Keres Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Galerion said: I thought you were trying to provoke some entertainment for the masses? If not why post at all? Maybe? If you find me entertaining then... thanks? I guess Im just here because Junka is condoning rogue attacks on uninvolved third parties. Hows the broken broom treating you Junka? Have you two moved in together yet? Or does it still live in the trash with its other half? Edited May 21, 2017 by Keres Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 (edited) Sequence of events: 01NOV16: Gibsonator rogues the Global Alliance and Treaty Organization 13APR17: Dochartaigh attacks Shangri La, United Sovereign Nations 24APR17: The Bear Cavalry declares "State of organized chaos." Several TBC members attack Nordreich. 26APR17: I state: "Usually when you attack people it's an act of war." 28APR17: Smurthwaite threatens to attack the Imperium. 11MAY17: Last Nordreich counterattack expires. 13MAY17: Smurthwaite posts spy report against my nation, I retaliate posting Shurukians warchest. 15MAY17: Gibsonator attacks two members of the Imperium. I request that TBC remove the rogue from the AA. 16MAY17: Members of TBC cheer the rogue attack. Gibsonator sanctioned on white team. 20MAY17: Sir Kindle hits Keres several days after the rogue attack begins. The events leading up to today indicates that the OP is indeed in a "state of chaos." I don't see any issues with raiding a rogue AA. Edited May 21, 2017 by Immortan Junka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keres Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 (edited) May 21st 2017: Junka is still the only one who gives a !@#$ Edited May 21, 2017 by Keres Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 That's a lot of dots to connect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 48 minutes ago, Gibsonator21 said: That's a lot of dots to connect No one but yourselves put the dots out there in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Kay Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Immortan Junka said: 15MAY17: Gibsonator attacks two members of the Imperium. I request that TBC remove the rogue from the AA. 16MAY17: Members of TBC cheer the rogue attack. Gibsonator sanctioned on white team. 20MAY17: Sir Kindle hits Keres several days after the rogue attack begins. Missing an important piece of information, Gibsonator membership status at TBC is pending. That's a pretty lame excuse for SNX not to defend their members, you really are pathetic and weak aren't you Junka. Edited May 21, 2017 by Jay Kay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 19 minutes ago, Jay Kay said: Missing an important piece of information, Gibsonator membership status at TBC is pending. That's a pretty lame excuse for SNX not to defend their members, you really are pathetic and weak aren't you Junka. Amazing how you contradict yourself in the same post. Paragraph 1: ISX is in the wrong Paragraph 2: ISX is not defending members against aggression Anyway here's a glimpse back to 2008 IAA: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Kay Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said: Amazing how you contradict yourself in the same post. Paragraph 1: ISX is in the wrong Paragraph 2: ISX is not defending members against aggression Where's the contradiction both are facts: 1) You demanded expulsion of a pending member of TBC, normally unless stated otherwise those in pending do not have membership privileges and protection. 2) You haven't countered the attacker for one of two reasons, either you're weak and protection of your membership is conditional or you believe it is a sanctioned attack and you're weak and refuse to defend your membership with war. Both options lead to you being weak and pathetic. I could have a 3) You probably asked Sir Kindle an ally to escalate with a small counter, rather than defend your own members. Which is also you being weak and pathetic. 2 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said: Anyway here's a glimpse back to 2008 IAA: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, Jay Kay said: Where's the contradiction both are facts: 1) You demanded expulsion of a pending member of TBC, normally unless stated otherwise those in pending do not have membership privileges and protection. 2) You haven't countered the attacker for one of two reasons, either you're weak and protection of your membership is conditional or you believe it is a sanctioned attack and you're weak and refuse to defend your membership with war. Both options lead to you being weak and pathetic. I could have a 3) You probably asked Sir Kindle an ally to escalate with a small counter, rather than defend your own members. Which is also you being weak and pathetic. Actually the facts are that General Gorgoth was planning to send rebuilding aid to Alpha Wolves. She's had to delay that because of this stupid rogue attack by Gibsonator. By all rights we should burn down TBC's entire lower tier because of this rogue attack. However we have attempted diplomacy. You may be the Rebel, but even you can realize how many pointless enemies TBC has created by attacking someone like General Gorgoth, who is popular for helping many nations in need... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphine Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Immortan Junka said: Actually the facts are that General Gorgoth was planning to send rebuilding aid to Alpha Wolves. She's had to delay that because of this stupid rogue attack by Gibsonator. By all rights we should burn down TBC's entire lower tier because of this rogue attack. However we have attempted diplomacy. You may be the Rebel, but even you can realize how many pointless enemies TBC has created by attacking someone like General Gorgoth, who is popular for helping many nations in need... Not taking sides here at all.. but this is like the 19th person you've called The Rebel in the past 2 months. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 31 minutes ago, Morphine said: Not taking sides here at all.. but this is like the 19th person you've called The Rebel in the past 2 months. Lol He admitted he was The Rebel on Discord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Kay Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 2 hours ago, Immortan Junka said: By all rights we should burn down TBC's entire lower tier because of this rogue attack. However we have attempted diplomacy. ...and diplomacy failed, doesn't leave you much options to save face now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keres Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Jay Kay said: Missing an important piece of information, Gibsonator membership status at TBC is pending. That's a pretty lame excuse for SNX not to defend their members, you really are pathetic and weak aren't you Junka. Yep. Typically Rogues that apply for AA membership have always been able to sit in "pending" or "applicant" while they work out their alleged "rogue" status but Junka is too dumb or too noob to realize that. 6 hours ago, Immortan Junka said: Amazing how you contradict yourself in the same post. Paragraph 1: ISX is in the wrong Paragraph 2: ISX is not defending members against aggression Anyway here's a glimpse back to 2008 IAA: Instead of hitting Gibs you go and get me hit... I was pretty much uninvolved... other than a little trash talk... still dont care however an odd strategy dumbass. also 6 hours ago, Jay Kay said: Where's the contradiction both are facts: 1) You demanded expulsion of a pending member of TBC, normally unless stated otherwise those in pending do not have membership privileges and protection. 2) You haven't countered the attacker for one of two reasons, either you're weak and protection of your membership is conditional or you believe it is a sanctioned attack and you're weak and refuse to defend your membership with war. Both options lead to you being weak and pathetic. I could have a 3) You probably asked Sir Kindle an ally to escalate with a small counter, rather than defend your own members. Which is also you being weak and pathetic. He pretty much barged in demanding that Shuru remove Gibs... he was told to $%&@ off. the end. And like I said, rogues have always been allowed to sit as applicants until that is resolved..., It was like that at least since I started in 2008 at least 5 hours ago, Immortan Junka said: Actually the facts are that General Gorgoth was planning to send rebuilding aid to Alpha Wolves. She's had to delay that because of this stupid rogue attack by Gibsonator. By all rights we should burn down TBC's entire lower tier because of this rogue attack. However we have attempted diplomacy. You may be the Rebel, but even you can realize how many pointless enemies TBC has created by attacking someone like General Gorgoth, who is popular for helping many nations in need... Plans change. I planned on leveling up Ivy in Injustice 2... now im here !@#$ talking again... its all your fault... p.s still no !@#$% given 3 hours ago, Jay Kay said: ...and diplomacy failed, doesn't leave you much options to save face now. There was no diplomacy beyond "Do what I want" and the answer was "lol no, $%&@ you" Edited May 21, 2017 by Keres Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 There wasn't a "pending status" in 2008. No one could be removed from an AA involuntarily so there was no way of stopping rogues from wearing the AA they wanted to and therefore it made no sense to hold an alliance accountable for them unless doing so had wider political benefits. At any rate, someone willing to start a war over a pending nation should just do a war frogdammit. Pull your finger out, Junka! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keres Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 Just now, Auctor said: There wasn't a "pending status" in 2008. No one could be removed from an AA involuntarily so there was no way of stopping rogues from wearing the AA they wanted to and therefore it made no sense to hold an alliance accountable for them unless doing so had wider political benefits. At any rate, someone willing to start a war over a pending nation should just do a war frogdammit. Pull your finger out, Junka! I mean in general people would do the whole "NPO Applicant" or whatever thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 At the time there wasn't a physical way of removing anyone from sitting on an NPO Applicant AA. You ask them to leave or you could attack them until they left but you couldn't force them to leave if they didn't care. Alliance management didn't come in until 2013. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keres Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 Just now, Auctor said: At the time there wasn't a physical way of removing anyone from sitting on an NPO Applicant AA. You ask them to leave or you could attack them until they left but you couldn't force them to leave if they didn't care. Alliance management didn't come in until 2013. I used NPO but all AAs were doing that. Point was generally people back then could sit on that until they were let in the AA.. which is basically the same as the "Pending status but yeah I agree and I know. However we just didnt give enough of a !@#$ about Junka to do what he basically tried to force us to do... hes just some weak dumbass and we're not going to do what he wants us to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 Only point I am making is a precedent from that time lacks the element that there actually was no option to remove someone if they chose not to be removed, whereas now there is such an option. Whether or not an alliance is willing to go to war to defend its distinctions about which pending members have alliance protection and which do not is entirely up to their own testicular fortitude and willingness to take risks. I suspect Junka's is not particularly strong here if animalz is willing to counter but ISX is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 (edited) It is difficult to see a distinction between Gibsonator and the rest of their AA when Gibson was a major figure in TBC and all of their active posters are in support of his attacks. However, there has been a measured response to the proto-terrorism coming from TBC and I think we have handled their aggression fairly thus far. I am generally anti-war whenever possible but the real issue here is TBC's overall erratic behavior which has been an issue before ISX was targeted. This whole "Junka is weak" rhetoric doesn't help either though, and leaves little room for reasoned diplomacy. Edited May 21, 2017 by Immortan Junka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keres Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 Just now, Immortan Junka said: It is difficult to see a distinction between Gibsonator and the rest of their AA when Gibson was a major figure in TBC and all of their active posters are in support of his attacks. However, there has been a measurable response to the proto-terrorism coming from TBC and I think we have handled their aggression fairly thus far. I am generally anti-war whenever possible but the real issue here is TBC's overall erratic behavior which has been an issue before ISX was targeted. This whole "Junka is weak" logic doesn't help either though, and leaves little room for reasoned diplomacy. Again, why would we condemn Gibs? we dont give a $%&@ in general, much less about you or your demands specifically. The fact people like him more than they do you must hurt. So then you decided to go and ask your second rate, sloppy seconds leftovers to rogue TBC... you're being a pussy Junka. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 (edited) This situation of TBC members attacking other AAs, including Nordreich, Shangri-La, and USN, is remarkably similar to Alonso Quixano's raids before he went inactive. TBC has no legitimacy currently (i.e. state of chaos) and should be considered a valid raid target. Edited May 21, 2017 by Immortan Junka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keres Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 3 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said: TBC has no legitimacy currently (i.e. state of chaos) and should be considered a valid raid target. For your whores because you're being a massive. !@#$@#$. pussy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 (edited) If you genuinely believe this situation to be this way, why aren't you defending your alliance? Is it dereliction of duty, cowardice, or are you making statements about this situation that you believe to be untrue and therefore see no need to risk anything to back up? Edited May 21, 2017 by Auctor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 Just now, Auctor said: If you genuinely this situation this way, why aren't you defending your alliance? Is it dereliction of duty, cowardice, or are you making statements about this situation that you believe to be untrue and therefore see no need to risk anything to back up? I would suspect it has something to do with the fact an actual reprisal could be met with one from TBC's end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted May 21, 2017 Report Share Posted May 21, 2017 Surely if they're just rogues, they wouldn't be capable of organizing a counter to the mighty ISX? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts