Ultimate Sacrifice wrote:Just a Feux. Are they unreasonable assumptions, or is the grandstanding of regional sovereignty simply opportunistic and hypocritical?
I think you like to read to deeply into text.
Advertisement
by Feux » Fri Apr 22, 2016 10:36 am
Ultimate Sacrifice wrote:Just a Feux. Are they unreasonable assumptions, or is the grandstanding of regional sovereignty simply opportunistic and hypocritical?
TheBestDudeInHistory wrote:Feux is what would happen if I had my shitposting physically removed, isolated, and permitted to become sentient on its own. And I mean that in the best way possible. Clearly I need to marry Feux.
by Ultimate Sacrifice » Fri Apr 22, 2016 10:40 am
by 95 block » Fri Apr 22, 2016 10:41 am
by Feux » Fri Apr 22, 2016 10:43 am
Ultimate Sacrifice wrote:What else do we have? It's a text-based game, broseiden.
TheBestDudeInHistory wrote:Feux is what would happen if I had my shitposting physically removed, isolated, and permitted to become sentient on its own. And I mean that in the best way possible. Clearly I need to marry Feux.
by Waldeck-Pyrmont » Fri Apr 22, 2016 10:47 am
Ultimate Sacrifice wrote:You seem surprised. Were you not part of the drafting and discussion?
Edit: I suppose Grand Central has become defender or neutral now? You know, to respect the democratic processes of all regions.
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Fri Apr 22, 2016 10:49 am
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 The Ghost of Festavo » Fri Apr 22, 2016 10:51 am
by 95 block » Fri Apr 22, 2016 10:52 am
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Besides the fact that "raiding" and "democratically elected delegate" are generally mutually exclusive terms, I seem to have missed the part of "Unity" that mandates raiding regions enforce elections in an imperialist GCR. I though the idea was that we just don't attack each others' raids and be willing to contribute troops when not otherwise deployed, but maybe I've been misinformed.
Pretty sure that the idea of raiding would support either ignoring the entire debacle or supporting one side for entirely selfish means- supporting it because it is right, fair, and legal is more imperialist, at least.
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Fri Apr 22, 2016 10:55 am
The Ghost of Festavo wrote:Grand Central is not just your run of the mill raiding region. We are a region with a regional government, roleplay, discussion, etc that has a raider military.
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 The Ghost of Festavo » Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:00 am
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:The Ghost of Festavo wrote:Grand Central is not just your run of the mill raiding region. We are a region with a regional government, roleplay, discussion, etc that has a raider military.
And defending "legitimate and lawful" governments over ones established by military gameplay, all in the name of "justice," apparently.
Sounds more Independant or imperialist to me. Not that those are bad things, just not what I would call "a raiding military."
by Ultimate Sacrifice » Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:03 am
95 block wrote:To my knowledge Osiris is the only invader leaning GCR. So it doesn't make us neutral or defender to support a democratically elected head of government of a raider region.
by Waldeck-Pyrmont » Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:09 am
Ultimate Sacrifice wrote:95 block wrote:To my knowledge Osiris is the only invader leaning GCR. So it doesn't make us neutral or defender to support a democratically elected head of government of a raider region.
So, then only raiders deserve democracy? Your statement said that "Nobody has the right to put themsleves above the laws, and above the community of a region."
Does that only apply to Osiris?
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:09 am
95 block wrote:Even if it were an imperialist stance for us to take, we can still call ourselves raider. Imperialism is a sublet of invading.
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 Ever-Wandering Souls » Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:11 am
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 Ultimate Sacrifice » Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:15 am
by Stavelot-Malmedy » Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:19 am
by Stavelot-Malmedy » Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:40 am
by John Turner » Fri Apr 22, 2016 2:09 pm
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:The Ghost of Festavo wrote:Grand Central is not just your run of the mill raiding region. We are a region with a regional government, roleplay, discussion, etc that has a raider military.
And defending "legitimate and lawful" governments over ones established by military gameplay, all in the name of "justice," apparently.
Sounds more Independant or imperialist to me. Not that those are bad things, just not what I would call "a raiding military."
John Turner wrote:Oh.... And it wasn't drafted on the forums. That makes it automatically illegal, doesn't it?
by Crazy girl » Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:03 pm
Waldeck-Pyrmont wrote:No, I'm glad my signature is on there because I support wiping grime from this game.
by Dark Robes » Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:33 pm
Ultimate Sacrifice wrote:So if they raided Osiris, you'd support the TGO?
The Ghost of Festavo wrote:The Osiris Fraternal Order is an ally of Grand Central and we support our allies.
by Saq » Fri Apr 22, 2016 4:29 pm
The Ghost of Festavo wrote:Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:
And defending "legitimate and lawful" governments over ones established by military gameplay, all in the name of "justice," apparently.
Sounds more Independant or imperialist to me. Not that those are bad things, just not what I would call "a raiding military."
The Osiris Fraternal Order is an ally of Grand Central and we support our allies.
by South Boston Irishmen » Fri Apr 22, 2016 5:17 pm
Saq wrote:The Ghost of Festavo wrote:The Osiris Fraternal Order is an ally of Grand Central and we support our allies.
Since when? Did I somehow miss the alliance negotiations between the OFO and GC? Or are you just claiming to be allies now because it's convenient?
The OFO never had formal relations with Grand Central before the Transitional Government.
by The Ghost of Festavo » Fri Apr 22, 2016 5:19 pm
Saq wrote:The Ghost of Festavo wrote:The Osiris Fraternal Order is an ally of Grand Central and we support our allies.
Since when? Did I somehow miss the alliance negotiations between the OFO and GC? Or are you just claiming to be allies now because it's convenient?
The OFO never had formal relations with Grand Central before the Transitional Government.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement