Warrior General Games

Originally posted by sprovo
My issue is with you being okay with the idiot lying about going to Iraq.

That wasn't his initial move.
He felt forced into a corner and only stated that later.

It's like murder. Killing people is wrong, but if you kill a killer then it might be justice.

One of my first jobs was at a little restaurant right by a police sub-station. We had police in the building all the time. This was common knowledge.
Well, one of the females who worked with me was being harassed by a boyfriend. After a few calls through the course of the evening, I ended up snatching her phone from her and pretended to be one of the police officers that frequented the joint.

The prick apologised to me quite a bit and promised that he would not do it again. Is it wrong to impersonate one of our brave "men in blue?" Sure. It is. I'm not going to feel bad about it.

That little freaking kid is probably your typical 12-year old that isn't can't even fathom what it means to be in the service. He probably doesn't have any respect. Maybe he should be taught something.

But that thread was started by that owner and his intent was only to get justification from the rest of the community. I don't think it was right to give him such justification and let him be satisfied with himself.

Really... what was the point of that thread? It wasn't to honour any of the people in service. It was a slap in the face of those men as much as the little kid lying was.

THEY BOTH WERE TRYING TO USE THE PEOPLE IN THE MILITARY TO APPEAL TO OUR EMOTIONS.

Basically, for a multitude of reasons, there was no way in hell I was going to side with that prick owner.

...and I also don't mind arguing.

What most of us don't like is when people talk shit about our squads, whenever they belong to a team that doesn't even match-up on paper. Everyone in this game is a homer to some degree, who honestly believes their team has a chance to win...rightfully so also, because if you approach a game playing not to lose, you tend not to win.

The other thing as Sprovo pointed out, some of us knew in advance some comments that were made on that thread he referenced. The way the game is setup, a player is in a contract until it expires unless the owner chooses to release or trade him. I do think there should be some degree of checks and balances to protect both parties, but I don't think a guy should spend a season developing on one squad, only to have his buddy buy a team and just join a new team without his previous team receiving some kind of compensation for development, even if it is just a cash offer. For someone to say they are in the armed forces just to get a trade to some it will be just a little white lie while to others it will be disrespectful to our men and women who are in uniform.

No matter anyway, as I have nothing more to say on the issue until next time that we meet on the simulated playing field. In the meantime, I'd suggest developing a running game otherwise what happened will repeat itself against others many times this season.

Originally posted by blurev
For someone to say they are in the armed forces just to get a trade to some it will be just a little white lie while to others it will be disrespectful to our men and women who are in uniform.





I take great offense to what he did and I personally wish I knew this kid to show him what I have given for my country and what my friends have given for this country.

Malachorn, you have to wonder how far off the beating path you have gotten; when Kutzy and Sprovo both agree that you are wrong. I'd say you are so far out in left field that your sitting in the stands. I know you stated the kid was wrong but your analogy of you pretending to be a cop to frighten off some nut-bag on the phone dose not even come close to some kid pretending to be in the military and being shipped off to war, just to get out of a contract (the thought of that just makes me sick to my stomach).

I cant really say i agree with sprovo on much, but im gonna have to side with him here. Pretending you are someone who willingly put themselves in the line of fire to protect and defend our country and the people in it(this means you!), just to get out of some dumb ass contract in a make believe football world is one of the most despicable things ive heard of someone doing in a LONG time. There is no justification for it at all! EVER! PERIOD! And if they were both doing it, thats even worse.

Those men live, breath, and die so you can sit here and play this game, and to defend someone belittling their sacrifice regardless of the reason is just bad form.

What drama did I miss in this league? Jesus people.

Originally posted by littleone
I know you stated the kid was wrong but your analogy of you pretending to be a cop to frighten off some nut-bag on the phone dose not even come close to some kid pretending to be in the military and being shipped off to war, just to get out of a contract (the thought of that just makes me sick to my stomach).

The thing is that that wasn't his first play.
He began by playing it straight and he didn't try to make a public ordeal out of it. The owner made the very public ordeal out of it.

The stupid little kid just thought that he was lying to a liar and when you enter into those games the rules change. Simple as that.

I LOVE westerns and wish that the good guy always were a white hat, but that's just now how it works.
You know how the cowboy always faces the evil rancher and the evil rancher has all those henchmen and the cowboy is going to be way outnumbered when they duel? You know how the cowboy's partner dies and the rancher's men all rape and pillage the wife and home of the cowboy?
...well, the cowboy still does things right and he goes to the evil rancher's ranch and he calls the rancher out for a fair fight.
That's cool and awesome in the movies. Unfortunately, I think that that's a bad play. What would really happen is that the evil rancher DOES kill the cowboy and he is even further rewarded for his evilness. Even more, he becomes further convinced that evil is the best way to go and following that code of the Old West is just stupid and unrewarding.

And that's why you just shoot the evil rancher in the back. Whether you're wearing a white hat or not, you just do the dirty deed and get the job done.

So, my feelings on the matter is that rules change when you're dealing with a rule-breaker. It becomes more important to screw them over and not be rewarded than it does to follow the normal rules.

Is it wrong to shoot someone in the back? Sure. But if they raped your wife and shot your partner then you might have to do some wrong.

By the way, I'm a secret agent and have to go on a secret mission after this season is over.

I would appreciate it if everyone would tank all their games so that I can win.
Thanks.

On a final note, the end really does justify the means most of the time.

And I would even argue that the little kid may not have been at all wrong with the play, if he assumed that the lie was only going to get out to that particular owner I (which was a reasonable assumption). However, if the kid had any idea at all that the lie might get out to the masses and the disrespect would be had then he was altogether wrong.

Remember, he didn't lie to you. He didn't try to make a deal out of it. He probably didn't intend actual disrespect to the military or the people that serve and I think most matters of ethics have to be decided on intended results and consequences.

Originally posted by Malachorn
The stupid little kid just thought that he was lying to a liar and when you enter into those games the rules change. Simple as that.
...
So, my feelings on the matter is that rules change when you're dealing with a rule-breaker. It becomes more important to screw them over and not be rewarded than it does to follow the normal rules.


Originally posted by Malachorn
On a final note, the end really does justify the means most of the time.


We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I value integrity too highly to compromise mine for someone I think is a liar.

Your metaphor sucks, you're a tard, and the ends hardly ever justify the means.

Does anyone believe in God?
If so, then I would argue that you live in a world filled with terrible amounts of evil. God could put a stop to any and/or all of them. He does not.

Maybe they're necessary for some higher reason?
The end tends to justify the means, in my opinion. And I think to not believe so is an insult to God.

...we'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.

Originally posted by Malachorn
Does anyone believe in God?
If so, then I would argue that you live in a world filled with terrible amounts of evil. God could put a stop to any and/or all of them. He does not.

Maybe they're necessary for some higher reason?
The end tends to justify the means, in my opinion. And I think to not believe so is an insult to God.

...we'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.

Evil is simply the absence of good. Without evil, we would have no concept of good. That doesn't mean that we should do evil, just that the existence of evil gives us perspective on the importance and the value of good.

Originally posted by Warhawk
Evil is simply the absence of good. Without evil, we would have no concept of good. That doesn't mean that we should do evil, just that the existence of evil gives us perspective on the importance and the value of good.


If you believe that evil is the absence of good then it would make sense to me that God shouldn't maybe be so absent and have man suffer this world.
That would imply that we would be better off for being in his presence.

I do NOT believe that evil is the absence of good and I think to believe that greatly diminishes that which is evil. But if YOU believe that then I would think you should have a MAJOR problem with the Judeo-Christian God.