I could understand your point had Onder brought Cingeta into the discussion, but that was not the case: Lexus brought it up, and in turn he brought any consequences unto himself.
I referred to Europeia earlier as Europeia, in the same way I referred to TNI as TNI. Europeia is indeed is foreign to the LKE-Cingeta question, that is my point, and discussing a matter in the context of that dispute alone, it is not worthwhile me trying to pretend that on that question I am anything other than aligned to the LKE.I enjoy how you refer to Europeia as though it were some foreign region where you do not hold citizenship.
I made my point. You made yours. We aren't going to convince each other.
The fact Lexus is justifably celebrated by some here does not change the fact that he, until his recent statement, due to the LKE-Cingeta disputes in 2006 and personally his more recent time as Deputy FRA Arch Chancellor, was equally considered by some as an enemy of the LKE (unless of course Europeia asserts all the rights of all its citizens everywhere and equally takes responsibility for all of their actions everywhere, which goes for every region). As long as the LKE did not set out to involve Europeia in the dispute, it was not creating any problem for Europeia. Lexus of course did raise the question in Europeia and therefore he has now, with LKE cooperation after negotiations, resolved the matter in Europeia, only for the matter to be brought up again by you, presumably in an attempt to discredit me following our earlier disagreements in your presidential campaign.
A bit long?Nice read HEM, bit long for my liking though. I agree with you on some of the points, but some of them you know i'll disagree on. One thing though, FRA has never denied we've made some major cock ups in our time....pity people only remember them and not the good points <_<
I'll nitpick next week after my exams
Less than one sentence.A bit long?Nice read HEM, bit long for my liking though. I agree with you on some of the points, but some of them you know i'll disagree on. One thing though, FRA has never denied we've made some major cock ups in our time....pity people only remember them and not the good points <_<
I'll nitpick next week after my exams
What constitutes short for you?
You were here to comment quicker than a fly to horse-shit.I think one of the strengths of this article is that it highlights one of the fundamental problems with the FRA. That being the difference between perception and reality. The FRA is a large alliance and caters for a wide array of defenders. Indeed there are those at one extreme that see their role in the NS world as a moral one bound by an 'ethical duty' to defend, and those at the other that simply view the FRA as an outlet through which they can enjoy the game through defending. The issue that I see is that one of these views seems to significantly dominate the other in the way that the FRA is perceived- as an alliance with an overarching ideology based on 'ethical duty', morality and doing what is 'right', whereas I and a lot of the other members have always experienced the alliance as existing simply to protect it's members and founderless regions from falling foul of griefing, region crashing and imperialism. We're proud to serve in this cause, which can often come across as some kind of moral superiority, but I don't think that's the case at all, at least not for all of us.
You're also right in your assertion about the FRA having concerns and interests in sustaining itself. A lot of our internal initiatives are solely concerned with the sustainability and growth of the alliance- but isn't that the same with any NS community? Europeia constantly strives to better itself and grow. I don't want one of the major components of my NS life to stagnate and die.
The points I'd take issue with is that our actions are veiled or justified through some sort of defender morality, or that there is some conspiracy we're all in on where we mastermind plots behind closed doors to target specific regions or groups. Indeed as your 3 examples suggest in our 5 year existence there have been a few questionable deployments, but this isn't part of some big conspiracy, they were mostly monumental cock ups where we've deployed by accident, without realizing a region was a legitimate colony, or that a raider presence in a founderless region was welcomed. These occur because believe it or not, we can't really rely on nations who regularly raid founderless regions for no other reason than fun to tell us when their presence is legitimate. One of the tactics regularly employed by raiders is to pretend to be native to their target regions, or that they were invited by natives to occupy the region. In the situations where it becomes clear this is the case and we have made a mistake we've always done our best to rectify the situation- we always strive to leave regions as they were before we arrived.
I am sorry that this is the way the FRA is viewed by some in the NS world, but part of me considers this kind of publicity from raiders as synonymous with how effectively we're operating as a defender alliance.
Thats me, i believe in short versions of all speeches
I used to get my own little speeches with bullet points at the bottom of some FRA speeches :wub: Just don't cause trouble :violentgun:
5 days and as many pages later? Ok...You were here to comment quicker than a fly to horse-shit.
Frick your objective response, I wanted some irrational nonsense5 days and as many pages later? Ok...You were here to comment quicker than a fly to horse-shit.
Hehe I remember NC doing that for one of his election speeches.. think I copied the practiceThats me, i believe in short versions of all speeches
You're entitled to your view. I just think it's a bit of a misconception.Frick your objective response, I wanted some irrational nonsense
On the contrary, your response was civil minded, and I think we agree on a bit. I just don't like getting lectured on drug dealing by the dealer, is the main point.
The Suffolk incident went on for...over a week. I don't think that was a mistaken deployment.You're entitled to your view. I just think it's a bit of a misconception.Frick your objective response, I wanted some irrational nonsense
On the contrary, your response was civil minded, and I think we agree on a bit. I just don't like getting lectured on drug dealing by the dealer, is the main point.
Hell, considering I'd view most of the examples you gave as mistaken deployments, maybe you're making us out to be too competent.
My point exactly.5 days and as many pages later? Ok...You were here to comment quicker than a fly to horse-shit.