Caliph Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 57 minutes ago, Auctor said: I certainly see people that attack us and our allies as threats that need to be beaten or effectively neutralized and my allies and other that defend us as requiring completely different treatment, yes. Except you go even further than that and think that changing AA's when you want is fine when your allies do it but find the same things so reprehensible that you must implement terms to force others to not do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Yeah, I'd prefer to have people that have shown they are willing to switch AA's to attack my allies tied up for some amount of time while I handle other things. The other option was you could have continued to war us, and I'd've been fine with that, too. The idea we were all just going to take it on good faith you weren't going to use the opportunity to restock nukes and go nuts again wasn't that appealing from my perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 8 minutes ago, Auctor said: Yeah, I'd prefer to have people that have shown they are willing to switch AA's to attack my allies tied up for some amount of time while I handle other things. The other option was you could have continued to war us, and I'd've been fine with that, too. The idea we were all just going to take it on good faith you weren't going to use the opportunity to restock nukes and go nuts again wasn't that appealing from my perspective. I think this is the only part worth reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 1 hour ago, Auctor said: Yeah, I'd prefer to have people that have shown they are willing to switch AA's to attack my allies tied up for some amount of time while I handle other things. The other option was you could have continued to war us, and I'd've been fine with that, too. The idea we were all just going to take it on good faith you weren't going to use the opportunity to restock nukes and go nuts again wasn't that appealing from my perspective. Let me know when you're done channeling your inner Ramirez. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Yeah, a giant chunk of NS that supposedly strangles the whole world agrees with my position but I'm the crazy prophet in the wilderness. That's how it works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 32 minutes ago, Auctor said: Yeah, a giant chunk of NS that supposedly strangles the whole world agrees with my position but I'm the crazy prophet in the wilderness. That's how it works. Well they did implement terms on defeated alliances that fall in line with what you are preaching, so ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoopid Ace Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 On 6/29/2016 at 11:50 PM, Auctor said: Coming from "i'm a derpy micro person that acknowledges no such thing as consequences and LOLOLOL I R DRUNK", that totally hurts. "Yawn and stuff because Im awesome!" Auctor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 On 2016-06-30 at 6:58 PM, Auctor said: The other option was you could have continued to war us, and I'd've been fine with that, too. It wasn't an option. It was made clear to us that Kashmir would not get peace unless we accepted this term. We were fine with continuing to fight for our own members, but we didn't see why Kashmir should be forced to as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 Early in the talks, yall refused individual terms for these guys. Which is why this neither fish nor fowl compromise got concocted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 3 hours ago, Auctor said: Early in the talks, yall refused individual terms for these guys. Which is why this neither fish nor fowl compromise got concocted. Your coalitions policy of not giving Kashmir peace until LC also accepted the peace terms worked in that we didn't think our buddies in Kashmir should be kept at war if they needed the out. I'm sure the spy ops on me were passed around and you know I have the cash to fight for months. Just because you can do something doesn't mean its the best course of action. Especially when its not just you, but your buddies who are coming along for the ride like it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackatron Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 On 30 June 2016 at 11:58 PM, Auctor said: Yeah, I'd prefer to have people that have shown they are willing to switch AA's to attack my allies tied up for some amount of time while I handle other things. The other option was you could have continued to war us, and I'd've been fine with that, too. The idea we were all just going to take it on good faith you weren't going to use the opportunity to restock nukes and go nuts again wasn't that appealing from my perspective. When people (who I believe has recent come out of inactivity) and switch AA's to avoid attacking or being attacked by your allies, you have no problem attacking them for being absolutely no threat to you: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=555412 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 (edited) Yes, we war nations that are still at war with us. Shocking concept. Edited July 2, 2016 by Auctor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 7 hours ago, Haflinger said: It wasn't an option. It was made clear to us that Kashmir would not get peace unless we accepted this term. We were fine with continuing to fight for our own members, but we didn't see why Kashmir should be forced to as well. Pretty much this .... Some "big picture" that Caustic kept going on about in his disappointment that I didn't see nor share ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 10 hours ago, Auctor said: Early in the talks, yall refused individual terms for these guys. Which is why this neither fish nor fowl compromise got concocted. No, the reason was that Last Call was still doing significant damage while Kashmir had been effectively neutralized, and Non Grata and Polar didn't want to let Kashmir peace out because then that would have made it apparent the war was about the Doom Kingdom, not Kashmir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Haflinger said: No, the reason was that Last Call was still doing significant damage while Kashmir had been effectively neutralized, and Non Grata and Polar didn't want to let Kashmir peace out because then that would have made it apparent the war was about the Doom Kingdom, not Kashmir. Did you read the post or just feel like making some other unrelated point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 I read the post, I just don't happen to agree with it. The "individual terms" we refused were "we'll keep them on our target lists forever." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 They actually weren't and I happen to know that for a fact, but ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 On 6/25/2016 at 10:56 PM, Rayvon said: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result ...... Every single time you do this TIR gets attacked ... Have you not figured out yet? When you take your alliance, the one that was not hit, then you are acting in aggression not defense ... Doesn't matter if your protector got hit, their actions then become defensive. You, not being them, are acting in aggression to go in defense of them. YOU are leading Defense gov; Ace is second-in-command of TIR -- your gov status makes your movements a TIR-condoned action, and just like nearly every other ghosting alliance you get hit. TBF, Sengoku and others protectorates have done the same thing as TIR yet are held to different standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoorNail Posted July 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 Just now, Unknown Smurf said: TBF, Sengoku and others protectorates have done the same thing as TIR yet are held to different standards. There's nothing else to complain about us from the other side, is the reason ghosting is an issue. We knew the possible consequences of our actions, proof is the nations in PM that went before we declared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoorNail Posted July 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2016 TIR stands firm on our commitment to our allies. We will not surrender and will take measures to see that our side is victorious, the other side can go die in a fire. 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.