The Reunification of Sheepsta begins. - Page 2

Drogue · April 26, 2003, 08:19

You may RP them into New Sheepsta. Indeed, now they have 7 days of inactivity. I would say that with 14 days left, that would probably give time to do some decent RPing of the integration, and then when, in 14 days time, they cease to exist, you can proclaim a unified Sheepsta. That is what I would do. However, giving the passwords is not an opinion IMHO, since the people did not vote that way, and in RL, it was Archaic's nation, and he did ask me not to give out the passwords to anyone. I feel I should honour that.

Not having the password doesn't stop you from RPing though. In RP, they are part of Sheepsta now, and so are your nation. You may RP with them as you wish.

Archaic · April 28, 2003, 04:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
They voted as Sheepstan Citizens, that they would rather be unified with New Sheepsta, and be under a corrupt dictator, than be a protectorate of a corporate bordello. That is what the people wanted, deal with it.

And they cannot be unified as a protectorate of a Corporate Bordello? You keep skipping over that point.

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
Since New Sheepsta wasn't the issue, you cannot unite sheepsta under Alecrast. That was not what the trial was about. It was about control of North and South Sheepsta, not about control of New Sheepsta. Your option? The options given were court options, and how we ruled. None of them belonged to you. We could have decided who had control ourselves, since that would have been well within our power. We could have just stated what we wanted.

New Sheepsta was precisely the issue, since its very existance was a god-mod of Sheeps, a fact you keep seeming to ignore. Furthermore, how can Sheepsta not be united as an Alecrast Protectorate? "New Sheepsta"'s *lands* would have be legally South Sheepstas, and a number of countries would've invaded New Sheepsta to reclaim it for the United Protectorate of Sheepsta.

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
What standards have I applied to you and not to him?

Case in point. New Sheepsta was allowed to exist in the first place.

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
However, with this, you have been far worse, and done far more, all because you don't like him. Why aim it all at Sheep, some personal vendetta? You have been at him since the start, and have tried to take his nations, then god-mod him out of them.

I have NEVER made it a personal vendetta. I have just consistantly gone by the RP, and my actions have been dictated by it. And of course, I'd be pissed when people then decide they can ignore reasonable RP and do whatever they like, claiming it's right because it's "their nation".

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
No it wouldn't be. You obviosuly are suffering from tunnel vision. Sheepsta started out, in RP, as Sheeps nation. You took it with North and South Sheepsta. Now he has it back, you try to take it again with Urbanised. The difference between Urbaniseed and New Sheepsta, is that Sheepsta, the island, is his, in RP, and started as his. His island, you took it, and are taking it again. He did not god-mod with New Sheepsta, since it was his nation his was modding with (geographically). Geographically, in RP, non of Sheepsta was ever yours. North and South Sheepsta were just you trying to take his nation. You lost the case, get over it, and stop trying to take Sheepsta from him. Urbanised is not in Sheepsta, as that would be god-modding. Sheepsta was Sheeps, and thus he is not god-modding when he claims it.

[/quote]

Here's the kicker, isn't it? This is your tunnel vision Drogue. You start out from the flawed premise that I took Sheepsta from Sheep, when Sheepsta wasn't Sheeps at all when North and South Sheepsta were established. It had been Sheeps once, but at the time I took it, it wasn't. It wasn't anyones. It didn't exist. It had ceased to exist 7 days earlier in real time (Which places it as...what...months or years by the in game time?). It was no longer his. All I took was empty land that was before the land that Sheeps nation of Sheepsta occupied. Of course, to continue the reasonable RP, I made sure to continue calling it Sheepsta, etc.

Sheep · April 29, 2003, 19:09

Whine Whine Whine, why does everyone hate me? Why oh why?

Get over it.

Archaic · May 1, 2003, 06:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheep
Whine Whine Whine, why does everyone hate me? Why oh why?

Get over it.

[OOC]
Translation
I have no arguement, so I like to make Appeals to Ridicule and Appeals to Spite.
[/OOC]

Sheep · May 1, 2003, 06:36

Hey Arachaic noone cares anymore. Sheepsta is owned by the rightful owner. You just don;t like me and I screw your plans up. Admit it, then shut the **** up, cause Idon't give a **** no more.

Archaic · May 1, 2003, 07:24

"Sheepsta is owned by the rightful owner."

Incorrect. Sheepsta is simply owned by its original owner now. However, you are far from the rightful owner. I took over the ownership of Sheepsta's territories when you left with North and South Sheepsta, and your failure to recognise because you claim it is "unjust" is not my problem.

Sheep · May 1, 2003, 07:27

Who here agrees with you, apart from General tacticus. The truth is you took something without asking. Its like taking a car you find in a carpark because its sat there for 7 days. Logic tells you that first you ask then you act.

Sheepsta is my creation and will remain mine. By your logic, You are not the rightful owner of Alecrast if I create East and West Alecrast. Or the Nuclear Wastelands of Crapland (formerly Alecrast)

Archaic · May 1, 2003, 07:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheep
Who here agrees with you, apart from General tacticus.

How many people agree with me is irrelevant to if it's true or not. Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Popularity on your part.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheep
The truth is you took something without asking. Its like taking a car you find in a carpark because its sat there for 7 days. Logic tells you that first you ask then you act.

Your analogy is irrelevant. Cars don't get deleted because they've been left idle for 21 days. A better analogy would be buying something from a pawnbroker who has a policy of holding something for 21 days then putting it up for public sale 7 days after it became available.

The truth is I took something without asking. However, I didn't take it from you. It didn't belong to you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheep
Sheepsta is my creation and will remain mine. By your logic, You are not the rightful owner of Alecrast if I create East and West Alecrast. Or the Nuclear Wastelands of Crapland (formerly Alecrast)

That is a Strawman. I am the rightful owner of Alecrast until such point as I abandon it, just as you were the rightful owner of Sheepsta up to such point as you abandoned it, which you did. Sheepsta was your creation. But just because you created it doesn't guarentee it to you forever.

Sheep · May 1, 2003, 07:52

you keep telling youself this one day you might actually believe it to if you haven;t god forbid started already.

Archaic · May 1, 2003, 07:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheep
you keep telling youself this one day you might actually believe it to if you haven;t god forbid started already.

Appeal to Ridicule.....

Sheep · May 1, 2003, 08:10

Perhaps you should actually read those sites, they explain alot about your personallity.

Archaic · May 1, 2003, 09:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheep
Perhaps you should actually read those sites, they explain alot about your personallity.

Ad Hominem, Appeal to Ridicule.....

Sheep · May 1, 2003, 10:40

If you are trying to inmsult me or trying to divert the argument you are doing a pretty **** job of it.

Archaic · May 1, 2003, 22:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheep
If you are trying to inmsult me or trying to divert the argument you are doing a pretty **** job of it.

You're the one throwing Ad Hominem attacks and tried to divert the arguement with Red Herring statements, not me.

Sheep · May 6, 2003, 00:44

sod off its not worth it, try to be reasonable and I feel I am speaking to a brick wall. Think what you want to think about my nation, Unified Sheepsta, perhaps its time for the Corprote King of Alecrast to hire a new intellegence officer.

Archaic · May 6, 2003, 05:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheep
sod off its not worth it, try to be reasonable and I feel I am speaking to a brick wall. Think what you want to think about my nation, Unified Sheepsta, perhaps its time for the Corprote King of Alecrast to hire a new intellegence officer.

Yay! More Ad Hominem attacks Red Herring statements!

Sheep · May 6, 2003, 22:59

Now who is being mature in telling someone enough is enough, and who is just being annoying. Once again I tell you to sod off.

Archaic · May 7, 2003, 00:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheep
Now who is being mature in telling someone enough is enough, and who is just being annoying. Once again I tell you to sod off.

Again Sheep, you were the one making Ad Hominem attacks and trying to divert the arguement with Red Herring statements, not me. If it's annoying you that I can slaughter your arguements simply because I've shown them to be logically inconsistant, that's your problem, not mine.

Sheep · May 8, 2003, 04:04

No what is annoying is that you contiually have no responses for my arguments other than veiled attempts of hostility. What is reall annoying is that you continue to bug me when majority of the people who enjoy the RP here have told both of us to can it. What is truly annoying is that after all my attempts of trying to prevent futher flame wars with you, over a subject that has been decided in the courts and has been pleaded to be finished by others that you continue these senseless attacks on my person, simply because you have a grudge against me.

Archaic · May 8, 2003, 07:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheep
No what is annoying is that you contiually have no responses for my arguments other than veiled attempts of hostility.

That's my line to you Sheep. I constantly slaughtered your arguements, and you kept going on, slipping into Ad Hominem attacks and other logical fallacies when I refused to stop just because you said to.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheep
What is reall annoying is that you continue to bug me when majority of the people who enjoy the RP here have told both of us to can it.

You're the one keeping on posting all these personal attacks towards me. I'm simply posting to point out the fact that they're just that. Perhaps you'd like to explain your post in the NS forums today which could have had no purpose except to try and poison the well against me, hmmmm?

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheep
What is truly annoying is that after all my attempts of trying to prevent futher flame wars with you

You have done no such thing. You're the one who keeps continuing this now.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheep
, over a subject that has been decided in the courts and has been pleaded to be finished by others that you continue these senseless attacks on my person, simply because you have a grudge against me.

1) I hold no grudge against you personally, however that lack of a grudge does not stop me from pointing out the fact that you're wrong.

2) I'm not making any such attacks. That's you. Perhaps you'd like to look at the last few posts made in this topic? Where have I attacked you? Or do you define being attacked as having the logical fallacies in your statements being pointed out? If so, then yes, they're attacks, but certainly not senseless ones. That's what you're doing, and by definition too. (They've been logically inconsistant, remember?)

Sheep · May 8, 2003, 07:44

Okay then prove it. I will not post anything against you, as I have already stated in another thread. All you have to do is the same.