| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Furb Killer
Gallente
   |
Posted - 2010.04.07 21:22:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Furb Killer on 07/04/2010 21:27:48
Those points were pretty much all done by CVA (Well not everyone was allowed to put up POS's everywhere, but it also wasnt exactly impossible to get permission). So please stay a bit more realistic, apparently you dont want that.
 Quote:
Possibly someone will put these notions into action in Providence. We shall see.
It most likely wont be SF. I skipped a bit through what you achieved in your last five year, and i think the easy summary is: nothing at all.
What did your summary say? War, destruction, some more war, etc. SF never built anything, you only destroy what others built.
However i hoped for a usefull discussion, sadly SF apparently decided that they prefer to spread arround lies, afraid so much for the truth? CVA never told people in providence which standings to use. If they wanted to set AAA blue, that was no problem (obviously as long as they werent scouting for AAA). Also for example there are/were plenty of atlas pets who were still neutral and welcome in providence, while they do have blue standings with atlas. The only ones who were 'forced' to follow CVA standings were other holders, but it looks kinda logical to me that if you give someone space you request they dont give docking rights to your enemies.
Sadly you decided you apparently cannot justify your actions with the truth, so you make stuff up. Well you rather see providence as a random 0.0 wasteland with some renters in it, luckily for you it looks like you get what you want, instead of a successfull nrds region.
Quote:
We consider it is far better for individual pilots to look to their own defense and learn to protect themselves rather than giving up their individual liberty and allowing a stronger centrist power to make all their decisions for them.
So why is SF NRDS? Shouldtn you be shooting all those neutrals to 'help' them learn to look for their own defenses? I am sure all those neutrals will have much better defenses now they dont have to worry anymore about things like docking rights and people who wont shoot you, called concord.
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.07 22:28:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Furb Killer
Those points were pretty much all done by CVA (Well not everyone was allowed to put up POS's everywhere, but it also wasnt exactly impossible to get permission). So please stay a bit more realistic, apparently you dont want that.
Realism doesn't not make it neccessary to bend your knee to a tyrant and kiss the ring-finger of a self-appointed pontiff. Wake up and stand on your own two feet!
Quote:
I skipped a bit through what you achieved in your last five year, and i think the easy summary is: nothing at all. What did your summary say? War, destruction, some more war, etc. SF never built anything, you only destroy what others built.
You skipped too quickly past the things we build and enduring legend we spread of the true knowledge and dream of free space on the frontier. And you forget so easily that CVA "built" nothing, they stole everything from the labours of others, they enslaved victims to work for them while reclining their fat-behinds on golden thrones. CVA were robbers and thieves, now they are nothing. They are unworthy of your tongue's worship.
Quote:
However i hoped for a usefull discussion, sadly SF apparently decided that they prefer to spread arround lies, afraid so much for the truth? CVA never told people in providence which standings to use.
You lie. We have evidence over many years of them using the citadel channel for precisely this purpose. Silence your flapping gums dog, you become too eagerly the minion of slavers and willing recipient of their corruption and petty evil.
Quote:
So why is SF NRDS? Shouldtn you be shooting all those neutrals to 'help' them learn to look for their own defenses? I am sure all those neutrals will have much better defenses now they dont have to worry anymore about things like docking rights and people who wont shoot you, called concord.
Read and learn about our idealism if you wish to ask questions. Until then you simply serve the CVA cause in absentia.
True Knowledge |
Xina Tutor
Amarr
Black Arrows
Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.04.07 22:40:00 -
[33]
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
1) Neutrals had free passage through said system.
2) Neutrals had free access to asteroid belts and other naturally-occuring resources in said system.
3) Neutrals had free rein to engage in any bounty-hunting or piracy-suppression activities they wished in said system.
4) Neutrals had free rein to indulge in exploratory activities in said system.
5) Neutrals could place starbases at any unoccupied moons in said system without having to seek anyone's permission (though notifying local infrastructure owners of their presence would be polite).
6) Owners of infrastructure in a given system treated with neutrals on a fair and equitable basis.
Possibly someone will put these notions into action in Providence. We shall see.
The Cosmopolite
Well that's very humorous indeed. Sev3rance was doing exactly this for some time, with the obvious limitations on towers due to the changing regulations.
But Star Fraction chose to side with those who would destroy such.
This tends to reinforce the notion that Star Fraction prefers to destroy rather than build. Aside from that, it is well known that the south is attempting to build some sort of killing field simply for their pleasure, Something Star Fraction appears to support. Again. Enough said.
|
D melanogaster
Minmatar
The Fruit Flys
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 02:03:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
... enduring legend we spread of the true knowledge and dream of free space on the frontier.
So one of your great achievements is something that could easily be accomplished sitting planet side in an armchair? Bravo!
|
Ituralde
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 05:56:00 -
[35]
So, why the move? Political philosophy aside, its certainly a change of operational philosophy. What prompted it and what's the goal?
I must say, it's a bit odd for SF to not have the first word on such things.
_____________________________
Fear is the mind-killer.
|
Gemma Naquist
Kuomi Logistics
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 06:12:00 -
[36]
Maybe i should have sacrificed the ship and crew to provide evidence, but your Kamela POS did shoot at one of my ships when we were neutral.
Or do you just set everyone who isn't SF at -10?
KUOMI LOGISTICS: The bright future, today!Ö |
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 06:19:00 -
[37]
Quote:
You lie. We have evidence over many years of them using the citadel channel for precisely this purpose. Silence your flapping gums dog, you become too eagerly the minion of slavers and willing recipient of their corruption and petty evil.
Come on, you know perfectly well that isnt true. Citadel is an intel channel, no one was forced there to use certain standings. People were only warned of who would most likely attack them.
|
Mad Murgan
Minmatar
DAEDALUS X
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 06:34:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Mad Murgan on 08/04/2010 06:35:39
For some reason I am reminded of an old saying my mother taught me.
"After a great victory sharpen your sword and tighten your helmet strap."
I get the feeling that that saying applies here for the simple fact so many just don't like anything different being tried exept the same old tired imperialistic filth.
Seriously theres enough room out there for everyone to have some for themselves. Take only what you need, give back to others as you can, don't shoot some poor noob who's just out exploring and New Eden will be a much happier place.
But hey I'm just some Star Fraction loon, what would I know right?
Sanity is relative.
|
Kazzzi
Amarr
Iniquitous Technologies
Deep Space Engineering
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 06:37:00 -
[39]
Rock on Free Captains.
Looking forward to the day you lay sov to some true freespace nullsec again.
*Kazzzi Salutes*
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 07:22:00 -
[40]
Quote:
don't shoot some poor noob who's just out exploring
But here i was told by SF if i dont shoot the poor noob he will become weak, which is why you work together with pretty much half of eves nbsi alliances. You guys are confusing me, because that was exactly what CVA (and others who lived in provi) were doing, not shootuing the poor noob. Yet SF decided to only attack that region, and not the ones where the poor noob is attacked. And not once, but every single time. And not alone, but together with nbsi alliances.
|
GanSho
Mystic Lion Hearts
Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 08:31:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Realism doesn't not make it neccessary to bend your knee to a tyrant and kiss the ring-finger of a self-appointed pontiff. Wake up and stand on your own two feet!
Irony overload detected (Star Fraction yesterday resetted -A- (a long time -10) to be able to claim a System in Providence) 
But wait I forgot: It's only a bad thing if we would have done it, Star Fraction is of course always above and beyond the rules they want to compel to others.
I hope you are aware that if you claim that System and do not provide sufficent number of targets for -A- you have to fear to be kicked out and replaced by another "plant"... Back in the past there was indeed a time where SF stood true to their ideals. But those times are gone in the face of your greed for space and lust for power. You have slowly become the very Slaves you wanted to liberate without even recognizing it and soon you won't even have that status anymore, you will just be meat for the grinder.
|
Nooblog
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 09:29:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Mad Murgan
Edited by: Mad Murgan on 08/04/2010 06:35:39
For some reason I am reminded of an old saying my mother taught me.
"After a great victory sharpen your sword and tighten your helmet strap."
I get the feeling that that saying applies here for the simple fact so many just don't like anything different being tried exept the same old tired imperialistic filth.
Seriously theres enough room out there for everyone to have some for themselves. Take only what you need, give back to others as you can, don't shoot some poor noob who's just out exploring and New Eden will be a much happier place.
But hey I'm just some Star Fraction loon, what would I know right?
What victory is Star Fraction claiming?
|
The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 09:55:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Furb Killer
Quote:
You lie. We have evidence over many years of them using the citadel channel for precisely this purpose. Silence your flapping gums dog, you become too eagerly the minion of slavers and willing recipient of their corruption and petty evil.
Come on, you know perfectly well that isnt true. Citadel is an intel channel, no one was forced there to use certain standings. People were only warned of who would most likely attack them.
Originally by: "CVA Requirements for Joining the 'Citadel' intelligence channel"
To become a member of thecitadel corporations should;
- Essentially be resident in the area for a significant amount of time.
-Agree to actively help against pirates and kos targets.
-Must use their guns as well as provide intel.
(my emphasis)
Both this perfectly clear set of rules and the evidence of years of actions by many people, together with testimony from various people, tend to refute your rather silly claim.
The Cosmopolite
The Star Fraction Communications Portal |
ChipMo
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 10:00:00 -
[44]
Edited by: ChipMo on 08/04/2010 10:03:28
Originally by: Nooblog
What victory is Star Fraction claiming?
Black Lustrum was a success (as posted on that thread), we haven't launched our next formal campaign next.
Originally by: GanSho
Irony overload detected (Star Fraction yesterday resetted -A- (a long time -10) to be able to claim a System in Providence)
But wait I forgot: It's only a bad thing if we would have done it, Star Fraction is of course always above and beyond the rules they want to compel to others.
I hope you are aware that if you claim that System and do not provide sufficent number of targets for -A- you have to fear to be kicked out and replaced by another "plant"... Back in the past there was indeed a time where SF stood true to their ideals. But those times are gone in the face of your greed for space and lust for power. You have slowly become the very Slaves you wanted to liberate without even recognizing it and soon you won't even have that status anymore, you will just be meat for the grinder.
-A- are still -10 to Star Fraction, and we are still neutral to them. We are of course always open to diplomacy from anyone so these things are not set in stone and never have been. Personally I am optimistic about -A-'s future, they don't force standings on anyone, they have close ties with U'K who are looking to implement a free space style of infrastructure, as well as IT Alliance who have opened up one of their systems as free space (one of many I hope! :) ).
There are many imperialist alliances and entities out their who show no signs of change, who firmly insist space for them and them alone. My goal being to liberate all space and see New Eden consist of entirely free space from Jita to the deepest depths of 0.0, my time is best spent destroying those who will never change. I see no reason to go out of my way to cause trouble for people with potential to join in with this quest later down the line.
And I would also like to remind anyone with rose tinted glasses looking back on the past that the CVA & -7- for that matter were in no way, shape or form Free Space. They were an enclosurist cabal of corrupt tyrants running a protection racket - nothing more. I explained this many times in the past and I will not repeat myself again. It is largely irrelevant now anyway as Providence is being reshaped into something new, but a quick search will no doubt provide results. -7- specifically also firmly resisted any attempts at diplomacy, and flatly refused to open 'your' space, instead taking the role of the CVA's whipping dog with enthusiasm, and it ultimately lead to your downfall.
|
The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 10:07:00 -
[45]
Originally by: GanSho
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Realism doesn't not make it neccessary to bend your knee to a tyrant and kiss the ring-finger of a self-appointed pontiff. Wake up and stand on your own two feet!
Irony overload detected (Star Fraction yesterday resetted -A- (a long time -10) to be able to claim a System in Providence)
News to me.
-A- remain red (-10) to the Star Fraction at this time.
You might check your facts before making such claims. Oh, but that would be inconvenient to your thesis, wouldn't it?
The fact is that no changes to our standings have been required by anyone in Providence. Certainly, no prerequisites on our establishment of infrastructure in the YWS0-Z system have been demanded.
Our ideals remain quite firm.
The Cosmopolite
The Star Fraction Communications Portal |
Major Templar
Caldari
KINGS OF EDEN
Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 10:23:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Major Templar on 08/04/2010 10:24:45
Originally by: Iteken Hotori
Nice Rhetoric. I am fairly sure it matters to the Myriad of Free Alliances moving willing into "New Providence." Alliances previously denied land by a corrupt, morally bankrupt regime only out to fill it's own pockets at the expense of the Poor and Enslaved.
Free? Ok, if free means that they are requied to do what -A- tells them to, ok. And I mean by this that they are not going to be allowed to have sov wars because -A- won't allow them.
Originally by: ChipMo
-7- specifically also firmly resisted any attempts at diplomacy, and flatly refused to open 'your' space, instead taking the role of the CVA's whipping dog with enthusiasm, and it ultimately lead to your downfall.
If you are speaking of the diplomacy that came from -A- where they wished us to betray our friends, that was unacceptable, better to lose space then betray friends that are our friends. Unless you are speaking of not dealing with reds, which we did do and then you are just wrong. We had set blue some that CVA in fact set KOS as well as had some in our alliance.
Also, downfall? Our alliance has not fail cascaded and we have not lost anything that can't be replaced. If you speak of the space we lost, well that's fine, it's just space and we don't mind and contrary to popular belief, we are not upset about it.
Major Templar
Head of Armed Forces
Kings Of Eden
Sev3rance |
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 10:25:00 -
[47]
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
Originally by: Furb Killer
Quote:
You lie. We have evidence over many years of them using the citadel channel for precisely this purpose. Silence your flapping gums dog, you become too eagerly the minion of slavers and willing recipient of their corruption and petty evil.
Come on, you know perfectly well that isnt true. Citadel is an intel channel, no one was forced there to use certain standings. People were only warned of who would most likely attack them.
Originally by: "CVA Requirements for Joining the 'Citadel' intelligence channel"
To become a member of thecitadel corporations should;
- Essentially be resident in the area for a significant amount of time.
-Agree to actively help against pirates and kos targets.
-Must use their guns as well as provide intel.
(my emphasis)
Both this perfectly clear set of rules and the evidence of years of actions by many people, together with testimony from various people, tend to refute your rather silly claim.
The Cosmopolite
Which might be some old rule, but if you have a testimony from various people you should know that by far the majority in citadel (both holders and non-holders) only report intel, and dont fight. That is just the realistic situation, deal with it.
And still how is it relevant? It isnt that you lose your docking rights or something when you dont have citadel access. I thought SF was against kos list anyway, so why does it matter if they dont have access to a channel where kos people are reported.
|
The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 10:32:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Ituralde
So, why the move? Political philosophy aside, its certainly a change of operational philosophy. What prompted it and what's the goal?
I must say, it's a bit odd for SF to not have the first word on such things.
I would view it as an adjustment in operational focus at this time without any significant change to philosophy, political or operational, at all. As to the goal, perfectly simple and straightforward: develop and exploit the resources of the Outer Worlds in the support of the ongoing revolution of which the Star Fraction is the vanguard.
It so happens that we haven't had the first word, as you put it, because this thread started with speculation based on our presence in the KBP7-G system: a presence explicable simply by our establishment of premises in the outpost now administered by our Ushra'Khan allies and our involvement in the removal of the remnants of Providence Holder starbases in the constellation. As someone once said, the process of removal continues.
That aside, the opportunity to develop some infrastructure in a system arose. The removal of the abandoned CVA infrastructure left a gap that the Owner Captains of the Star Fraction decided to fill. If you like, this is an experiment. It has its risks but what is life without risk? This will not be the first time we establish infrastructure in a system. The only significant development here is the use of technology requiring infrastructural sovereignty.
If you like, we might be described as 'infrastructuralists' now. In a small way this echoes the founding ethos of the ISS, who began as infrastructualists but lapsed, in my modest view, into territorialism. A relatively benign territorialism but, sadly, and under great pressure, that organization bought the logic of the territorialist argument. Understandable given the historical forces at work in the cluster. Mindful of their experiences, we must work to avoid such errors and, if we inadvertently make them, recognise and resile from them.
Now, some former members of 'Holder Providence' and, unless I miss my mark, some paid creatures of the rump of that slaver polity have made play with my list of desirable elements of a free and open environment. I reproduce it for convenience:
Quote:
1) Neutrals have free passage through said system.
2) Neutrals have free access to asteroid belts and other naturally-occuring resources in said system.
3) Neutrals have free rein to engage in any bounty-hunting or piracy-suppression activities they wished in said system.
4) Neutrals have free rein to indulge in exploratory activities in said system.
5) Neutrals canplace starbases at any unoccupied moons in said system without having to seek anyone's permission (though notifying local infrastructure owners of their presence would be polite).
6) Owners of infrastructure in a given system treat with neutrals on a fair and equitable basis.
I had thought the essential background to such went without saying but clearly some mischievous people want to continue spreading the self-regarding mythology of a 'free' CVA-ruled Providence.
The essential background to such, in our view, is of course that no-one should dictate the relationships between neutrals and other parties. That is, there should be no standing enclosurism promulgated by the owners and administrators of core infrastructure in a given system.
While no such background obtained under the CVA, it is most emphatically the case in the system of YWS0-Z. That is the most critical difference. It is also worth emphasising that several of those points were in no way the case under the CVA. In my view, given the manner in which the CVA habitually abused the concept of neutrality none of those points truly obtained.
The Cosmopolite
The Star Fraction Communications Portal |
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 10:42:00 -
[49]
Quote:
The essential background to such, in our view, is of course that no-one should dictate the relationships between neutrals and other parties. That is, there should be no standing enclosurism promulgated by the owners and administrators of core infrastructure in a given system.
And we keep coming back to these outright lies. CVA/holders never dictated the relationship between neutrals and other parties. Yes if you were BFF with AAA you might not be really welcome in intel channels, but that didnt change any of these points, they could do them all except #5. Now lets look at your BFFs, UK (and soon AAA too apparently). How is it going in UK space?
Neutrals who pass through system get shot
Neutrals who go to asteroid belts get shot
Neutrals who go bounty hunting get shot
Neutrals who do exploration get shot
Neutrals who setup a starbase get shot
Neutrals who try to dock arent allowed and get shot
Seeing a pattern emerging there? Meanwhile if you were neutral to holders and were blue with AAA (and assuming you just did your own thing, obviously when you went scouting for AAA things would change fairly fast), were allowed to rat in providence, did have docking rights, could do exploration, were allowed to mine everywhere.
|
The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 10:45:00 -
[50]
[Speaking of the CVA requirement that members of the Citadel intelligence channel should be willing to fight against those on the CVA KOS list, as well as pass intelligence on them.]
Originally by: Furb Killer
Which might be some old rule, but if you have a testimony from various people you should know that by far the majority in citadel (both holders and non-holders) only report intel, and dont fight. That is just the realistic situation, deal with it.
Oh, we do deal with it. Anyone verifiably passing intelligence on us to hostiles is regarded as having taken a hostile action against us just as much as if they had fired on our vessels.
Quote:
And still how is it relevant? It isnt that you lose your docking rights or something when you dont have citadel access. I thought SF was against kos list anyway, so why does it matter if they dont have access to a channel where kos people are reported.
We are against open and shared KOS lists and have zero desire to access 'Citadel' as, let us say, users of its services. The relevance, as you well know, and as you are trying to now deflect the conversation away from, is that it demonstrates quite clearly that the CVA engaged in standings enclosurism.
The Cosmopolite
The Star Fraction Communications Portal |
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 11:10:00 -
[51]
So? Even if you dont have citadel access you get everything you dont get when in UK space (well except a free load of antimatter from a nearby ship).
According to you alliances shouldnt want citadel access anyway, so what should it possibly matter not everyone gets citadel access?
Tbh your idea of no kos list is quite nice too, for the pirates that is. Assuming there would still be nrds alliances around, you can kill a member of each one of them before you are set kos to all. Does this also mean i can shoot all your nrds friends (do you even have any?) without ever becoming kos to SF? (Assuming i wasnt already red).
|
The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 11:15:00 -
[52]
I fear that the discussion on the CVA's approach to neutrals will only go around in circles when it involves strong supporters of the CVA's regime and enemies of the CVA. We each have our view. The evidence is there for interested parties to look at and come to their own conclusions about.
In which connection I think it is interesting that even this creature of the CVA's has to admit that: Originally by: Furb Killer
'The only ones who were 'forced' to follow CVA standings were other holders, but it looks kinda logical to me that if you give someone space you request they dont give docking rights to your enemies.'
A 'logic' that the forces liberating Providence do not recognise. (See: The Star Fraction having docking rights in KBP7-G UNITY Frontline outpost while maintaining -A- as red.)
As to the current transitional period in Providence and the disruption it has brought. Unfortunate but that is the nature of such periods of revolutionary change. The implied argument that one should not overthrow a tyrant because during the period of revolution people will die is not one I find particularly compelling.
Moreover, the myth of Providence as 'safe' is just that: a myth.
Neutrals were not safe. Neutrals were gulled into believing they were 'safe' and then, when they were preyed upon by the pirates and wolfsheads that daily reaved up and down Providence, the CVA said: 'It's your fault. You weren't taking care.' Neutral: 'But I was told this was safe space' CVA: 'No, to be safe in Providence you should come and join our intel channel and tattle-tale on anyone who is on our KOS list.'
That's the truth. Uncomfortable as it might be for people who got fat as petty sub-lordlings in the CVA regime. But it is the truth.
The Cosmopolite
The Star Fraction Communications Portal |
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 11:53:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Furb Killer on 08/04/2010 11:54:58
I agree this is useless, it would be nice if SF made up their mind, they keep switching their opinion 180 degrees twice per post.
SF just said that providence was all wrong, because we tried protecting neutrals, so they became weak, instead we should all shoot neutrals to make them become strong. Yet now you are telling us that they werent safe in providence in the first place, so how would they then become weak? And CVA or holders never said neutrals would be safe, only that they tried to make it save.
And becoming fat as holders? You mean those who invested billions (trillions actually) into an nrds region, while the only thing SF has done in that time was waging war, and never built up anything. |
Xina Tutor
Amarr
Black Arrows
Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 12:02:00 -
[54]
I am dizzy from all the spin Star Fraction are putting on this. Wow.
It's really simple, and everyone knows the reality here.
example: KBP
Under -7- nuetrals were allowed passage, but may have been fired on by pirates in the area. It is 'lawless space' after all. But the nuetrals were allowed to rat and mine as they wished as far as -7- was concerned.
New KBP. Nuetrals are shot by anyone and everyone. period.
-A- space. Nuetrals are shot.
UK space. Nuetrals are shot.
daisho space. Nuetrals are shot
Sodalbits. Nuetrals are shot.
...
Hmm. it does not take much to see the pattern here at all.
We shall see in YWSO... but... well do we need even guess.
It would be fun to see Star Fraction's new idea of 'free space'... Well no. not really. And it's a long way away.
And I hear it's really busy down there...
|
D melanogaster
Minmatar
The Fruit Flys
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 12:11:00 -
[55]
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
-A- remain red (-10) to the Star Fraction at this time.
You might check your facts before making such claims. Oh, but that would be inconvenient to your thesis, wouldn't it?
The fact is that no changes to our standings have been required by anyone in Providence. Certainly, no prerequisites on our establishment of infrastructure in the YWS0-Z system have been demanded.
Our ideals remain quite firm.
The Cosmopolite
It simply does not matter what you have your standings set at. As the new landlords of Providence, no one will be able to claim sov without permission from them. So all your rhetoric about kissing the ring of others is nothing but lies as you have done the same thing in your recent claim of YWS0-Z. I may have little credibility in these channels, but it is now more then yours as your credibility is all lost.
If a neutral were to fill your moons with towers within the next 24 hours would you shot them down? I believe you said somewhere that neutrals would be able to do that in Star Fraction "freespace." Or will you shoot them down and use the "if they cant defend the towers they have no business anchoring them... we wont coddle weaklings" defense?
|
GanSho
Mystic Lion Hearts
Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 12:16:00 -
[56]
Don't twist this discussion into something about the KOS list. -A- does not need such a list as they regard everything that is not blue as "KOS", whereas CVA and the Holders gave everyone a chance to establish himself in 0.0 as a friendly entity without assuming that he's hostile per-se.
Also, I'm quite interested what happens, when Star Fraction and UK ships are flying alongside and suddenly run into an -A- gang. There are basically four possibillities:
1) -A- won't engage SF (so you are actually friendly to each other and my former claim, based on the fact that SF helped -A- destroying a CVA TCU would be backed up - you are just peons to a new Overlord, who have given up their so called freedom for the sake of space and power)
2) -A- will engage SF, with UK not interfering and just standing next to it (Thats the sort of Ally I definately want backing me up)
3) -A- will engage SF, with UK shooting on SF too (according to some lossmails on your Kill database that seems to be the case pretty often currently and its quite ironic that you started a year long personal vendetta against -7-, who you claim shot you while you were "neutral" just because "CVA told us to", and then letting your own Allies do the same to you multiple times)
4) -A- will engage SF, with UK shooting back on -A- (and that will for sure be an interesting day...)
|
Sable Schroedinger
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 12:59:00 -
[57]
Clearly not true.
2 NRDS entities shooting each other. One must have shot the other first whilst they were both neutral to each other. Guess who?
-7- fired on SF whilst we still had you neutral and had never taken any hostile action against you.
So, what you're saying is clearly, again, untrue.
--------------------------------------------
SF Recruiting |
Rodj Blake
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 13:28:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Rodj Blake on 08/04/2010 13:28:49
Originally by: Sable Schroedinger
Clearly not true.
2 NRDS entities shooting each other. One must have shot the other first whilst they were both neutral to each other. Guess who?
-7- fired on SF whilst we still had you neutral and had never taken any hostile action against you.
So, what you're saying is clearly, again, untrue.
Or perhaps -7- had set you red beforehand because of your track record of shooting at their allies?
Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
|
D melanogaster
Minmatar
The Fruit Flys
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 13:39:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Rodj Blake
Or perhaps -7- had set you red beforehand because of your track record of shooting at their allies?
I wouldn't bother with this line of reasonable logic. They will only retort with a story about how -7-'s overlord, mean old CVA, forced them to. Maybe they will even use the ever creative "delete allies and replace it with a bold "masters" in your quote and say "fixed it for you" That is always a good one.
|
Tekumze Wolf
Minmatar
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 13:54:00 -
[60]
If we have shot -7- allies it is because they have shot us first.
That means -7- started shooting us(set us red) because we fought back against their allies.
How delusional one needs to be to expect people to not defend themselves for the sole purpose of not getting shot from your enemies allies as well?
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |