LordRahl2 Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 I like it I love this whole thread. I have learned about the advanced theory of paperless. It is fascinating stuff really. 3 Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DVDCCHN Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 I don't remember ever stating TEst was going to help us financially. Don't put words in my mouth, though your side loves to twist what I say. this is from your side boo, not me.... Alpha did call off their allies. And guess what, while it's not really a popular view, some people criticize said allies for not defending Alpha. Also, the out lash for not honoring a written treaty is definitely not the same as a handshake agreement. When we fought TKR and co., Kastor said that TEst would help with the rebuilding. Now, whether this is true or not, I don't really know. He handled the talk by himself. But later on, nearing the end of the fight, several things happened and we were led to believe that no financial help is coming. Despite the seemingly confusing info all around, the general sentiment was, "oh well, both us and TEst are paperless. Guess they gotta do what they gotta do." There was virtually no backlash against TEst. Of course, with their recent announcement, this is a moot point, but I believe it serves to illustrate what kind of backlash, if any, if a paperless alliance were to retract their promise. It's okay if you disagree though, paperless is not for everyone. All in all, while it might be interesting if every single alliance in Orbis is paperless, I believe it would be better if both paper and paperless exist. Ideological clash makes politics interesting, definitely more interesting than if everyone is paper, or everyone is paperless. Also, I must remind you that you still owe me burgers for that tutoring session. and also to reiterate .... It's all about personal opinion, Yoso. It's always about personal opinion. The thing is, because it's all personal opinion, there will be people who take things too seriously and throw expletives to the other guy because "they're not honoring their treaty". At least, with paperless alliance, this risk is minimized. Yes, I accept peanut butter burgers. I'll pick them up when I come around BK's residence. Nothing is new. I was just tutoring Yoso about the concept of paperless alliance. As you know, Yoso is a doge. So, while having the advantage of being able to produce dank memes, he often has troubles with formalizing concepts. Thus the tutoring session. Also, about that bolded part, uh, yeah. It came from Kazy. I guess you know how we regard the info back then. see the truth below *flashbacks of you talking to R&R* Well, you don't really have the reputation for, well, anything that involves communicating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 I love this whole thread. I have learned about the advanced theory of paperless. It is fascinating stuff really. Arrgh firmly believes in people doing whatever they feel like 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 Arrgh firmly believes in people doing whatever they feel like I do too. If making shit up makes one feel good then one totally should. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Licorice Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 *Strum in a dark room crossing his finger "At long last, my vision of an Osbidian Sphere and a sneks strip club with Partisan as my personal slave will finally be realized" 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 I do too. If making shit up makes one feel good then one totally should. I don't get it, TEst wants to let Roz rebuild in peace, why is that something a paperless alliance isn't allowed to do? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aksel Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 I don't get it, TEst wants to let Roz rebuild in peace, why is that something a paperless alliance isn't allowed to do? Everyone posting here probably doesn't even give a shit. Its just something to !@#$ about. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 Also, the out lash for not honoring a written treaty is definitely not the same as a handshake agreement. When we fought TKR and co., Kastor said that TEst would help with the rebuilding. Now, whether this is true or not, I don't really know. He handled the talk by himself. But later on, nearing the end of the fight, several things happened and we were led to believe that no financial help is coming. Despite the seemingly confusing info all around, the general sentiment was, "oh well, both us and TEst are paperless. Guess they gotta do what they gotta do." There was virtually no backlash against TEst. Of course, with their recent announcement, this is a moot point, but I believe it serves to illustrate what kind of backlash, if any, if a paperless alliance were to retract their promise. But this time they've actually formally announced that they're defending you, meaning that, at least in my opinion, they'll face the same backlash as any other alliance failing to live up to a treaty if you're attacked and they don't protect you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truerror Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 But this time they've actually formally announced that they're defending you, meaning that, at least in my opinion, they'll face the same backlash as any other alliance failing to live up to a treaty if you're attacked and they don't protect you... There'd be some backlash from the community, yes. But I think it won't be the same backlash a paper alliance would receive. I don't know of any example where an alliance one-sidedly breaks their promise. In our previous posts, Yoso and I used Alpha and their allies, but it was mutual - Alpha asked them to stay out. So I don't think it would serve as a good example for this. The closest thing to it would be the Storm Division incident, or TKR. Both got a lot of backlash. Obviously SD got more backlash, because, well, SD was SD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ole Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 (edited) Im still confused, What is it we arent allowed to do? cooperate with outher alliances? Call our playstyle paperless, when we dont sign treaties? Or is the simple problem here that we let you !@#$ know publicly? Not butthurt, just !@#$ confused rn....... Edit: Its not even propper Cooperation, we just said !@#$ off kicking RW while their down. Edited August 14, 2016 by Ole 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 this is from your side boo, not me.... and also to reiterate .... see the truth below Well I apologize and he needs to get his facts straight as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saeton Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 Well i mean, if you have to bring religion in into an argument just for it to make sense, it's not a good argument. Oh no. It's not a good argument because I used religion (which is a sort of philosophy) into a philosophical argument! Whatever shall I do?? How about capitalism vs communism vs ancom vs socialism vs whatever? Or omnivorism vs veganism? Or any number of philosophical debates people can have in which elements believed by one specific group cannot be corrected by someone who does not believe in the same thing or even understand it. We already got "back" at Rose. We're not against them anymore, get with the times. Who's "we?" You've switched alliances more times than Pidgey on Route 1. Quote (TEst lives on but I'm in BK stronk now and too lazy to change the image) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betulius Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 Guys, TEst has had paper for a while. We have a treaty with literally everyone. 2 Quote Dec 26 18:48:22 <JacobH[Arrgh]> God your worse the grealind >.> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 Everyone posting here probably doesn't even give a shit. Its just something to !@#$ about. This. 1 Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 Am I in time yet to yell things about paperless? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 (edited) Am I in time yet to yell things about paperless? Just in time to join TEst. We need you to continue in our dominance of "P" Edited August 14, 2016 by Lo Pan 1 Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 (edited) I understand that TEst wants to cover Roz Wei as they get back on their feet. That's fine and dandy. The part that bothers me about this and the argument that this isn't a "papered" tie ( Not that I really care one way or another if you're paperless or not, it's all politics in the end ) - is that it was formally announced to the rest of us. Prefontaine could've just kept quiet about it, and we all wouldn't have cared too much about this. If Roz had gotten attacked and TEst retaliated on their behalf, Prefontaine could've just said "Hey, TEst is here to !@#$ your shit up". Would've held the same meaning in the end... We all would've understood there was a hidden support group of paperless alliances between those that are paperless. Now, the definition of papered ties being one with clauses and articles in it - we could all be paperless if we just announce we're buddying up with so-and-so alliance! The actual act of protecting an alliance, whether it's from a paperless alliance or not, that doesn't bother me. It's the logic behind defining papered/paperless that does. ( And we've seen where being a paper tie doesn't matter ) Edited August 14, 2016 by Buorhann 1 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaguar Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 You people have way too much free time 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 You people have way too much free time Of course. We all play this game. 1 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cypher Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 I don't think the most important thing about protecotares is "if you attack them, we'll attack you". It's more like "we're cool with this alliance" and just wants to dissuade people from attacking said alliance in the first place, rather than jumping straight to the conclusion that x must attack y because y attacked z. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted August 14, 2016 Author Share Posted August 14, 2016 (edited) I understand that TEst wants to cover Roz Wei as they get back on their feet. That's fine and dandy. The part that bothers me about this and the argument that this isn't a "papered" tie ( Not that I really care one way or another if you're paperless or not, it's all politics in the end ) - is that it was formally announced to the rest of us. Prefontaine could've just kept quiet about it, and we all wouldn't have cared too much about this. If Roz had gotten attacked and TEst retaliated on their behalf, Prefontaine could've just said "Hey, TEst is here to !@#$ your shit up". Would've held the same meaning in the end... We all would've understood there was a hidden support group of paperless alliances between those that are paperless. Now, the definition of papered ties being one with clauses and articles in it - we could all be paperless if we just announce we're buddying up with so-and-so alliance! The actual act of protecting an alliance, whether it's from a paperless alliance or not, that doesn't bother me. It's the logic behind defining papered/paperless that does. ( And we've seen where being a paper tie doesn't matter ) You should read the OP and perhaps you would understand the point in making it known. Same reason I made Guardian protectorates known. Reading is fundamental. There is no paper involved. Roz is paperless TEst is paperless. When we've declared war people don't cry "your not paperless". We've made another declaration. Simple as that. But you can't stop people from being trolls. Edited August 14, 2016 by Prefontaine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foltest Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 Another TEst thread with 6+ pages of replies. I feel like there might be one or two serious posters in this thread who are actually confused as to what being a paperless alliance is about. I also feel like TEst is responding way too seriously to the obvious trolls. I'll try to summarize my personal thoughts in a short chunk just to keep conversation flowing. Paperless, despite the jokes in this thread, is a governing philosophy that some alliances follow. Most people wouldn't consider GPA a paperless alliance, even though they hold no treaties - they're neutral. So why is there a difference? Because Paperless is not only a literal term but also holds multiple connotations which have influenced the entire political spectrum - papered alliances (like BK) included. It's more about destroying the static/stagnant political practices that were forged in another world. Formally announcing protection does not negate TEst's paperless status because it falls within both the literal definition of the term and the meta connotations. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 I understand that TEst wants to cover Roz Wei as they get back on their feet. That's fine and dandy. The part that bothers me about this and the argument that this isn't a "papered" tie ( Not that I really care one way or another if you're paperless or not, it's all politics in the end ) - is that it was formally announced to the rest of us. Prefontaine could've just kept quiet about it, and we all wouldn't have cared too much about this. If Roz had gotten attacked and TEst retaliated on their behalf, Prefontaine could've just said "Hey, TEst is here to !@#$ your shit up". Would've held the same meaning in the end... We all would've understood there was a hidden support group of paperless alliances between those that are paperless. Now, the definition of papered ties being one with clauses and articles in it - we could all be paperless if we just announce we're buddying up with so-and-so alliance! The actual act of protecting an alliance, whether it's from a paperless alliance or not, that doesn't bother me. It's the logic behind defining papered/paperless that does. ( And we've seen where being a paper tie doesn't matter ) Its ok EZ. They have paper but they are paperless because pre said so in the OP. It makes sense when you really think about it. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted August 14, 2016 Author Share Posted August 14, 2016 (edited) Its ok EZ. They have paper but they are paperless because pre said so in the OP. It makes sense when you really think about it.we've found the problem has been. Rahl is trying to think. No wonder why he keeps being so wrong about everything. Edited August 14, 2016 by Prefontaine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 Not really sure why you are so angsty about a semantic argument tbh. Its pretty easy to be correct when its blatantly obvious. Are you generally annoyed with me because I disagreed with you about your silly wrongheaded missile change suggestion? Really that is all I can think of. Or is it that I come into a sandbox that you consider "yours" and point out that the Emperor has no clothes? Really silly of you either way. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.