i can confirm that andy gave mr ps tool quite a buffer and shine.
edit: post #3000
Major
i can confirm that andy gave mr ps tool quite a buffer and shine.
edit: post #3000
Originally Posted by Cemetary
Command Sergeant
DB, please understand our argument. I never said that people can't war us when we net. Maggie was saying that we were "gonna war them". That's when the whole "we were netting" argument began--not when the war first broke out. Understand now why we said it?
You can kiss this idea goodbye. LOR is not retiring just because you want it to. In fact, I have no idea why you're proposing this. You've stated, multiple times in this thread, how you don't trust anyone in LOR but Devil. Why then, if we drop the LOR tag, would you then trust us? You continue with your flip-flopping and hypocritical talk that it's really becoming quite funny.
Let's take a quick look at this "vicious cycle".
The first war that broke out was months ago. The set began with LOR saying "we're warring, if you don't want us to war you, sign a NAP". Any nation could have signed a NAP without any consequence--it's not like we're asking for tribute or your firstborn. We were willing to let nations that wanted to net, net. SLOB and others didn't sign a NAP. That means, to us, that you were willing to be warred. So be it. In that set, we look at your numbers, I think roughly 10, and we had about 25 or 30. We said "That's too small, let's declare on another nation at the same time." So we declared on SLOB and NS.
The next set, we expect to be warred, and again offer any nations a NAP. SLOB again refuses. SLOB then declares FIRST against us. We defend and kill off SLOB. We continue to kill SLOB, saying that if you want the war to stop, feel free to surrender.
The next set, Ali institutes his retal policy. I disagree with it, and don't war during that set.
I take the next set off, due to school and whatnot, and was very inactive.
Now we're at this set, and all of the sudden you're claiming that we're scum leaders and Kanman and I can't be trusted. I'd really like you to show me where I can't be trusted, and show me where Kanman has been so terrible, morally, that you claim the moral high ground and start calling people the scum of this game Show me where LOR is and always will be how you view it. Show me where a nation can't change from set to set.
Seems to me you have a tendency to blow little things into bigger things. LOR has always warred, and rarely have we had a nation leader like you take things so personally. It's very silly how you have taken set to set and made it a personal vendetta, even stooping so low as to fight through a surrender. Look up the Korean idea of "Han". It states that people who have been wronged in previous generation carry a state of "having been sinned against". It leads them to irrationally label future generations of people as the enemy, and leads to "personal" vendettas--even when it's generations after the original act.
Your assumption that LOR leaders are only out to manipulate and play on other leaders "moral character" is false. Even Dogma would vouch for me that I don't do that. You're the only leader who thinks that about me--and I have no idea where you're getting it besides "Pron leads in LOR, so he must be like the other leaders in LOR". Your lack of ability to differentiate between different leaders is not only disrespectful, but naive and a sign of a bad leader. Throughout this thread you've been lumping people into categories "LOR is bad, every other nation leader is moral and hates LOR" etc etc.
Maybe, instead of saying LOR is the scum of this game and asking us to break up our nation, you should take a look at yourself and see how far you've fallen in how you view this game from a few sets ago. Then we can begin to dialogue about what to do next set on.
Last edited by pron; 09-15-2009 at 12:12.
Civilian
I understand your argument. But you're refusing to understand where Mag is coming from. I can't speak for him, but I know when I set my tax rate and production at the beginning of each set, in the back of my mind, I'm wondering how many days I've got to build b4 I'm at war with lor. I'm sure Mag, Dog and everybody else, to one extent or the other, thinks the same. You guys can't wear horns for a set or two, then place halos on your heads and expect the rest of us to deal with you in a totally different manner...just because you've balanced the halo over the horns.....the horns are still there. lor has worked long and hard at developing and honing them. We all understand that.
As for the "who's leading lor" argument:
All I can say on that front is that when Devil leads, he and Mag seem to be able to work things out and keep us all from getting at each others throats....so Mag trusts Devil....and I trust Mag. When Devil doesn't lead, all hell breaks loose. Your argument that you and kanman aren't ali may be true......but can you not see that when you lay down with dogs, you end up smelling like dogs......and others expect you to act like dogs. Maybe when you and kanman are leading you can go the extra mile on something to show you're a different lor. But untill that happens, to the rest of us, including Mag.....you're just the same old lor.
Command Sergeant
Again, when we say we're netting, we net unless provoked. Let me say this again to you: We were not coming after SLOB in any way shape or form. Maggie's argument about knowing that we were gonna hit SLOB this set is complete BS. When we want to war, we say we're warring. We don't need to say "we're netting" in order to get a sneak attack advantage. That's fine if people wanna war us when we're netting, just don't come up with a BS excuse about how LOR was prepping for war and was going to war SLOB when that was clearly not the case.
Yea, my fault for expecting people of being half-intelligent to discern between different people. People that think like you've just stated, are the same type that are racist, sexist, and the general idiots of the world who can't see one person different from another. It's pathetic that you would actually argue from this viewpoint, given that it's a naive and bigoted.
Besides that fact, I have gone the extra mile when leading LOR, and other leaders can vouch for that. Including, I believe, Dogma. The thing is--in spite of doing that, you guys still didn't change what you thought of me when I was leading. It was still "Same old LOR" even though it wasn't. You guys just want to lump us into that because you are unable to see differently because of your narrow-mindedness.
As far as Kanman goes, everyone knows he can play the game, and I'm pretty sure that other leaders do trust him. He's not one to say something, and then do something else or change what he said.
Command Sergeant
Oh Maxi--feel free to show me where I've said those things. And feel free to show me when I haven't been good and fair.
Last edited by BB; 09-16-2009 at 10:34.
Major
I assume LoR warring a 5 man netting nation with their 30 members is good and fair! I`m sorry, I didn`t know. While we`re at it, stop complaining about getting warred! Thank you!
CW, TWC/PX, E
USA(x), Deli, DOOM, GRIM/DEAD(x), EURO, SLOB(x), LoR, ABT(x), CR(x), RE
Command Sergeant
I wasn't leading during that war. And if I recall correctly, I didn't do any attacks during that war either. Not that you're able to differentiate one LOR player from another...I assume LoR warring a 5 man netting nation with their 30 members is good and fair! I`m sorry, I didn`t know. While we`re at it, stop complaining about getting warred! Thank you!
Not complaining about getting warred. I've only stated how hypocritical it is of SLOB and how low it is that they attack through a surrender.
Last edited by pron; 09-15-2009 at 13:06.
Major
My name is MAGGIO, not Maggie.
Are you really calling me less than "half intellegent", racist, sexist and an idiot?
When LOR puts out things like. "we are warring, sign our NAP and bow down or we will war you" "surrender or we will continue to kill you", "this is our retal policy abide by it or we will kill you" LOR is standing there with 20+ members or more and barking demands... doenst that look bad in your eyes. isnt that a bit irrational, unfair, and bullish. These are things LOR has proposed under different leadership.
If you cannot see why other nations and their members are not upset about these type of actions, there really is no reason to discuss things.
Major
SLOB did not declare Peace, and then Declare War. We asked our members to cease fire, and then continue to war. We allow a little cease fire, and what do you do... grab a few tag jumpers and take out two of our allied states. Really cute.
Matter of fact your whole entire arguement about LOR having different leaders and how each Leader should be treated differently and we are to expect to memorize the actions of each leader in order to predict the out come of each set is absultely rediculous. We only have time for one LOR, and that one LOR cant be trusted. Like i said I am not here to play LOR, I am here to play NW. THis is not your game and until you realize people are sick of it, I dont knwo what to tell you.
Last edited by MAGGIO; 09-15-2009 at 13:35.
Command Sergeant
Sorry, I'll stop.
I said it's the same type of thinking that those people have.
1. We never said "bow down" when we said sign our nap. We wanted to war that set, and were giving people the chance to not have us war them. I really don't see how that's so bullish. Bullish would be not giving any naps and then warring whomever we wanted.When LOR puts out things like. "we are warring, sign our NAP and bow down or we will war you" "surrender or we will continue to kill you", "this is our retal policy abide by it or we will kill you" LOR is standing there with 20+ members or more and barking demands... doenst that look bad in your eyes. isnt that a bit irrational, unfair, and bullish. These are things LOR has proposed under different leadership.
If you cannot see why other nations and their members are not upset about these type of actions, there really is no reason to discuss things.
2. Every nation says "Surrender or we will continue to war you". You have. WLF has, every nation has. That's the way the game works.
3. I didn't play during the "abide by our retal policy or we'll kill you" set.
If you cannot differentiate set to set, maybe you shouldn't play this game. Again, never before have we had a leader who is so stuck in his/her ways to realize that each set is different. WLF hated LOR for a few sets, and then we'd war together. You just take things way too personal.
You knew when the surrender was given that we were making ELD our primary target. Why then did you ceasefire when you knew that was the case? Secondly, in the forum posts, you've stated multiple times that you went back to war because I ran my mouth. Do you see how you change what you're saying?
Also, we only took out one ELD state--SOB, not two.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote