The Protectorate Reaches Two Million NS

[Devialance]

21 hours ago, AL Bundy said:

Seems your rogues don't agree....I do love threats....

 

To: Al Bundy    From: New Lucinda    Date: 12/31/2016 12:03:50 PM

Subject: Enough

 

Message: Send Stoli peace now or you will regret it. 1st and only warning.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

To: Al Bundy    From: malakarlian    Date: 12/31/2016 2:22:03 PM

Subject: my reply

 

Message: To: New Lucinda    From: malakarlian    Date: 12/31/2016 1:43:53 PM

Subject: RE: Enough

Message: One....he attacked my alliance. Two....don't threaten me when he was in the wrong. Three who the $%&* are you? I dont see a star by your name.Any diplomatic talks should go through AL bundy my foreign relations diplomat. Four....I am not sorry very often

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: FW: RE: Enough

 

Message:   To: malakarlian    From: New Lucinda

 

Sorry, you mistake me. It wasn't a threat, it was a promise.

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.

Wasn't a threat, it was a promise. Call my bluff if you think thats wise and you will find out what happens, because I keep my promises and I'm a man of my word.

Your alliance was spitting in my face by demanding that sanction on red and you know it. That's why Stoli attacked you. My NS might be low atm, but I now represent the entire military force of POSSE. So blink if you dare, i'll be waiting.

 

Damn someone has a small man hood if they have to act this hard lol 

 

[Alonso Quixano]

14 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.

 

I don't think that's true. Will Al Bundy label his tech raiders rogue, especially the one I posted about previously? His member raided TSO, and is still in the alliance. Do I get to call him a rogue, do you get to call him a rogue? Or does it only matter to Alpha Wolves that their member is a tech raider, and still in the alliance? 

 

So i'd like to dispute you when you say when you tech raid an alliance it does make you a rogue, unless you want to say your ally is harboring a rogue from TSO? Because labeling a rogue, for the most part is subjective. 

 

I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm jut trying to shed light on a subject that everyone is hypocritical on. You said when you tech raid, you're a rogue. I just want to know if you'll label one of your allies members as rogue, because he tech raided an alliance of one million nation strength, and seventeen members. 

 

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=597174 - From ISX who raided an alliance, is he a rogue?

 

I don't think ISX would label him as a rogue. But in your definition he is. 

 

 

I'm sorry you think this is getting old, but according to you, I just showed you two allies, with two nations who have tech raided, but aren't considered rogues by their government. Heck, Al Bundy even has he's a raider in his forum profile. So, I have to dispute your hypothesis that every single alliance leader besides myself agrees on this, because unless two of your allies label them as rogues for raiding an alliance, you're wrong. 

Edited January 1, 2017 by Alonso Quixano

[Rayvon]

10 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said:

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

 

No.

 

You can analyse till you're blue in the face. What I said in my first post was: "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." .. Your analysis is flawed if it doesn't include my (or the leader of the alliance in question of the nation under review for rogue actions) input as to whether it was sanctioned or not.

 

You can call someone else's member a rogue all you want -- but if the leader of that member comes from says they aren't a rogue, then they aren't a rogue and it's a government sanctioned action. Stop trying to pick skin that isn't there, take your little scorned feelings over my lack of desire to talk to you elsewhere. There was no animosity in what I said towards Canik or FTW. It was an on-the-fly commentary on the exact specific piece to which I quoted and commented at.

 

If anything, I was implying to Canik that FTW had a road to action towards the alliance as a whole in that they were taking such exception to the 'rogue' label (condoning any actions that took place if they deny them so vehemently as rogue actions) ..

 

You can keep trying to pick a fight between FTW and NSO though if you like, I'm sure you'll find Canik and I quite receptive to your attempts.

[Alonso Quixano]

12 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said:

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

 

What's your definition of rogue? 

[The Zigur]

2 minutes ago, Rayvon said:

 

No.

 

You can analyse till you're blue in the face. What I said in my first post was: "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." .. Your analysis is flawed if it doesn't include my (or the leader of the alliance in question of the nation under review for rogue actions) input as to whether it was sanctioned or not.

 

You can call someone else's member a rogue all you want -- but if the leader of that member comes from says they aren't a rogue, then they aren't a rogue and it's a government sanctioned action. Stop trying to pick skin that isn't there, take your little scorned feelings over my lack of desire to talk to you elsewhere. There was no animosity in what I said towards Canik or FTW. It was an on-the-fly commentary on the exact specific piece to which I quoted and commented at.

 

If anything, I was implying to Canik that FTW had a road to action towards the alliance as a whole in that they were taking such exception to the 'rogue' label (condoning any actions that took place if they deny them so vehemently as rogue actions) ..

 

You can keep trying to pick a fight between FTW and NSO though if you like, I'm sure you'll find Canik and I quite receptive to your attempts.

 

Canik and I are allies and good friends, nobody is out to get you. You are simply inserting yourself into this discussion and being dramatic, probably in an attempt to feel edgy and relevant.

 

In answer to both Rayvon and Alonso:

 

We can see that the individual who attacked AW is a rogue simply by reading the war logs. He hit three Alpha Wolves nations because he was mad about "trade sanctions." Then when he realized he was in over his head, he ran off to PoSSE looking for help without resolving his situation with AW.

 

Most alliances do not accept rogues until their status is cleared. A rogue is a nation (or group of nations) who's objective is to disrupt the progress of civilization within a productive alliance. This is different from war between civilized entites who only war due to a clearly stated Casus Belli in order to defend or advance the interests of the alliance.

 

 

 

[Alonso Quixano]

10 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said:

A rogue is a nation (or group of nations) who's objective is to disrupt the progress of civilization within a productive alliance. 

 

 

 

 

Then please label this nation for me. http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=597174

 

 

[The Zigur]

4 minutes ago, Alonso Quixano said:

 

Then please label this nation for me. http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=597174

 

 

 

That's called a raider. My membership is allowed to raid nations close to the state of nature, as they are not civilized by definition in the first place.

[Alonso Quixano]

3 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said:

 

That's called a raider. My membership is allowed to raid nations close to the state of nature, as they are not civilized by definition in the first place.

 

That's odd, is Legion an alliance close to the state of Nature? 

[Rayvon]

23 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said:

A rogue is a nation (or group of nations) who's objective is to disrupt the progress of civilization within a productive alliance.

 

No.

 

Case in point: NSO-Kaskus war; this was started off by Dilber, Kirsten and Joe "disrupting the progress" of Kaskus by going in and declaring on Smurf. They were not rogues, I sent them in after playing this exact game with Kaskus about declaring Smurf a rogue and them declaring him not a rogue. Their (Dilber, Joe and Kirsten) actions, by your definition, make them "rogues" .. My definition makes their actions an act of war which is what it really was.

 

When you step on another leaders toes and label their members, it's not always going to be received exactly as you declare it just like my insistent declaration that Smurf was a rogue wasn't received. 

 

A rogue is someone who goes off on their own and takes action on their own without sanction from any recognized authority figure. 

Edited January 1, 2017 by Rayvon

[The Zigur]

1 minute ago, Alonso Quixano said:

 

That's odd, is Legion an alliance close to the state of Nature? 

 

That was an unauthorized action when he was a noob and resolved as a disciplinary and diplomatic matter. The Imperium does not make every small dispute a public matter.

[The Zigur]

4 minutes ago, Rayvon said:

 

No.

 

Case in point: NSO-Kaskus war; this was started off by Dilber, Kirsten and Joe "disrupting the progress" of Kaskus by going in and declaring on Smurf. They were not rogues, I sent them in after playing this exact game with Kaskus about declaring Smurf a rogue and them declaring him not a rogue. Their actions, by your definition, make them "rogues" .. My definition makes their actions an act of war.

 

When you step on another leaders toes and label their members, it's not always going to be received exactly as you declare it. 

 

A rogue is someone who goes off on their own and takes action on their own without sanction from any recognized authority figure. 

 

Yes I realized long ago that you do not uphold the tenets of civilization, which was why I was not particularly sad when Disorder happened.

[Morphine]

Wow, this is just a regretfully pity argument.

 

Also was peace not agreed to between AW and PoSSe? As I see, a new war started as of an hour ago...

Edited January 1, 2017 by Morphine

[Canik]

1 hour ago, Rayvon said:

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. 

Okay I get what you're saying and how it supposedly wasn't a threat. But again - it wasn't me who labelled his member a rogue (not until that comment anyway, and Alonso hadn't replied to it yet). In that comment I was replying to Alonso but he was replying to Al Bundy, not me. So your example was confusing. If you still don't understand, then I guess we're just not capable of understanding each other.

"No threats, no anger, no trolling, no negative."

Well when you 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. "

and I said " Correct, in that case it would be considered an act of war. I'm just talking about unsanctioned individuals like the Stoli. "
(Agreeing with you and clarifying what I meant)

It sure seemed hostile when you replied with, " 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 ... "

It sure seemed like you were being hostile and intentionally difficult/nitpicky. Still think you were being kind of nitpicky. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though and assume you didn't mean to be difficult or hostile. It does seem like we don't have a good natural communication.

[Alonso Quixano]

34 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said:

 

That was an unauthorized action when he was a noob and resolved as a disciplinary and diplomatic matter. The Imperium does not make every small dispute a public matter.

 

So that makes him not a rogue, because he was a noob? That seems like a cop out, he is a rogue, or not based on his actions. Based on your description he was a rogue, and is now no longer a rogue. 

 

Just like your matter that was handled via diplomatic channels, so was our incident, handled via private matters. Just because ours was a sizable nation, does not mean he does not get a "pass" like your nation on being a rogue. His first war was over him losing trades, your nation actually has a ton of raids on nations, has done much more damage than my nation has. 

 

So. I can't fathom how your nation is not a rogue, but mine is. 

[Rayvon]

24 minutes ago, Canik said:

Okay I get what you're saying and how it supposedly wasn't a threat. But again - it wasn't me who labelled his member a rogue (not until that comment anyway, and Alonso hadn't replied to it yet). In that comment I was replying to Alonso but he was replying to Al Bundy, not me. So your example was confusing. If you still don't understand, then I guess we're just not capable of understanding each other.

"No threats, no anger, no trolling, no negative."

Well when you 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. "

and I said " Correct, in that case it would be considered an act of war. I'm just talking about unsanctioned individuals like the Stoli. "
(Agreeing with you and clarifying what I meant)

It sure seemed hostile when you replied with, " 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 ... "

It sure seemed like you were being hostile and intentionally difficult/nitpicky. Still think you were being kind of nitpicky. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though and assume you didn't mean to be difficult or hostile. It does seem like we don't have a good natural communication.

 

I was being nitpicky and trying to stay out of the specifics of the current situation while not knowing the entirety of it, I was only responding to specifically the part I cut out and quoted regarding the rogue definition. I admitted as such (http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/130061-the-protectorate-reaches-two-million-ns/&do=findComment&comment=3496995) while trying to assure you I intended you no threat or trying to be hostile. I was only picking up the ancient rogue definition discussion and speaking only towards the rogue definition discussion. Any hostility in my tones, are annoyances from Junka and his never ending sputum. FTW and NSO have no beef, historical or otherwise.

Edited January 1, 2017 by Rayvon

[Blackatron]

1 hour ago, Alonso Quixano said:

 

Then please label this nation for me. http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=597174

 

 

He hit Rey, he did admin's work.

[The Zigur]

59 minutes ago, Alonso Quixano said:

 

So that makes him not a rogue, because he was a noob? That seems like a cop out, he is a rogue, or not based on his actions. Based on your description he was a rogue, and is now no longer a rogue. 

 

Just like your matter that was handled via diplomatic channels, so was our incident, handled via private matters. Just because ours was a sizable nation, does not mean he does not get a "pass" like your nation on being a rogue. His first war was over him losing trades, your nation actually has a ton of raids on nations, has done much more damage than my nation has. 

 

So. I can't fathom how your nation is not a rogue, but mine is. 

 

Your nation launched his wars before he was a PoSSE member, therefore the consequences of those wars (retaliation from AW) were outside your jurisdiction until you elected to involve yourself by accepting him. I take responsibility for the actions of my member as he is subject to the Imperium's disciplinary proceedings if any unauthorized actions are taken.

 

The amount of damage done is inconsequential. As I stated, our members are authorized to attack nations close to the state of nature (i.e. on none, or not protected). Nations close to the state of nature are not civilized by definition; violations of this policy are met with disciplinary proceedings in line with the severity of the offense.

 

If you resolved the situation privately, it would not have blown up into this huge public discussion. You decided it to make it a public scandal by making public ultimatums, thus we are all discussing it. I suspect it is your decision to act in such an aggressive public matter that has made Alpha Wolves upset.

Edited January 1, 2017 by Immortan Junka

[Alonso Quixano]

Restitution has been made to those affected nations from the original attacks, as agreed with Alpha wolves. Our member, whom did the original attacks, donated to each affected nation as well, as a sign of us good will, and willingness to show this was not an act of roguery, but one of misguided attacks.  

 

I want to thank Al Bundy, and malakarlian for reaching peace over an unfortunate situation that was started partly because of the protectorates ideals, and philosophy. I also want to thank everyone who participated in this discussion on the definition of rogue, and raider. It was a healthy discussion that produced one of the longer threads in recent history, and despite the veracity of opinions on the subject that were shared we throughly enjoyed the discussion. 

[Lord Hitchcock]

I'm glad you guys reached 2 million NS without poaching, like animalz 

[Morphine]

31 minutes ago, Alonso Quixano said:

Restitution has been made to those affected nations from the original attacks, as agreed with Alpha wolves. Our member, whom did the original attacks, donated to each affected nation as well, as a sign of us good will, and willingness to show this was not an act of roguery, but one of misguided attacks.  

 

I want to thank Al Bundy, and malakarlian for reaching peace over an unfortunate situation that was started partly because of the protectorates ideals, and philosophy. I also want to thank everyone who participated in this discussion on the definition of rogue, and raider. It was a healthy discussion that produced one of the longer threads in recent history, and despite the veracity of opinions on the subject that were shared we throughly enjoyed the discussion. 

Are we safe to assume this is really over with? The only reason I ask is because of the new wars started this morning. 

Edited January 2, 2017 by Morphine

[Alonso Quixano]

18 minutes ago, Morphine said:

Are we safe to assume this is really over with? The only reason I ask is because of the new wars started this morning. 

 

Yes, that's why I said "I want to thank Al Bundy, and malakarlian for reaching peace over an unfortunate situation". 

[Morphine]

Just now, Alonso Quixano said:

 

Yes, that's why I said "I want to thank Al Bundy, and malakarlian for reaching peace over an unfortunate situation". 

Well - earlier in the thread, Al posted that he accepted PoSSe's offer and then AW was hit again so - I dont know what to think.

[Alonso Quixano]

5 minutes ago, Morphine said:

Well - earlier in the thread, Al posted that he accepted PoSSe's offer and then AW was hit again so - I dont know what to think.

 

I suppose to finish out this thread in the spirit it started, with sharing message, and discussing things in public instead of private.

 

 

To: Alonso Quixano    From: Al Bundy    Date: 1/1/2017 5:00:23 PM

Subject: Morning hit

Message: Peace terms are still agreed upon, thank you for sending the aid to the nation involved in the attack this morning.

I hope no further incidents occur.

Al

 

 

 

 

So now hopefully your mind is laid to rest, about an ally agreeing, and finishing out peace. 

[Morphine]

1 minute ago, Alonso Quixano said:

 

I suppose to finish out this thread in the spirit it started, with sharing message, and discussing things in public instead of private.

 

 

To: Alonso Quixano    From: Al Bundy    Date: 1/1/2017 5:00:23 PM

Subject: Morning hit

Message: Peace terms are still agreed upon, thank you for sending the aid to the nation involved in the attack this morning.

I hope no further incidents occur.

Al

 

 

 

 

So now hopefully your mind is laid to rest, about an ally agreeing, and finishing out peace. 

Hopefully everybody will hold up their end

[Canik]

11 hours ago, Rayvon said:

A rogue is someone who goes off on their own and takes action on their own without sanction from any recognized authority figure.

@ Alonso - this is really the most accurate definition of a rogue.

But rarely does a government sanction a raider that attacks another powerful alliance. Not unless they're prepared to fight about it. So generally my statement is true, if you go raid another alliance your government isn't likely to back you up (because it'd be a clearly aggressive war if there was no good reason for the raid) and that makes you a rogue. And that is the most common way people end up being declared rogues.

You can say it's subjective and hypocritical and maybe it arguably is on some levels but I've dealt with a loootttt of rogues in my time. Both from and against my alliance and it's really been pretty orderly, consistent and very very rarely have I had anyone debate the terminology or anything like that. Most know a rogue when they see it. I'm sure among micros opinions aren't as unified but the bigger alliances have had so much time to get on the same page that a vast majority of them are. If you want to use a different page that's your right but I doubt it will end well for PoSSE in the long term.