The Protectorate Reaches Two Million NS

[AL Bundy]

1 minute ago, AL Bundy said:

It was not a raid, he rogue attack AGW overlords and avalanche. We attacked to defend our allie. Like I said you just accepted 2 rogue nation. 

12/6/2016 11:57:16 PM         *Expired*	Nordrassil  Ruler: TyrVI Alpha Wolves	Zoltron  Ruler: New Lucinda Gods of War	Peace Declared
12/5/2016 9:03:19 AM         *Expired*	Zoltron  Ruler: New Lucinda Gods of War	Wootville  Ruler: Ernsters AGW Overlords	War Expired
12/5/2016 8:52:31 AM         *Expired*	Zoltron  Ruler: New Lucinda Gods of War

 

Easy to see on his war screen.....

[Alonso Quixano]

3 minutes ago, AL Bundy said:

It was not a raid, he rogue attack AGW overlords and avalanche. We attacked to defend our allie. Like I said you just accepted 2 rogue nation. 

 

1 minute ago, AL Bundy said:

12/6/2016 11:57:16 PM         *Expired*	Nordrassil  Ruler: TyrVI Alpha Wolves	Zoltron  Ruler: New Lucinda Gods of War	Peace Declared
12/5/2016 9:03:19 AM         *Expired*	Zoltron  Ruler: New Lucinda Gods of War	Wootville  Ruler: Ernsters AGW Overlords	War Expired
12/5/2016 8:52:31 AM         *Expired*	Zoltron  Ruler: New Lucinda Gods of War

 

Easy to see on his war screen.....

 

That's odd, because it looks like a tech raid, just happened to be one of your allies. Doesn't make him a rogue. Or does one of your nation who attacked TSO meet the criteria of being a rogue, or a raider? He seems to still be in your alliance, or is it only a raid when your alliance does it?

 

http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=545625&Extended=1

 

 

You can keep calling them rogues, but they are not. Unless you want to name one of your own alliance mates as a rogue as well. 

 

[AL Bundy]

Just now, Alonso Quixano said:

 

 

That's odd, because it looks like a tech raid, just happened to be one of your allies. Doesn't make him a rogue. Or does one of your nation who attacked TSO meet the criteria of being a rogue, or a raider? He seems to still be in your alliance, or is it only a raid when your alliance does it?

 

http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=545625&Extended=1

 

 

You can keep calling them rogues, but they are not. Unless you want to name one of your own alliance mates as a rogue as well. 

 

Say what you will, Its clear to most you harboring rogues. 

 

if no more threats are made or wars declared from your rogues we will finish beating down your rogue and go or separate ways. 

 

Al

[Alonso Quixano]

2 minutes ago, AL Bundy said:

Say what you will, Its clear to most you harboring rogues. 

 

if no more threats are made or wars declared from your rogues we will finish beating down your rogue and go or separate ways. 

 

Al

 

Just to be clear, are you changing the peace terms we agreed upon earlier to include threats, and wars declared? Or is the 18 million and 300 tech still the same? 

 

I just want to be clear with our nations, so we can continue to end this peacefully. 

[Blackatron]

Well I can disregard my previous statement that I wouldn't comment anymore because apparently the drama isn't over.

 

PoSSE, if I were you I'd seriously consider kicking these 2 guys, how can they be anything but trouble I don't know.

51 minutes ago, AL Bundy said:

Your talking to new MoD for POSSE, its new top military commander.

Your also talking to a bitter old vet with 4 years under my belt from 08-12 in this game, including leading an alliance of 150 members for almost 2 years.

So you might want to check your tone there "pal". He attacked you, because you demanded NPO trade sanction me, 4 weeks after my war with 1 of your guys ended.

Your alliance started this "mate", and now POSSE will finish it unless all 3 of you back the f*ck off and do it right now before next DT.

 

I love the boasting here. Also "demanded" and "NPO" in one sentence.

 

49 minutes ago, YOLO SWAG said:

Are you sure you are looking for peace Al?

 

[Mostly OOC] Why should he? There are soon to be fewer than 5,000 nations in this world, 500 of which are heading immediately for deletion at any one time. Most of the posts are now people complaining about how dead the world is, the 3 or 4 medium sized conflicts in 2015/2016 have been absolutely pitiful, at this point why not? Honestly this isn't a very good CB but it is much better than most. Plus this could be an interesting war if it expands. [/OOC]

 

Edit: 54 replies in 22 hours? I'm amazed.

Edited December 31, 2016 by Blackatron

[AL Bundy]

23 minutes ago, Alonso Quixano said:

 

Just to be clear, are you changing the peace terms we agreed upon earlier to include threats, and wars declared? Or is the 18 million and 300 tech still the same? 

 

I just want to be clear with our nations, so we can continue to end this peacefully. 

Everything is the same. I am just asking you to keep your rogues in line, I dont appriate threats and hate it when they go to my members.

 

I hope everything goes smoothly.

[SirWilliam]

Here's to another two billion NS and beyond!~

[Canik]

6 hours ago, Alonso Quixano said:

That's odd, because it looks like a tech raid, just happened to be one of your allies. Doesn't make him a rogue.

Okay this has getting old. When you 'tech raid' an alliance it does make you a rogue. Almost every single alliance leader agrees on this except for you. You're not going to change people's minds on it, all you're going to accomplish is giving Umbrella headaches. Please stop.

[Rayvon]

4 minutes ago, Canik said:

When you 'tech raid' an alliance it does make you a rogue. Almost every single alliance leader agrees on this except for you.

 

Yes and no.

 

If it's sanctioned or accepted by the raider's government, it's not a rogue action. It's an act of war. It's not up to any leader to label another leader's member.

[Canik]

 

25 minutes ago, Rayvon said:

 

Yes and no.

 

If it's sanctioned or accepted by the raider's government, it's not a rogue action. It's an act of war. It's not up to any leader to label another leader's member.

Correct, in that case it would be considered an act of war. I'm just talking about unsanctioned individuals like the Stoli.

[Rayvon]

But you aren't, you made a blanket statement and said "when you tech raid an alliance it makes you a rogue" .. You didn't say "stoli's actions were rogue" .. You then doubled down on it and said that nearly every leader agrees with this .. 

 

I don't know the specifics behind stoli's story or who he spoke with before his "raids", but I do know if you try and label one of my members and throw it at me the conversation won't go as you hope it will ... 

[The Zigur]

13 minutes ago, Rayvon said:

I don't know

 

If you don't know, now you know.

 

 

[Canik]

10 minutes ago, Rayvon said:

But you aren't, you made a blanket statement and said "when you tech raid an alliance it makes you a rogue" .. You didn't say "stoli's actions were rogue" .. You then doubled down on it and said that nearly every leader agrees with this .. 

 

I thought it would be obvious that I wasn't talking about raids against alliance sanctioned by the raider's government making it an act of war. You really should know what I meant, especially if you read the entire thread. Seems like you're nitpicking.
 

21 minutes ago, Rayvon said:

I don't know the specifics behind stoli's story or who he spoke with before his "raids", but I do know if you try and label one of my members and throw it at me the conversation won't go as you hope it will ... 

Maybe read the thread and do some homework then before joining in and acting all edgy. Stoli's actions clearly weren't sanctioned as he left (or was kicked out maybe) of Knights of Ni right after he went rogue.

Also your threat is hilarious. First you should know FTW would treat NSO with due respect. We've known each other for a long time. Second, FTW is stronger than NSO. Your aid slot usage is only 5% right now lol.

[The Zigur]

Back in the day Rayvon was Emperor of NSO and accepted ReytheGreat while he was still being pursued by the Crusader coalition during the Mushqaeda conflict. After haughtily brushing the coalition off, he got rolled by the Polar-led coalition during the Disorder War.

 

So it is understandable that he sympathizes with rogues looking at his past.

[Rayvon]

58 minutes ago, Canik said:

Also your threat is hilarious.

 

There was no threat.

 

Yes I nitpicked, I literally picked out a specific piece of text and replied to it with "yes and no". The part where you stepped out of the thread to the age-old rogue discussion.

 

Later when I said "when you label ... " I was tying into my first paragraph of the differentiation. .. And equating it to the reason you were huffy in your post I originally quoted [nitpicked] from .. Where you labeled his guy a rogue and he took exception ..

 

 

Also Junka - stuff it. You don't know what you're talking about, you're just upset I'm ignoring your PM on this thread. 

Edited January 1, 2017 by Rayvon

[OldSelf]

Without going too far back. The sanctions that caused this could be pretty aggravating.

 

A tech raid might be considered rogue in some book, I just about consider raiders a rogue on their home alliance. However, it's kind of like throwing the word terrorist at everything in a war simulator. I think it's sufficient to simply show you will defend your members without opportunistically ripping apart some infant with your pack.

 

The only time there's been historical agreement on "ethical" sanction is for an actual nuke rogue. Anything less is political pandering, because we have long agreed to uphold the right to trade and damaging trade rings is bad. However, now that anyone can change to have their own Uranium it's kind of moot, why sanction at all?

 

And so we have that sanctioning is not even much of a nuke buster anymore, not that I think it even matters in this free-fire age where everyone nukes first anyway. It's cheap political favor and therein it is honestly better to fight your own war. They're so distasteful few intra-colour wars have ever occurred just to preclude the possibility.

 

I'm not solely in the no sanctions ever camp. Nonetheless, expectation that people should sanction even for convention or thereon every scrimmage is wearing thin in my book, if only we would have kicked that about-faced convention wherein the politically connected seek an excuse to scratch eachother's back and not fight their own war (procedure 1: ask for a sanction).

 

Sanctions are a pretty low political tool, that rose to prominence to suit a toothless global order after we survived the terror of nuclear freefall. The ease with which they are performed is sick and we should probably move to ban sanctions. They're basically worse than any rogue: it's pretty desperate in this age to be PZI'ing someone you don't know and saying they're not welcome on your team for some "fairweather ally" who should otherwise fight the wars god has bestowed.

 

Edit: Congratulations on your 2 million. Good luck resolving the war, I think you're about right to challenge the demand of the politically ensconced. I would consider muzzling your one day old alliance war chief for the sake of your job.

Edited January 1, 2017 by OldSelf

[The Zigur]

1 hour ago, Rayvon said:

Also Junka - stuff it. You don't know what you're talking about, you're just upset I'm ignoring your PM on this thread. 

 

I was the sixth nation to join the NSO, and the last of Ivan's secret police still around. You can hold grudges all you like, but let it never be said that I do not benevolently reach out to former adversaries.

[Rayvon]

3 hours ago, Immortan Junka said:

 

I was the sixth nation to join the NSO, and the last of Ivan's secret police still around. You can hold grudges all you like, but let it never be said that I do not benevolently reach out to former adversaries.

 

I don't give a $%&@ who you think you are or what reasons you want to blame for why I don't want to talk to you -- I have no desire to have any exchange with you. It's you, not me. Reach out all you want, I don't want to hear from you. You seem to think I have some sort of agenda and you want to try to pull it in line with yours -- there is no agenda, I was speaking merely on the appearance of the exact point of which I pulled out and responded to. Take. A. Walk. 

[Canik]

9 hours ago, Rayvon said:

There was no threat.

It wasn't the threat I thought it was but it is still a threat for the conversation to not go how I'd hope. And still hilarious. How could the conversation not go how I'd hope?

[Rayvon]

13 hours ago, Canik said:

Okay this has getting old. When you 'tech raid' an alliance it does make you a rogue. Almost every single alliance leader agrees on this except for you. You're not going to change people's minds on it, all you're going to accomplish is giving Umbrella headaches. Please stop.

 

15 minutes ago, Canik said:

It wasn't the threat I thought it was but it is still a threat for the conversation to not go how I'd hope. And still hilarious. How could the conversation not go how I'd hope?

 

No, no threat from me. You're trying too hard and not reading what's right there. Not everything is veiled, sometimes words are exactly what they are. If I wanted to make a threat I would in exact words - I don't do veiled threats nor do I have a reason to threaten you over this.

 

The conversation I was talking about goes exactly how your post was that I pulled from. It was a generalized statement; you labeled his guy a rogue and he took exception. I said, generally speaking, if you label one of my guys it's not going to go as you plan -- referencing exactly the conversation you're having that's not going as you wanted. You're huffed up and onto 'this is getting old' ... 

 

Re-read the exchange, and take the animosity out of it. You're creating the animosity that isn't there.

Edited January 1, 2017 by Rayvon

[The Zigur]

5 hours ago, Rayvon said:

 

I don't give a $%&@ who you think you are or what reasons you want to blame for why I don't want to talk to you -- I have no desire to have any exchange with you. It's you, not me. Reach out all you want, I don't want to hear from you. You seem to think I have some sort of agenda and you want to try to pull it in line with yours -- there is no agenda, I was speaking merely on the appearance of the exact point of which I pulled out and responded to. Take. A. Walk. 

 

Obviously you have no agenda, or else your alliance would be more active.

[Rayvon]

2 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said:

 

Obviously you have no agenda, or else your alliance would be more active.

 

Try harder.

[Canik]

28 minutes ago, Rayvon said:

 

No, no threat from me. You're trying too hard and not reading what's right there. Not everything is veiled, sometimes words are exactly what they are. If I wanted to make a threat I would in exact words - I don't do veiled threats nor do I have a reason to threaten you over this.

 

The conversation I was talking about goes exactly how your post was that I pulled from. It was a generalized statement; you labeled his guy a rogue and he took exception. I said, generally speaking, if you label one of my guys it's not going to go as you plan -- referencing exactly the conversation you're having that's not going as you wanted. You're huffed up and onto 'this is getting old' ... 

 

Re-read the exchange, and take the animosity out of it. You're creating the animosity that isn't there.

You might want to re-read some things yourself. It was Al Bundy who first labelled the member a rogue and Alonso took exception to it. That comment of mine was the first comment I made on the rogue who hit AGW and Alonso hasn't responded to it yet.


 

[Rayvon]

12 minutes ago, Canik said:

You might want to re-read some things yourself. It was Al Bundy who first labelled the member a rogue and Alonso took exception to it. That comment of mine was the first comment I made on the rogue who hit AGW and Alonso hasn't responded to it yet.


 

 

I'm looking right here:

 

When I was talking about a conversation not going how you wanted, I was talking about your reaction there - and the fact that the exception was to the rogue labeling. Nothing more, nothing less. No threats, no anger, no trolling, no negative. You were in a huff over that discussion of the rogue thing, that's all I commented to: your reaction "this getting old .. please stop" .. It is how the conversation has went for you and exactly what I was referencing when I made a generalized statement and said it wouldn't go as planned if I were the one in Alonso's position (I'd be the one irritating you and making you say please stop if you came at me labeling my guys - it's my job to label one of my guys a rogue or to label them a member) .. You're reading too deep into words that aren't there if you're perceiving any threats. 

Edited January 1, 2017 by Rayvon

[The Zigur]

Labelling someone a rogue is not a subjective epithet. It's an objective truth that we can apply with just a little analysis.