance hiding away in peace mode when there is a war is good for the health of the game.
[/quote]

I know I would not give a damn, even if it meant I was bored. Particularly if my side was the one who aggressively attacked them and outnumbered their upper tier (i.e. PM nations) by a rather scary amount. I would actually be smart enough to realize that the opposing side is using a valid tactic to prevent their upper tier from being totally and completely destroyed.

If this was as Roq claims, simply a pre-emptive attack to ensure NPO did not hit PB, then I would actually be curious why we stayed at war beyond the peace between PB/Polaris. This claim of "needing" to fight their PM nations would be complete !@#$%^&* to me regardless. I would see absolutely no need to "have" to destroy an alliance completely. To me, it would be completely immoral.

[quote name='Ryuzaki' timestamp='1300691884' post='2672028']
OOC: yes, I do think it is bad. I wouldn't care if it was VE, GOONS, NSO, MK, ODN or any other alliance. If there is a war, and the only tactic employed is to hide a large number of your nations in peace mode with the objective of literally doing nothing and waiting for your opponent to get bored, then it is a major problem. People play this game for entertainment, and a large number of those people enjoy wars. When a war is nothing more than a staring contest it turns an already boring war system into the most pointless and boring game in existence. /OOC

The fact that some of you can't seem to realise that we have major issues with the tactic itself, and not those using it, isn't surprising considering the staggering intellects showcased here
[/quote]


ooc: You are right, people play for their [i]own[/i] entertainment and DH wants to destroy the fun of many nations for no reason. Remember, it was DH who aggressively attacked NPO, not the other way around. Now, because NPO did not play the game your way, you are going to force them to do so and force many people to have their nations destroyed and for what? to satisfy [b]your[/b] boredom.

Please, let me shed a !@#$@#$ tear for you. This is the most pathetic !@#$%^&* reason ever. If you wanted a fight, then take on NPO 1v1. MK has around equal amounts of upper NS to NPO. Get Umbrella and GOONS to declare peace. Get FAN and NoR to declare peace and MK fight NPO 1v1 for a single month.

Then you get your fun. Cuz that is what you want right? Or do you simply want to stomp and destroy NPO and ruin their fun? shut the $%&@ up about NPO ruining your fun, it is pathetic and stupid. Find your fun elsewhere.

[quote name='Ryuzaki' timestamp='1300693030' post='2672043']
OOC:
If the people in NPO wanted to play without war, they should have gone and joined a neutral alliance. I have had every nation I have ever had destroyed in war, and winning or losing it was entertaining. Also if 30 days of war makes them unable to do anything for two years, then they are bad at the simple game mechanics that make up CN. My nation was less than a year old and I got to 40k ns with a decent stockpile of tech, as well as being nuke capable. GOONS is almost entirely small, young nations and they have had a large effect on CN.
[/quote]

ooc: Seriously? are you that friggin clueless? NPO's upper tiers are massively outnumbered, which means that nukes would only last so long and the tech would be getting destroyed at a rather quick rate. Which would mean that NPO's nations would suffer massive damage that by the simple game mechanics you appear ignorant about (i.e. tech gaining) would take a rather long time to rebuild, not to mention I highly doubt that DH would allow NPO not to be hit within at least a year from the date this war ends.

grow the $%&@ up and stop trying to force nations to be your entertainment. NPO was hated for doing that same damn thing and frankly, I still find it pathetic.

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1300712106' post='2672173']
When you want to know official position of IRON, you talk to its Council, not its individual members and/or there opinions, same goes for DuckRoll, you talk to ALL DR .gov. I dont need to be a former councilor and in IRON for 3+ years to tell you that, thats how stuff is. Even the President of the Republic cannot speak for IRON without being authorized by the majority of the council to do so, let alone a general member. Also, with a known fact that there is atleast one spy, (remember that Vox wannabe?) are you sure you're not running around after the red herrings coming out of IRON? We werent born yesterday...that we'd go around posting opsec on lowest security levels for the Vox wannabes to leak all around?
[/quote]

I get that sure. But iirc TheTrail is a long time IRON member. Regardless of official position, TheTrail would at least have a feeling of what the membership would want to do or would press for.

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1300716993' post='2672219']
I -personnally- rarely care for NPO.
As for MK as a whole, I guess we see NPO as the only "competent" force on the other side so that's why our attention is centered on them. But to say we're having nightmares about an "ebil Pacifican boogeyman" is a cute attempt at propaganda, my old friend. Albeit not very efficient. It's about as cliché as d34th's "your all hypocrite" line.
[/quote]

except your DoW and the OP in this post both say that MK/DH cannot allow NPO to rise back to power. So it is no cute attempt, it is out of the mouth of Archon and Ardus. Try again. Maybe you should talk to your own damn gov about their reasons since both your high leaders have basically stated the "ebil Pacifican boogeyman" reason for warring NPO.

If you don't like it, then get DH to declare peace. Show you are not afraid of NPO having what a third of the upper tier of just MK/Umbrella. Otherwise, given the reasons for this war and the reason for NPO "needing" to bring their upper tier our of PM, I can only assume that MK/DH are simply scared witless over NPO. Which does not reflect what you are saying in the least.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1300733308' post='2672419']
I would see absolutely no need to "have" to destroy an alliance completely. To me, it would be completely immoral.[/quote]
You heard it here first folks: given 30 days of war against Doomhouse, NPO would be [i][b]completely destroyed[/b][/i].

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1300729448' post='2672362']
GOONS charging reps: still literally not extortion.
[/quote]

Yeah, yeah it is. You aggressively attacked their ally whom they defended. So yes, yes it is extortion.

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1300730298' post='2672380']
You're still trying to pass off opinion as fact. It doesn't work that way, no matter how many paragraphs you write about it.
[/quote]

DH does the same by stating the war is warranted. That is not a fact but only opinion and yet ya'll present it as fact. Ya'll present a lot as fact that is only opinion or wishful thinking.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1300733695' post='2672424']
Yeah, yeah it is. You aggressively attacked their ally whom they defended. So yes, yes it is extortion.[/quote]
Except for the numerous oAs and oDs that were activated, and the fact that we're fighting allies of allies of NPO.

[quote]DH does the same by stating the war is warranted. That is not a fact but only opinion and yet ya'll present it afact. Ya'll present a lot as fact that is only opinion or wishful thinking.
[/quote]
Our side believes it justified, the other doesn't. In other words, literally every war ever. Business as usual. No point arguing about it.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1300733695' post='2672424']
Yeah, yeah it is. You aggressively attacked their ally whom they defended. So yes, yes it is extortion.
[/quote]
Extortion is unlawful coersion of goods. There are no international laws, so you can't consider any form of reps to be "extortion." You don't have to agree with the reps, but extortion implies wrongness in an objective and lawful sense, which simply isn't true.

[nippy]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1300733695' post='2672424']
DH does the same by stating the war is warranted. <-----------------------------------------------> Ya'll present a lot as fact that is only opinion or wishful thinking.
[/quote]

[OOC][i]cue Chevy Chase Caddyshack 'nananananananananananana' putting sound [/i][/OOC]

You just did the same thing you accuse us of within the span of a sentence. Giddyup, pilgrim.

[Dubsy]

[quote]
grow the $%&@ up and stop trying to force nations to be your entertainment. NPO was hated for doing that same damn thing and frankly, I still find it pathetic.
[/quote]

congratulations. you have figured out that doomhouse equals the thing they are trying to destroy. too bad everyone else is too stupid to notice.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1300735048' post='2672439']
Extortion is unlawful coersion of goods. There are no international laws, so you can't consider any form of reps to be "extortion." You don't have to agree with the reps, but extortion implies wrongness in an objective and lawful sense, which simply isn't true.
[/quote]

False. To extort someone is to obtain something by force, intimidation, or abuse of authority. Nothing to do with legality though given the definition, it is usually illegal to extort someone. So no, extortion has nothing to do with legality or any such. It has to do with jut being plain wrong. Don't both to try again.

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1300735772' post='2672443']
[OOC][i]cue Chevy Chase Caddyshack 'nananananananananananana' putting sound [/i][/OOC]

You just did the same thing you accuse us of within the span of a sentence. Giddyup, pilgrim.
[/quote]

What? I stated that you present your opinion as fact. So no, I did not do what I accused you of. Giddyup, pilgrim.

It was ya'lls opinion that this war is warranted. That is not a fact but opinion. All I did was state that that was your opinion and not fact as you guys present it. But nice stretch, would do a rubber band proud. Just be careful, any more stretching and it is bound to break and could take your eye out.

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1300734098' post='2672429']
Except for the numerous oAs and oDs that were activated, and the fact that we're fighting allies of allies of NPO.


Our side believes it justified, the other doesn't. In other words, literally every war ever. Business as usual. No point arguing about it.
[/quote]

oD's are still defensive. Hence the DEFENSIVE portion of it. The oA's, so GOONS is going to cry a boatload of tears apparently over being the "victim" of aggressive attacks. Don't wait for many others to cry over that fact given ya'lls recent actions.

[Sardonic]

For the record I don't care what type of treaty they activated to hit us, the important thing is that they did hit us. Though admittedly, it does make me want to charge more than typical rates.

[nippy]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1300738115' post='2672476']
What? I stated that you present your opinion as fact. So no, I did not do what I accused you of. Giddyup, pilgrim.
[/quote]

You stated your opinion as fact. So yes, you did precisely what you accused us of. I would have expected you to understand plain English. I was mistaken. Yeehaw, cowpoke.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1300730271' post='2672378']
That's delightful HoT, but I think you misunderstand that you have much more reason to want peace than we do. At GOONS we have a very powerful incentive to continue the war to bolster our ranks with new recruits. Our membership's desire for war knows no boundaries. If the war ends, it won't be because we got sick of it. Our respective memberships just simply enjoy war more than the majority of your side (omitting perhaps elements of NPO, NSO, and a few notable members of other alliances warring us). We have the finances to continue as is for quite some time, so it's not a matter of if we get what we want, it's a matter of when.

But I digress, you're just blustering about. Negotiations are under way now, you can't really expect me to believe that you're in this for some ridiculously long haul.
[/quote]
My six man AA is really that much of a bolster to your recruitment programs? I didn't know. I feel honored.

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1300730892' post='2672390']
No, more that they're trying to spin it as us forcing them into eternal war because they don't want to fulfill any terms. Yes, not feeling like paying reps is literally the same thing as being VietFANned.
[/quote]
Actually I haven't been trying to spin it that way, at all. [i]You[/i] have been putting those words into my mouth for the longest time now. I don't quite understand why, unless you think that's what the public perception of events is going to be.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1300738115' post='2672476']
False. To extort someone is to obtain something by force, intimidation, or abuse of authority. Nothing to do with legality though given the definition, it is usually illegal to extort someone. So no, extortion has nothing to do with legality or any such. It has to do with jut being plain wrong. Don't both to try again.
[/quote]
Okay, I'll bite; perhaps you are right on that count (although I think your definition needs a "threat of"; otherwise I believe it's considered robbery). In that case, all reps are extortion unless they are offered voluntarily after the cessation of battle. Reps are goods promised under the threat of continued force, thus extortion, regardless of how the battle started.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1300739438' post='2672502']
For the record I don't care what type of treaty they activated to hit us, the important thing is that they did hit us. Though admittedly, it does make me want to charge more than typical rates.
[/quote]
Charging a fare for the right to defend our friend and ally against your aggression?

Is your poor choice of wording intentional?

[Beefspari]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300742315' post='2672559']
Charging a fare for the right to defend our friend and ally against your aggression?

Is your poor choice of wording intentional?
[/quote]
When you lose, you're subject to punishment as dealt by the winning party. You have the right to defend or attack anyone you please. That doesn't mean you'll get off free by doing so just because you feel you're being "honorable" or whatever.

I don't see why that's hard to understand.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1300739438' post='2672502']
For the record I don't care what type of treaty they activated to hit us, the important thing is that they did hit us. Though admittedly, it does make me want to charge more than typical rates.
[/quote]

Well that is your choice mate. Just remember CN has a very very long memory and from what I have noticed, they will remember Karma and NPO supposedly "paying" for their crimes only to be hit by DH for the same crimes. So, when Karma does hit DH, ya'll should remember that a second war could very well be in your future after Karma and that one war does not wipe you plate clean.

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1300739562' post='2672505']
You stated your opinion as fact. So yes, you did precisely what you accused us of. I would have expected you to understand plain English. I was mistaken. Yeehaw, cowpoke.
[/quote]

Please explain how me stating that you are giving your opinion as fact is doing that? Are you not presenting your opinion as to why NPO deserves to be hit? Yes, yes you are. Are you guys not trying to state it is a fact? Yes, yes you are. Thus, where am I doing what you accuse me of doing.

I do understand plain English, it is apparent you do not or since you cannot actually refute my statement, went into the "no u" style of debate. When that failed, you resorted to ad hominems. /me brands nippy with Dochartaigh owns.

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1300741365' post='2672540']
Okay, I'll bite; perhaps you are right on that count (although I think your definition needs a "threat of"; otherwise I believe it's considered robbery). In that case, all reps are extortion unless they are offered voluntarily after the cessation of battle. Reps are goods promised under the threat of continued force, thus extortion, regardless of how the battle started.
[/quote]

The definition I used was straight from Websters. Yes, all reps are basically extortion, that I can totally agree with. Even when I was in alliances that took reps, I never took the blood money. I refused based on the fact that I do not agree with reps since they are extortion.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1300743701' post='2672582']
Well that is your choice mate. Just remember CN has a very very long memory and from what I have noticed, they will remember Karma and NPO supposedly "paying" for their crimes only to be hit by DH for the same crimes. So, when Karma does hit DH, ya'll should remember that a second war could very well be in your future after Karma and that one war does not wipe you plate clean.
[/quote]
This is the most confusing threat I've ever heard.

I look forward to maybe fighting two wars...?!

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1300743701' post='2672582']
The definition I used was straight from Websters. Yes, all reps are basically extortion, that I can totally agree with. Even when I was in alliances that took reps, I never took the blood money. I refused based on the fact that I do not agree with reps since they are extortion.
[/quote]
If you believe [i][b]all[/b][/i] reps are extortion then your opinion that [i][b]these[/b][/i] reps are extortion does not carry any particular weight.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Beefspari

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1300743701' post='2672582']
The definition I used was straight from Websters. Yes, all reps are basically extortion, that I can totally agree with. Even when I was in alliances that took reps, I never took the blood money. I refused based on the fact that I do not agree with reps since they are extortion.
[/quote]
Fair enough; at least you're consistent. This is a situation where I think both sides are kinda right for different reasons as long as there's consistency. I have no real desire to change your mind about it though; just the "It's not extortion if it goes well for me" crowd.

[nippy]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1300743701' post='2672582']
Please explain how me stating that you are giving your opinion as fact is doing that?
[/quote]

I will chop away the excrement from your post and answer the question you posted. The simple English I was referring to was in my last post, when I referred to pointing out how you did the exact same thing you accused us of doing immediately before accusing us of doing it. Do you follow me here, pilgrim? When you posted your impression of [i]why Doomhouse is doing something[/i], you presented it as fact, not opinion. You gettin' this, cowpoke?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1300743841' post='2672583']
This is the most confusing threat I've ever heard.

I look forward to maybe fighting two wars...?!


If you believe [i][b]all[/b][/i] reps are extortion then your opinion that [i][b]these[/b][/i] reps are extortion does not carry any particular weight.
[/quote]

YOu will be fighting at least 1. We will see if alliances fall to the same level as DH though in regards to the second war.

As for the reps all being extortion, yes this is true. But your reps are also draconic if you wish me to throw a different term in there for ya. Simply put, the punishment does not appear to fit the supposed "crime" to me. Particularly if the crime is supposedly simply attacking GOONS considering GOONS does not shy away from the crime of hitting other alliances. This inconsistency is why to me, the punishment does not fit the crime.

I may not like reps, but I do know they are part of CN and have been for a while. I would rather wars end in white peace in order to allow more wars to be fought later on, instead of attempting to cripple your opponent but that is just me.

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1300744458' post='2672591']
Fair enough; at least you're consistent. This is a situation where I think both sides are kinda right for different reasons as long as there's consistency. I have no real desire to change your mind about it though; just the "It's not extortion if it goes well for me" crowd.
[/quote]

Fair enough as well. Glad we could come to an understanding.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1300742784' post='2672569']
When you lose, you're subject to punishment as dealt by the winning party. You have the right to defend or attack anyone you please. That doesn't mean you'll get off free by doing so just because you feel you're being "honorable" or whatever.

I don't see why that's hard to understand.
[/quote]
What's hard to understand is the absolutes you deal in; You act like every victorious alliance [i]has[/i] to extort funds from the losing alliance, and like it'd be some giant catastrophe if it didn't occur.

When 64Digits exited the Karma war, we were granted white peace by four highly honorable opponents. Pure white peace, not even an admission of defeat.

In this war, GOONS has been singing about reps from the very start.

What you need to understand, is that makes you a very dishonorable alliance, given the circumstances of this war.

Sure, you can demand all the money you want. My point to you is that it, at a minimum, shows you have no honor.

All [i]I[/i] really care about is honor. Other people care about other things, I care about honor.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1300720369' post='2672253']
If the Kingdom desired a greater amount of "good will", then extorting our allies, mass raiding our team, and de-facto encouraging nuclear rogues is not the best way to get it.

Unless of course, you were expecting a war because you kept trying to provoke one.
[/quote]
How is the idea that MK deliberately provoked and wanted to roll NPO mutually exclusive from the idea that NPO deliberately provoked and wanted to roll MK? That's a red herring.

[quote name='Henry' timestamp='1300728363' post='2672348']
You just said SirPaul is a MK hater. Either back that up or don't cite it as reason. In fact, why don't you try to compare the size of our hate crowd to yours?

I didn't avoid a question. There is no love and respect for MK here because you haven't given us a reason to love, respect, or even like you. If you're going to cite it as "one of the many reasons for war" how do you feel now that the anti MK feelings have increased over the past 2 months? Seems to me like we would be giving you a blank check to start a war whenever you feel like if we agree to your terms. [/quote]
Sir Paul and NPO doesn't hate MK, Sir Paul is just NPO gov, obsesses over us and bashes us constantly in his propaganda publications, publications presented as official NPO documents, prominently displayed on your boards, and posted here in [b][i]alliance[/i][/b] announcements, and hailed by many in your alliance and in allied alliances. Please don't insult the intelligence of everyone here by claiming that a spade is a horse and not a spade.

[quote]And no, I wouldn't agree to rolling MK for the same reasons you rolled us. It wouldn't be practical and it would do us more harm than good.[/quote]
You just said it, you wouldn't do it because it wouldn't be practical and you wouldn't win, not because you wouldn't want to, or wouldn't have have attacked us in a situation where you would have won.