deth2munkies' Blog

Actually, this isn't debateable. The admin actually deleted Umbrella's wars, validating the CB.

Actually, this isn't debateable. The admin actually deleted Umbrella's wars, validating the CB.

1) Read the rest of my post

2) Since when are breaking the CN rules alone a CB? People get reported for slot filling, multis, etc. every day, haven't seen a war over some alliance harboring a multi ring yet (except in the case of EZI, but that was long ago).

The war was over them filling the slots with the intent to benefit puppets.

This was validated when a non-Ai member reported the action after the CB was issued, and the administrator took action and removed all three Umbrella wars.

This validates the CB because...well -- the CB was over them doing it with the intent to cause harm to Ai and the administrator of the game through moderation actions in essence validated that claim.

This was not the entirety of the CB -- which also included Umbrella's provocative and hostile stance towards Ai and allies for quite some time -- but...i mean... it kind of is a bulk of the "given," CB...and there isn't a conceivable way to really contest it given that Umb members lied about their IG actions (see: war removal.)

Also, you came back at the wrong time to debate a CB.

NoCB war is called in that way because the lack of CB people had to attack Polaris. Was a everything.must.die disguised.

OMG its a monkey!!!!

Also, good re-cap.

The war was over them filling the slots with the intent to benefit puppets.

This was validated when a non-Ai member reported the action after the CB was issued, and the administrator took action and removed all three Umbrella wars.

This validates the CB because...well -- the CB was over them doing it with the intent to cause harm to Ai and the administrator of the game through moderation actions in essence validated that claim.

This was not the entirety of the CB -- which also included Umbrella's provocative and hostile stance towards Ai and allies for quite some time -- but...i mean... it kind of is a bulk of the "given," CB...and there isn't a conceivable way to really contest it given that Umb members lied about their IG actions (see: war removal.)

Also, you came back at the wrong time to debate a CB.

His point is not the "validity" of the CB

His point is that he is glad to see something that has spurred real discussion and debate on the forums.

In my town, if we are playing poker and we discover one of the guys in the table cheating, it's tan and feathers for him.

NoCB war is called in that way because the lack of CB people had to attack Polaris. Was a everything.must.die disguised.

The NoCB war was because of the lack of CB that people had to attack Hyperion because of Chickenzilla rerolling into MK. The term "noCB" had nothing to do with Polaris.

Actually, this isn't debateable. The admin actually deleted Umbrella's wars, validating the CB.

Remember when wars weren't deleted as slot filling as long as you were lobbing CMs and doing a GA here and there?

Remember when Umbrellailures were attacking Puppets with everything, including nukes, quite possibly inflicing more damage than the AI nations he attacked and they still had their wars deleted?

Remember when wars weren't deleted as slot filling as long as you were lobbing CMs and doing a GA here and there?

Remember when Umbrellailures were attacking Puppets with everything, including nukes, quite possibly inflicing more damage than the AI nations he attacked and they still had their wars deleted?

Oh hey, I remember that! Yes, I have screenshots of the day of the wars deletions and the ground attacks that were made. Having a mod on your side =/= validity.

Also, OP, point 2 is consistently incorrect across the boards.

2) His defensive slots were immediately taken by Umbrellans as "punishment for is roguery", but also in such a manner that prevented an AI stagger and eventually let him get into Peace mode.

I left Umbrella, took up the Kronos AA, went rogue against AI. My slots were then taken by DT, MK Applicant, & FOK. It wasn't until the next round that my slots were taken by Umbrella.

I left Umbrella, took up the Kronos AA, went rogue against AI. My slots were then taken by DT, MK Applicant, & FOK. It wasn't until the next round that my slots were taken by Umbrella.

And as such, the whole premise that you were an Umbrella Rogue, and we should have been thankful for their help is nonsense. As you were not Umbrella, and technically nor were you rogue either.

And as such, the whole premise that you were an Umbrella Rogue, and we should have been thankful for their help is nonsense. As you were not Umbrella, and technically nor were you rogue either.

I don't believe their premise was that "I was an Umbrella rogue and therefore should be dealt with by Umbrella", I think it was more BIBO. I don't really care either way though, the CB itself does not bother me in the slightest, minus a few inaccuracies that came from it.

Oh hey, I remember that! Yes, I have screenshots of the day of the wars deletions and the ground attacks that were made. Having a mod on your side =/= validity.

Can the same be said about each day?

I agree with AirMe, noCB is separate from WotC. Two different fronts of the same war. noCB was CnG based (as in it was MK, Athens, GR, etc who was the primary focus in that front) and WotC was Polaris based (as in Polaris/allies were the primary focus).

As for the CB, I don't really care. It has not spurred much of a debate really. It has only encouraged the same !@#$-slinging that passes as debate in CN. It was fun for a bit to participate in, then grew boring as per the norm.

Wrong on all account actually, war wasn't declared as soon as Puppets war slots became taken, because the first round's slots were taken by non Umbrella nations. War was not declared then. When Umbrella took the defensive war slots that is when AI decided to attack. Lets be honest here, the reason for this war isn't that defensive slots were taken, its that Umbrella took defensive war slots.

Can the same be said about each day?

My messages only go back to the late at night on the 19th, wars were deleted on the 20th.

There you see it. 1/20: 2 attacks from Majik, 2 attacks from Lusitan, 2 attacks from NationRuler. At minimum, each of those three launched two attacks per day, Lusitan also sent 2 (maybe 3? i forget) nukes. Majik won his first attack and lost his second. NR and Lusitan lost both sets of attacks, due to me rebuying in between (they were 8 hours apart) their attacks.

I totally believe you now.

The sarcasm is unnecessary, not believing me would be idiotic as every other statement I've made has been undoubtedly true.

NoCB was the Hyperion/MK war, WotC was the Polaris/Citadel and friends affair. I love how some people just cant grasp the concept of two different wars happening at different places on the planet at the same time.

I wasnt particularly happy with my own part in it, fighting in the WotC, and on that I was no minority in Grämlins - we made a point to aid them after the war despite the incoherent rage TOP flew into over it. Come to think of it, I guess that is the one time GRE stood up to TOP. We should have done that a lot more. That said it was nothing like NoCB. Polaris had made a huge mistake by threatening us on numerous occasions in numerous venues and I had no problem with spanking them for that when we had the opportunity.

Good post and good questions though. I see nothing wrong with an alliance taking out its own rogues *with permission from the target alliance* but something very wrong with them doing that when the target alliance has made it very clear they do NOT want this to happen.

And no, you cant claim that if you are launching attacks that makes it all ok. The blown stagger was more important than the attacks to begin with. And more important even than that is the fact that AI made it very clear they were unhappy with what happened the first round, and then the second route there was obvious collusion, and a 4 minute stagger window, thanks to Umbrella. That's deliberate provocation and it couldnt be more clear. That was 'do something about it' and it only received the response it begged for.

I am not directly touching the specific incident with a ten foot pole, for various reasons, but you people have to understand that, in general, the rule about war slot filling has two conditions attached: actual attacks being made and lack of competition for war slots. The second condition usually applies for intra-AA wars, but I think we can all take for granted that being on different/not allied AAs doesn't automatically mean that everything is fine (otherwise the rule could be easily worked around).

The rationale of the rule is quite simple, when you think of it. As the game mechanics limit defensive wars to a maximum of three, the war slot filling rule was put in place to avoid that players could unfairly exploit such an artificial limitation in order to attain goals that have nothing to do with its original purpose.

Should any party fill the slots of any nation with the purpose of preventing others to do so, in a way that objectively effectively affects the possibility of others to intervene (e.g.: allowing someone to hit Peace Mode after just one round of war), that party's actions wouldn't satisfy the second condition for them not to be considered war slot filling. I.e. they would be punishable.

Please note that I am just saying that the arguments brought into this discussion to criticize this (or any equivalent) decision are (this far) incomplete: they can't be accepted as decisive.

I am not saying or implying that this specific decision was right/wrong or that this specific situation satisfied/didn't satisfy the second condition explained above.