Advertisement
by Katabasis I » Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:24 pm
by Eostitorie » Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:02 pm
by Pergamon » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:06 pm
Katabasis I wrote:Gotta love how hard defenders are trying to switch the vote. Does it honestly matter? We're still unbeaten, and always will be. Half of the fun is watching you all scramble around to block the repeal - but we win either way
Hail Invaders! o7
by Tombouctu » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:18 pm
Pergamon wrote:Katabasis I wrote:Gotta love how hard defenders are trying to switch the vote. Does it honestly matter? We're still unbeaten, and always will be. Half of the fun is watching you all scramble around to block the repeal - but we win either way
Hail Invaders! o7
What are you trying to say? Anyone voting against the repeal is a Defender? Look at me for example, I am many things, but among all those things I can hardly be considered a Defender. Isn't your logic a little bit flawed then? I try to avoid saying something about the claim of being "unbeaten", I see some factual error must have happened there to you.
Hail Pacifica o/
by Altmoras » Sun Dec 04, 2016 10:43 pm
Tombouctu wrote:Pergamon wrote:
What are you trying to say? Anyone voting against the repeal is a Defender? Look at me for example, I am many things, but among all those things I can hardly be considered a Defender. Isn't your logic a little bit flawed then? I try to avoid saying something about the claim of being "unbeaten", I see some factual error must have happened there to you.
Hail Pacifica o/
All he said was that defenders were trying really hard to sway the vote, not that everyone trying to sway the vote is a defender. I wouldn't consider you a defender either, Perg.
Hail Pacifica! o/
by Funkadelia » Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:43 am
by USS Monitor » Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:53 am
Funkadelia wrote:
You are a morally repugnant crypto-fascist who has no place taking part in this game. You should take some time to reflect on yourself and ask if this is really the way you want to be spending your time, then come back when you've found some answers.
by Katabasis I » Mon Dec 05, 2016 2:02 pm
by Rufford » Mon Dec 05, 2016 2:39 pm
by Katabasis I » Mon Dec 05, 2016 2:44 pm
Rufford wrote:Katabasis I wrote:What's your point? I see links to two regions that we conquered, thoroughly subjugated, and then moved on from when native spirits were too crushed for us to crush them any further.
As a native of one of those regions, who was there when you raided it, I can tell you all firsthand that, that statement is not true.
by Pergamon » Mon Dec 05, 2016 4:07 pm
by Plagentine » Tue Dec 06, 2016 4:27 am
by WARDEN DRAKE » Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:57 am
by Cormactopia Prime » Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:35 pm
Warden Drake wrote:IMO, the actual raid was very successful, it's the occupation that wasn't. The founder coming back is basically deus ex machina. Raiders are able to claim a military victory, defenders are able to claim (a non-military) occupation victory, as the raiders were still forced to end their occupation at a time and method not of their own choosing.
by Guy » Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:53 pm
[violet] wrote:Never underestimate the ability of admin to do nothing.
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:01 pm
Guy wrote:Depends on context. Can be a defender trap.
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by WARDEN DRAKE » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:08 pm
by T E Lawrence » Tue Dec 06, 2016 4:34 pm
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Also see: Evil Wolf letting himself CTE
Also see: Islam and Woodhouse
Also see: Vac and TGW raiding his region
I think raiders generally call that a victory when they pull a founder back and boot someone else. Not sure why we'd deny the same courtesy.
Guy wrote:In any case, no one cares for "defeating" or "outwitting" you. You're playing a made-up game with yourself - and worse, it's on the lowest possible difficulty.
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Tue Dec 06, 2016 4:46 pm
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Cormactopia Prime » Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:13 pm
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Seems to be a matter of semantics with a fundamental disagreement that parties on both sides use for propeganda. *shrug*
That noted, on the same topic but a different angle - if you're going to claim The Invaders' history back twelve years, you really ought to also acknowledge defeats from that era as well. Bit of historical cherry picking there. Would be happy to shoot you come Jolt archive links if you'd like record of those to go along with 12 years of claimed vistory.
by Lockdownn » Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:38 pm
Cormactopia Prime wrote:Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Seems to be a matter of semantics with a fundamental disagreement that parties on both sides use for propeganda. *shrug*
That noted, on the same topic but a different angle - if you're going to claim The Invaders' history back twelve years, you really ought to also acknowledge defeats from that era as well. Bit of historical cherry picking there. Would be happy to shoot you come Jolt archive links if you'd like record of those to go along with 12 years of claimed vistory.
Where did he claim twelve years of victory? He said military defeat hadn't happened yet and wouldn't so long as he's commanding, which implies that the "yet" means since he's been in command, i.e., since The Invaders were revived. Why would anyone deny historical defeats? Point is, since revival The Invaders haven't lost on the field of battle, which is a lot longer a streak than The Black Hawks have. Perhaps if you spent more time mastering raiding, recruiting, training, etc., and less time taking pointless cheap shots in this thread, The Black Hawks could also have that impressive a winning streak.
by Cormactopia Prime » Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:22 pm
Lockdownn wrote:Cormactopia Prime wrote:Where did he claim twelve years of victory? He said military defeat hadn't happened yet and wouldn't so long as he's commanding, which implies that the "yet" means since he's been in command, i.e., since The Invaders were revived. Why would anyone deny historical defeats? Point is, since revival The Invaders haven't lost on the field of battle, which is a lot longer a streak than The Black Hawks have. Perhaps if you spent more time mastering raiding, recruiting, training, etc., and less time taking pointless cheap shots in this thread, The Black Hawks could also have that impressive a winning streak.
Considering their professionalism thus far, your word, and your "organization's" word for that matter is crap. If it's anyone taking cheap shots, it's your newbie wanna-be super raiders that make up 98% of your entire group. "Being the best" is not determined by length of time existing in a dank corner, but by retaining a good image while being good at what you do. Or what they do for that matter, since the great majority of your group seems to only excel at belittling and baiting natives.
Advertisement
Advertisement