Neo Uruk Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 It's pretty obvious you should've just kicked the raiders the fuck out if you weren't going to approach SWF to make it look like less of a blatant attack on their nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMeTheHorizon Posted April 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 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. We have a fundamental difference on what we consider tech raids. So Ill take your second statement as confirmation of your attacking of Monsters Inc. It's pretty obvious you should've just kicked the raiders the $%&@ out if you weren't going to approach SWF to make it look like less of a blatant attack on their nations. Why is it obvious? The followed our charter, and didn't break it. Why should we kick them out? Also we did approach SWF before SWF even approached us, even after they escalated attacks. Did you miss the part where I said we approached them first on how to end this whole raid before it escalated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMeTheHorizon Posted April 13, 2015 Author 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 Actually, we tried peace first. They wanted reps, for their nations that were attacked, and I shouldn't be surprised that they attacked. Fine. So I asked for reparations for the two nations they attacked in kind to even it out, they got their pound of flesh, by attacking three more of our nations, and we could all move on. They got their attacks 5 declared against our three, token reps per each, and we go our separate ways. They said no. I then suggested CPCN, someone who SWF, and Minc both trust, and work with, to help us reach a mutually agreeable end to all of this (yes I agree with you) sillyness. So far, SWF has been how do I say, more than unwilling to come to an agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 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? You can do whatever you please, it is your alliance. However don't make it out like it is SWF's fault when it was your alliance that started it. You had the option of paying reps, but instead escalated it. SWF simply defended their alliance from your alliances' aggression. If it's peace you want then pay the reps, otherwise stop trying to play the victim. You are fooling no one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabcat Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 We have a fundamental difference on what we consider tech raids. So Ill take your second statement as confirmation of your attacking of Monsters It's hardly a controversial definition of an act of war I'm using - nations declare war and attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMeTheHorizon Posted April 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 You can do whatever you please, it is your alliance. However don't make it out like it is SWF's fault when it was your alliance that started it. You had the option of paying reps, but instead escalated it. SWF simply defended their alliance from your alliances' aggression. If it's peace you want then pay the reps, otherwise stop trying to play the victim. You are fooling no one. Would you like screen shots of where I said i'd pay reps? I want peace, but not at the expense of those who were not involved in the tech raid. I didn't know I was playing the victim, thank you for telling me, i'd have been at a loss otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMeTheHorizon Posted April 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 It's hardly a controversial definition of an act of war I'm using - nations declare war and attack. The difference between a tech raid, and alliance war being? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Would you like screen shots of where I said i'd pay reps? I want peace, but not at the expense of those who were not involved in the tech raid. I didn't know I was playing the victim, thank you for telling me, i'd have been at a loss otherwise. I'm not saying you did, but SWF want reps for peace. So if you want peace pay reps, not hard. Well you have your other members to thank for bringing uninvolved members into this mess, which has in turn also brought your whole membership into this mess. All because of a botched "raid" on a connected alliance. Yes, your members got your alliance in this mess, it is up to your alliance to pay its way out and not blame it on SWF's attacks, blaming SWF for defending their alliance is your attempt at playing the victim. The only reason your alliance is playing hardball is because you know you won't get rolled, due to SWF's lack of any real strong connections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMeTheHorizon Posted April 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) I'm not saying you did, but SWF want reps for peace. So if you want peace pay reps, not hard. Well you have your other members to thank for bringing uninvolved members into this mess, which has in turn also brought your whole membership into this mess. All because of a botched "raid" on a connected alliance. Yes, your members got your alliance in this mess, it is up to your alliance to pay its way out and not blame it on SWF's attacks, blaming SWF for defending their alliance is your attempt at playing the victim. The only reason your alliance is playing hardball is because you know you won't get rolled, due to SWF's lack of any real strong connections. I'm not blaming them for defending their AA, i'd have gone about it in a different manner, but I can't/won't fault them. What you see as is our responsibility to pay our way out is not entirely wrong. They declared 5 wars to our three, initially, doing more damage than or raid combined. Is that not enough? Also, LSF holding a DMT/MDAP with SWF has more than enough fire power with them via treaties to help SWF with, bringing more to the table than we can. Edited April 13, 2015 by BringMeTheHorizon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Be cool everyone, it's the Argent micro police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 That's what happens when you give those fuckers relevance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 I'm not saying you did, but SWF want reps for peace. So if you want peace pay reps, not hard. If SWF wanted peace,they should've asked for reps instead of attacking. Not hard.Well you have your other members to thank for bringing uninvolved members into this mess, which has in turn also brought your whole membership into this mess. All because of a botched "raid" on a connected alliance. Yes, your members got your alliance in this mess, it is up to your alliance to pay its way out and not blame it on SWF's attacks, blaming SWF for defending their alliance is your attempt at playing the victim. The only reason your alliance is playing hardball is because you know you won't get rolled, due to SWF's lack of any real strong connections. He's not playing hardball. He's offering reps for the unprovoked attacks. He just expects that to be reciprocated by the SWF nations that countered on Monsters that were equally uninvolved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eejack Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 The line says you deal with the consequences, not other members of your AA deal with your consequence. Your charter means something to the members that signed it. It means bupkiss to folks who didn't. If you allow your members to raid occasionally some alliance is gonna fight back according to their way of doing things. You happened to raid an alliance that fights back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eejack Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 It was never a war in the first place, so please, calm down. Sure it was, your alliance declared wars on their alliance - pretty much the definition of a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 So wait a sec. Correct me if I'm wrong here. But it sounds like some Monsters guys hit X nation in SWF, and in turn that SWF guy, just the ones that ate raids, then attacked additional Monsters targets. If the initial attack on SWF by a couple of raiders was not an initiation of alliance wide war, why was the individual response by those nations regarded as such? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMeTheHorizon Posted April 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 So wait a sec. Correct me if I'm wrong here. But it sounds like some Monsters guys hit X nation in SWF, and in turn that SWF guy, just the ones that ate raids, then attacked additional Monsters targets. If the initial attack on SWF by a couple of raiders was not an initiation of alliance wide war, why was the individual response by those nations regarded as such? You're right about Monsters Inc nations raiding a target. That target did not launch any other attacks, two different (no the one who was raided) SWF nations then attacked two uninvolved monster inc nations. Then three more after an Monsters inc did the same as the SWF retaliation. So that leaves us at Two raids, and on retaliation to the retaliation, a grand total of three wars declared by Monsters Inc. Then five retaliatory wars by non raided SWF members. For total of 3-5 wars declared with SWF declaring more. No qualms with them declaring more. We regarded it as such that we (the raiders) went to SWF for peace first, they said reps or nothing, saying we shouldn't be surprised they attacked. So I wonder what would have happened if we didn't go to them first, and waited for them. Would we have seen more, and more declarations on our nations? We weren't going to wait, and find out. We were happy to walk away with them doing more damage to us then we did to them, with reps to both original two nations on both sides that were attacked out of the blue. Rejected by SWF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 You're right about Monsters Inc nations raiding a target. That target did not launch any other attacks, two different (no the one who was raided) SWF nations then attacked two uninvolved monster inc nations. Then three more after an Monsters inc did the same as the SWF retaliation. So that leaves us at Two raids, and on retaliation to the retaliation, a grand total of three wars declared by Monsters Inc. Then five retaliatory wars by non raided SWF members. For total of 3-5 wars declared with SWF declaring more. No qualms with them declaring more. We regarded it as such that we (the raiders) went to SWF for peace first, they said reps or nothing, saying we shouldn't be surprised they attacked. So I wonder what would have happened if we didn't go to them first, and waited for them. Would we have seen more, and more declarations on our nations? We weren't going to wait, and find out. We were happy to walk away with them doing more damage to us then we did to them, with reps to both original two nations on both sides that were attacked out of the blue. Rejected by SWF. So you both have stupid trigger happy nations in your ranks, and instead of getting together and mutually disposing of the trash, you decide the best course of action is to puff your chest out and posture a bit. This is pretty stupid on both sides. It sounds like you're going to be the one paying for it mostly, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Let's just agree that both parties will just fight it out amongst ourselves while sitting on lawn chairs and catching some nuclear rays? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 You posted a DoW? Rofl. Anyway it's funny to watch more lies sneak into your explanations as this goes on. My first PM to you was after you had already expanded the war. I logged on to find your PM and war declaration on me, an "univolved" (by your definition) party, at the same time. Also, when did we say we would nuke you? We're sitting there minding our own business, you attack us and try and extort tech out of us, and somehow we started the war. You start shooting off nukes and somehow we even nuked first. And to ice the cake now you're sending out poaching PMs to our members. I can't wait for what you're gonna do next. But no, we're totally the bad guys. No mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 I dont believe that anyone said you were the bad guys. Only that it had been your choice to escalate. That doesnt make you bad guys. It's clear the initial offense was the raid, and as the offended party you get to handle that diplomatically or militarily as you see fit. It appears to me you decided you wanted the war more than the reps? I can understand that and it's perfectly respectable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall14 Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 Die Linke -1. As it likely goes without saying, an attack on one signatory of this treaty is to be treated as an attack on all signatories, and additionally, an attack by a signatory should be taken as an attack by all signatories. So we should see a update blitz by LSF coming to the rescue of their comrades in SWF? Greater love have no comrade than to give up his pixels for a comrade? LSF treaties-are these still valid? NATO and Shangri-Li MADPs? MCXA ODAP? NEAT has treaties with both I see? All 3 of their nations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frawley Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 So let me get this straight.Monsters Inc hit SWF, SWF defends itself by hitting some MI, and somehow SWF are in the wrong because they didn't come to you to get reps instead.Actions have consequences.This is why micro's shouldn't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 So let me get this straight. Monsters Inc hit SWF, SWF defends itself by hitting some MI, and somehow SWF are in the wrong because they didn't come to you to get reps instead. Actions have consequences. This is why micro's shouldn't exist. Yes it would be much better if everyone sat in their little corner and did nothing until the main powers decided they wanted a war and then go to war for reasons that don't directly involve them. Also for the record, SWF isn't wrong for not coming to them. SWF is wrong because they didn't accept the offered reps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 So let me get this straight. Monsters Inc hit SWF, SWF defends itself by hitting some MI, and somehow SWF are in the wrong because they didn't come to you to get reps instead. Actions have consequences. This is why micro's shouldn't exist. I disagree, this is why micros should exist. They actually create news in an otherwise dull world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scourge Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 Shoutout to BMTH for once again reminding me why I like the damn commies. 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.