Sol
Luxor Member
I pledge alligeance to the corn-growers.
Posts: 1,610
|
Post by Sol on Sept 23, 2007 21:32:57 GMT
NEUTRALITY! or attack DIGG
|
|
AeroS
Luxor Admin
Timmons[HAWK]
Posts: 1,138
|
Post by AeroS on Sept 24, 2007 0:42:59 GMT
Our pact forces our hand which is why I believe that we need to rethink our pacts based on our views of teh future of this server.
|
|
Sol
Luxor Member
I pledge alligeance to the corn-growers.
Posts: 1,610
|
Post by Sol on Sept 24, 2007 0:46:53 GMT
[Pantheon] Name Pantheon Of Heroes Score 4531630 Rank 2 Members 496
So they said they were going to move today?
They lied....*hiss*
|
|
|
Post by Dalfiatach on Sept 24, 2007 2:36:14 GMT
To hell with this. We're reacting, not acting.
We simply make a unilateral announcement that we are canceling all pacts immediately. And that we welcome approaches from any alliance who wants a fresh pact/peace treaty with us, but only if that alliance is outside the top 10 and has less than 150 members. As a matter of policy, Morkin will no longer be pacting with any Top 10 or Too-Many-Members alliance, as we feel this unbalances the game and prevents the development of healthy politics.
End of fecking story. DIGG will get over it.
Time for the Elder Gods to come down from the mountain and just remake reality. Because we can.
|
|
Sol
Luxor Member
I pledge alligeance to the corn-growers.
Posts: 1,610
|
Post by Sol on Sept 24, 2007 3:38:59 GMT
Wow... I could not agree more. I like Dalfiatach...a man of action. What are we waiting for!!!!! Seriously, I think DIGG would be more likely to split if we did something about it. Seeing as we are gods... "Morkin will no longer be pacting with any Top 10 or Too-Many-Members alliance, as we feel this unbalances the game and prevents the development of healthy politics." Sounds pretty good. Lets stop discussing it. We've been doing this for quite a while and nothing is getting done. Let's make a deadline for ourselves. Vote on this topic this week, have a decision made by Thursday.
|
|
Freiegeister
Morkin Member
'Blasphemy is a victimless crime' - Dawkins
Posts: 1,126
|
Post by Freiegeister on Sept 24, 2007 4:40:16 GMT
I like it!
|
|
Clausewitz
Luxor Member
Veni. Vidi. Vici. Mori.
Posts: 1,437
|
Post by Clausewitz on Sept 24, 2007 5:00:15 GMT
What was the context in which Dasneal said they were disbanding?
|
|
Arminius
Morkin Admin
Ich bin Bl?cher
Posts: 4,148
|
Post by Arminius on Sept 24, 2007 8:08:51 GMT
Issues with the server. I mentioned multies, he mega-alliances. I then asked Dan about the progress, and he replied:
|
|
inyati
Morkin Admin
Aqua profunda est quieta
Posts: 4,310
|
Post by inyati on Sept 24, 2007 9:02:55 GMT
To hell with this. We're reacting, not acting. We simply make a unilateral announcement that we are canceling all pacts immediately. And that we welcome approaches from any alliance who wants a fresh pact/peace treaty with us, but only if that alliance is outside the top 10 and has less than 150 members. As a matter of policy, Morkin will no longer be pacting with any Top 10 or Too-Many-Members alliance, as we feel this unbalances the game and prevents the development of healthy politics. End of fecking story. DIGG will get over it. Time for the Elder Gods to come down from the mountain and just remake reality. Because we can. Morkin will soon be adopting this new political agenda. Luxor/KoM are welcome to acompany us or not. The Hawk pact is already the reflection of our inflection.
|
|
SkulkrinBait
Morkin Admin
Haxx0rs == Suxx0rs! v4
Posts: 6,680
|
Post by SkulkrinBait on Sept 24, 2007 9:21:00 GMT
Pantheon aren't disbanding:
Hawks eh?
If we drop our pact with DIGG, would that be a catalyst to war?
|
|
AeroS
Luxor Admin
Timmons[HAWK]
Posts: 1,138
|
Post by AeroS on Sept 24, 2007 9:22:34 GMT
I am not sure why we have to exclude top 10 alliances but I am on board for the membership limits for pactmates.
|
|
Arminius
Morkin Admin
Ich bin Bl?cher
Posts: 4,148
|
Post by Arminius on Sept 24, 2007 9:24:29 GMT
Tosser! I'm not Marc, and from the quote I posted you can see he said "I will disband", not "I would perhaps disband". I just lost all respect for this Segaiolo!. Edit: Erm, you surely know that my expletives are not directed to you, Aeros! Or you, David!
|
|
Clausewitz
Luxor Member
Veni. Vidi. Vici. Mori.
Posts: 1,437
|
Post by Clausewitz on Sept 24, 2007 10:31:52 GMT
My respect for Pantheon, and their leadership, has just hit rock-bottom.
They either don't know what they're doing, or don't have the fortitude to do what they know they should.
Their window of opportunity for success has closed.
|
|
Arminius
Morkin Admin
Ich bin Bl?cher
Posts: 4,148
|
Post by Arminius on Sept 24, 2007 10:48:29 GMT
"I will disband Pantheon today to resolve this issue. " No ifs, no buts. Minchione!.
|
|
Clausewitz
Luxor Member
Veni. Vidi. Vici. Mori.
Posts: 1,437
|
Post by Clausewitz on Sept 24, 2007 11:19:17 GMT
My old Philosophy academic days come to mind hearing this... A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.[1] It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy,[2] scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.
However, people often misuse the statement "straw man argument" as a catch-all to refute an opponent in a debate.Baseless claims that other alliances are full of multi's and cheaters, therefore they cannot split... We're not full of multi's or cheaters, and we've done just fine without some mega-alliance.
|
|