Tiberius Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 size has never been a factor for us- nor if an alliance is 'active' or 'not active', but when our members are getting nuked, we will defend our own Well the first Nuke launched was from your alliance? What did you expect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HM Solomon I Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Had they not raided SWF then there would have been no counter. Which then brings it back to being a consequence of the initial raiding. Through having a loose leash on their raiding policy this has ended up with Monster Inc defending their raiders actions, which in their charter it says they won't. I mean whenever GOONS have backed up their raiders they have come in for a whole ton of abuse for it. This. No point in having that clause in your Charter if you're just going to ignore it. Yes, SWF escalated the situation, but it seems a bit silly that if the defender escalates the original attackers get let off with a slap on the wrist while the alliance suffers. Surely if the defender escalates, the raiders should be punished even more harshly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hitchcock Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 This. No point in having that clause in your Charter if you're just going to ignore it. Yes, SWF escalated the situation, but it seems a bit silly that if the defender escalates the original attackers get let off with a slap on the wrist while the alliance suffers. Surely if the defender escalates, the raiders should be punished even more harshly. The initial raiders have been beaten with chains and whips for their monstrous actions. Also, who says we are 'suffering'? I have often found war (regardless of the outcome) to be the quite the opposite- more like 'invigorating' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hitchcock Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) Well the first Nuke launched was from your alliance? What did you expect? Actually, the raiders were not nuking at all- however when it became apparent that SWF were going to nuke nations of ours who were not associated with the conflict, we made it clear that we would react as well and we got one of our nukes first Edit. Fixed that for ya Edited April 13, 2015 by Lord Hitchcock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehmina Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) Hitchy, you made absolutely no sense in that last comment man! Probably rephrase it for me? Or better, come and join BMTH on our forums :) I hope peace is achieved asap. Friends fighting is horrible. Edited April 13, 2015 by Tehmina Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hitchcock Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Hitchy, you made absolutely no sense in that last comment man! Probably rephrase it for me? Or better, come and join BMTH on our forums :) I hope peace is achieved asap. Friends fighting is horrible. Fixed that for ya, the nation of Britten requires morning coffee for all of it's citizens before embarking on politics. I will stop by late this evening Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehmina Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 I make good coffee.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall14 Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 So SWF who has allies LSF? got raided and instead of bending over and supplying lube they decided to fight back so now you declared war on them? Amirite? And you violated your charter to do so? Amirite? Or did I not read all this correctly? Do not get my line of questioning skewed as obviously I don't care and am rooting for L_H anyways...I'm just wanting to see the expansion capabilities of this war, so besides LSF does SWF have anyone else to come to the rescue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) Hitchy, you made absolutely no sense in that last comment man! Probably rephrase it for me? Or better, come and join BMTH on our forums :) I hope peace is achieved asap. Friends fighting is horrible. Id have to agree with you here, especall the last line.. the answer is obvious: you guys just need to cancel on SWF. :D So SWF who has allies LSF? got raided and instead of bending over and supplying lube they decided to fight back so now you declared war on them? Amirite? And you violated your charter to do so? Amirite? Or did I not read all this correctly? Do not get my line of questioning skewed as obviously I don't care and am rooting for L_H anyways...I'm just wanting to see the expansion capabilities of this war, so besides LSF does SWF have anyone else to come to the rescue? Almost. A guy from monsters Inc. raided a SWF guy. SWF could've came and asked for peace but attacked others on the monsters Inc AA instead so monsters inc upgraded this from a raid to a war. I believe. Edited April 13, 2015 by Unknown Smurf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 A micro led by BMTH getting into a squabble because they picked a bad raid target? Impossibreu. If your damned charter says the raiders lose their ability to be defended, then WTF would they need to come talk to you before defending themselves 1st? Lets be honest, you absolutely did not mean that line of the charter. But I look at the cast of characters, and I am 0 shocked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Id have to agree with you here, especall the last line.. the answer is obvious: you guys just need to cancel on SWF. :D I don't think Tehmina is in LSF anymore, and CPCN doesn't have a treaty with SWF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 I don't think Tehmina is in LSF anymore, and CPCN doesn't have a treaty with SWF. Ah damn. Just when I was starting to like LSF too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Oskar Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Lulz amimailz shold raid both you fools!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall14 Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) Lulz amimailz shold raid both you fools!! This! o7 Edit: my curiousity got the best of me so I had to google 2319...http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=2319 Edited April 13, 2015 by Stonewall14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMeTheHorizon Posted April 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 They raided, SWF responded. Why aren't the raiders facing the consequences of having to pay for the damages your other Nations have taken due to their acts or is that part of your charter to be ignored? Had they not raided SWF then there would have been no counter. Which then brings it back to being a consequence of the initial raiding. Through having a loose leash on their raiding policy this has ended up with Monster Inc defending their raiders actions, which in their charter it says they won't. I mean whenever GOONS have backed up their raiders they have come in for a whole ton of abuse for it. Because no one from SWF came to us to ask for reps, except me going to them to ask what we could stop this from escalating. The answer was only reps to the two people who were first raided, and too bad for the ones we attacked in return. Now if they came to us before attacking uninvolved parties, sure, yes, reps for everyone that was initially raided. Just because they choose to attack first before attempting to diplomatically resolve this means we can't defend our members how we see fit? No where are we defending our raiders, we are defending our alliance from more attacks in retribution of our raid. I was even told there should be no surprise that SWF is attacking, and by the time I got in touch with SWF, first may I add, that they had 5 declared wars to our three. Two initial raids, and one nation who was doing the same thing that SWF did, saw coordinated attacks on members, and decided to defend their alliance mates. If you want to see it as implicitly defending our raiders actions, sure, you want to see it that way, and only that way. I wont fault you, because it can be seen that way. What you are blatantly ignoring is that we also have the right to defend our nations (not involved in the tech raid) from escalation as we see fit, just as SWF saw fit. Also, I didn't know you were privy to our internal discussions about the two in question that did the raiding. Now will you ever know what we decided with these two nations no, but what we decide are the consequences for those two nations are what we decide, not SWF or anyone else. Again, as I said in PMs, in embassies, and here. That if there was no escalation to non-involved parties we would have paid reps, had they came to us first. Or even if they just attacked the two raiders in question, there would have been no escalation from us. I don't get where you think we get/have to let SWF attack non-involved parties without trying SWF to get the raids ended, and reparations for their affect nations. This. No point in having that clause in your Charter if you're just going to ignore it. Yes, SWF escalated the situation, but it seems a bit silly that if the defender escalates the original attackers get let off with a slap on the wrist while the alliance suffers. Surely if the defender escalates, the raiders should be punished even more harshly. We are not ignoring it. Though in your eyes it should be perfectly fine to let SWF attack our non-involved non-raiding nations in turn? I don't want to keep reiterating that or charter was no broken, or that you think it is, must mean that it was. We aren't ignoring our charter, if SWF came to us before escalating, and asked for reps, i'd have paid them to them, simple as that. I will also reiterate that we are dealing internally with our two raiders in question, but we also reserve the right to defend our nations as we see fit, just as SWF did. We have no qualms with how they escalated it. So SWF who has allies LSF? got raided and instead of bending over and supplying lube they decided to fight back so now you declared war on them? Amirite? And you violated your charter to do so? Amirite? Or did I not read all this correctly? Do not get my line of questioning skewed as obviously I don't care and am rooting for L_H anyways...I'm just wanting to see the expansion capabilities of this war, so besides LSF does SWF have anyone else to come to the rescue? You are right on the first part, I guess, in a round about way. They sent over two attacks on non-involved people, then one of our members seeing two nations attack decided to defend them and attacked SWF, leading SWF to send over three more attacks on non-involved raiders. So before I attempted to clear up this misunderstanding it was 5-3 in declared wars in favor of SWF. Their leader said too bad, your guys got attacked, pay us reps. Now, I would have paid reps if they came to us before sending attacks in turn. Would they have kept sending more, and more attacks against us as they didn't even come talk to us about the raid, and to get reps before hand? Who knows, we weren't going to take that chance. We did not violate our charter. The raid wen't bad, but instead of trying to get reps for their members they decided to attack ours in kind. They then wanted reps for them to stop attacking. I said i'd pay reps for your nations affected form the raid, if you pay reps for the nations affected by your counter attacks. Each nations were un-involved nations at the time. Basically a hey, you go your way, we go our way. Two for two. It's over. He said no to reps for my nations, and only for his. Which is his right, but don't mistake us to roll over, and let him continue to attack our nations which could have been diplomatically solved if they had sent me a PM, or anyone in our government a PM. A micro led by BMTH getting into a squabble because they picked a bad raid target? Impossibreu. If your damned charter says the raiders lose their ability to be defended, then WTF would they need to come talk to you before defending themselves 1st? Lets be honest, you absolutely did not mean that line of the charter. But I look at the cast of characters, and I am 0 shocked. I am not the leader, your first mistake. Your second mistake is actually thinking our charter is in a public space for SWF to see it. Your third mistake is that the raiders were never attacked in return other nations on our AA were. Let's be honest, if they had come to me, about the raids before attacking, and asked for reps, they'd have them. Period. So, rush, are we to forfeit the right to defend our non raiding nations? Or just say hey, since you got attacked because some one else's mistake we wont defend you, sucks to suck? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) Because no one from SWF came to us to ask for reps, except me going to them to ask what we could stop this from escalating. The answer was only reps to the two people who were first raided, and too bad for the ones we attacked in return. Now if they came to us before attacking uninvolved parties, sure, yes, reps for everyone that was initially raided. Just because they choose to attack first before attempting to diplomatically resolve this means we can't defend our members how we see fit? No where are we defending our raiders, we are defending our alliance from more attacks in retribution of our raid. I was even told there should be no surprise that SWF is attacking, and by the time I got in touch with SWF, first may I add, that they had 5 declared wars to our three. Two initial raids, and one nation who was doing the same thing that SWF did, saw coordinated attacks on members, and decided to defend their alliance mates. If you want to see it as implicitly defending our raiders actions, sure, you want to see it that way, and only that way. I wont fault you, because it can be seen that way. What you are blatantly ignoring is that we also have the right to defend our nations (not involved in the tech raid) from escalation as we see fit, just as SWF saw fit. Also, I didn't know you were privy to our internal discussions about the two in question that did the raiding. Now will you ever know what we decided with these two nations no, but what we decide are the consequences for those two nations are what we decide, not SWF or anyone else. Again, as I said in PMs, in embassies, and here. That if there was no escalation to non-involved parties we would have paid reps, had they came to us first. Or even if they just attacked the two raiders in question, there would have been no escalation from us. I don't get where you think we get/have to let SWF attack non-involved parties without trying SWF to get the raids ended, and reparations for their affect nations. We are not ignoring it. Though in your eyes it should be perfectly fine to let SWF attack our non-involved non-raiding nations in turn? I don't want to keep reiterating that or charter was no broken, or that you think it is, must mean that it was. We aren't ignoring our charter, if SWF came to us before escalating, and asked for reps, i'd have paid them to them, simple as that. I will also reiterate that we are dealing internally with our two raiders in question, but we also reserve the right to defend our nations as we see fit, just as SWF did. We have no qualms with how they escalated it. You are right on the first part, I guess, in a round about way. They sent over two attacks on non-involved people, then one of our members seeing two nations attack decided to defend them and attacked SWF, leading SWF to send over three more attacks on non-involved raiders. So before I attempted to clear up this misunderstanding it was 5-3 in declared wars in favor of SWF. Their leader said too bad, your guys got attacked, pay us reps. Now, I would have paid reps if they came to us before sending attacks in turn. Would they have kept sending more, and more attacks against us as they didn't even come talk to us about the raid, and to get reps before hand? Who knows, we weren't going to take that chance. We did not violate our charter. The raid wen't bad, but instead of trying to get reps for their members they decided to attack ours in kind. They then wanted reps for them to stop attacking. I said i'd pay reps for your nations affected form the raid, if you pay reps for the nations affected by your counter attacks. Each nations were un-involved nations at the time. Basically a hey, you go your way, we go our way. Two for two. It's over. He said no to reps for my nations, and only for his. Which is his right, but don't mistake us to roll over, and let him continue to attack our nations which could have been diplomatically solved if they had sent me a PM, or anyone in our government a PM. I am not the leader, your first mistake. Your second mistake is actually thinking our charter is in a public space for SWF to see it. Your third mistake is that the raiders were never attacked in return other nations on our AA were. Let's be honest, if they had come to me, about the raids before attacking, and asked for reps, they'd have them. Period. So, rush, are we to forfeit the right to defend our non raiding nations? Or just say hey, since you got attacked because some one else's mistake we wont defend you, sucks to suck? You are the one that brought that line from your charter to the OWF. The consequence was that from their raids, other members of your alliance were hit, that's a consequence your members who initiated the raids should suffer for and repay for the damage. You didn't go to SWF diplomatically and see if it was okay to raid them, so why expect diplomacy in return for your alliance members unprovoked attacks? Also your other members need not face any further attacks should you pay reparations as asked for by SWF. Edited April 13, 2015 by Cress Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMeTheHorizon Posted April 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) You are the one that brought that line from your charter to the OWF. The consequence was that from their raids, other members of your alliance were hit, that's a consequence your members who initiated the raids should suffer for and repay for the damage. You didn't go to SWF diplomatically and see if it was okay to raid them, so why expect diplomacy in return for your alliance members unprovoked attacks? Also your other members need not face any further attacks should you pay reparations as asked for by SWF. The line says you deal with the consequences, not other members of your AA deal with your consequence. You're right, they are dealing with that consequence of them being attacked. other members of their alliance being attacked. Now that doesn't mean we as an alliance allow non-involved parties to have those consequences pushed upon them, or enforced by SWF who are well within their rights to attack how they see fit. I don't expect them to, but if they wanted reps they could have asked us before attacking un-involved members, and presto reparations paid. They decided to attack, not even get in contact with us. So again I reiterate, that if I had no gone to talk to them after their first initial attacks on un-involved nations, do I then assume that they would have not come to us, and kept attacking us? Or just attacked those nations, and then came to us to end the raids? Though I expect you not to care, and say what ever happens to us or the other nations is our own fault, and I wont fault you for saying that. Though it's misleading, and disingenuous to the nations we all protect in our alliance. Can I ask you plain, and simple. Do we forfeit the right to defend our un-involved nations because of two raids? Edited April 13, 2015 by BringMeTheHorizon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabcat Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 I don't understand what you're whining about. MI nations hit SWF, that's what war is, fighting and stuff. Now you've done what you should have done in the first place and posted the DoW. What do you want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMeTheHorizon Posted April 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 I don't understand what you're whining about. MI nations hit SWF, that's what war is, fighting and stuff. Now you've done what you should have done in the first place and posted the DoW. What do you want? It was never a war in the first place, so please, calm down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabcat Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 It was never a war in the first place, so please, calm down. There's attacks, a DoW and messages demanding 100 tech for peace. Looks like a war to me. What do you want to call it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMeTheHorizon Posted April 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 There's attacks, a DoW and messages demanding 100 tech for peace. Looks like a war to me. What do you want to call it? Now yes, but not in the first place was there an actual alliance war that warrants a DoW, which has been the rhetoric of SWF to spout during our talks with CPCN. I was just fixing your confusion in your post above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabcat Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Now yes, but not in the first place was there an actual alliance war that warrants a DoW, which has been the rhetoric of SWF to spout during our talks with CPCN. I was just fixing your confusion in your post above. So when it was nations from your alliance attacking an SWF nation, that wasn't a war? It's now a war because you don't like what's happening as a consequence of that initial attack? It's all very confusing but regardless it all comes down to this - MI have declared war and initiated aggression against SWF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMeTheHorizon Posted April 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) So when it was nations from your alliance attacking an SWF nation, that wasn't a war? It's now a war because you don't like what's happening as a consequence of that initial attack? It's all very confusing but regardless it all comes down to this - MI have declared war and initiated aggression against SWF. It wasn't a war, it was a tech raid. It's now a war because SWF (well within their rights) escalated it into an alliance war. Us liking it, or not liking it has no bearing on what we consider a tech raid, or what turned into a war escalated by SWF. With your interpretation, I can assume I will see LSF tonight? Edited April 13, 2015 by BringMeTheHorizon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabcat Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 It wasn't a war, it was a tech raid. It's now a war because SWF (well within their rights) escalated it into an alliance war. Us liking it, or not liking it has no bearing on what we consider a tech raid, or what turned into a war escalated by SWF. With your interpretation, I can assume I will see LSF tonight? A tech raid against an aligned nation is not a tech raid at all. It is and ever was an act of war against the alliance the nation belongs to. As for LSF you've declared war on SWF who we have dual membership with as well as belonging to an MDAP bloc. You've declared war on us in your op. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Dear Monsters Inc.: I am unable to fathom just how goddamn stupid this is. Two members of your alliance 'raid' nations whose alliance belongs to a bloc. Through the miracle of chaining, said bloc is tied to multiple alliances. So what do you do when SWF responds as if you've launched an undeclared war and fights back? You declare war. You need a do-over. Take back this DoW, go to SWF, admit you screwed up, and sort it out. Be prepared to pay for your idiotic members' mistakes. Then take it out of your members' hides. - kz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.