Jump to content

SLCB Harboring Rogues?


Jorost

Recommended Posts

A few days ago, member nation Kurtopotamia of Seaworthy Liberian Cardboard Boxes (SLCB) launched an unprovoked attack on two Invicta nations. Well, maybe "unprovoked" is not the right word. Certainly Invicta didn't take any military action against SLCB. But, to be fair, our alliance and our Purple Unity brothers did have the temerity to unseat the Stickmen senator, Michiel de Ruyter. So I can see how that might have made Stickmen member SLCB feel a little threatened.

But, to be fair, SLCB carefully and painstakingly looked into the matter. I know they must have done so carefully and painstakingly because of how much time it took them to figure out what was going on. Now, someone might very well suggest that more than 24 hours to establish that a member had gone rogue borders on dithering. Someone might very well suggest that. But I would never say such a thing. :)

But, finally, it was established that Kurtopotamia had not acted with the support of the SLCB government or their allies. It was a pretty straightforward matter of a member who had gone rogue. Easy. We've all been there. Member goes rogue; member is reprimanded and ordered to stand down; member either does so or is ejected from the alliance to be dealt with as the victim's alliance sees fit; and, of course, member is expected to pay reps. These are pretty established procedures between alliances when a member has gone rogue. Easy, like I said. Right?

Well, apparently not. Apparently SLCB has taken it upon themselves to decide that their member – whom they concede was in the wrong by going rogue – does not owe any reps at all:

<Matt-Shovel[sLCB]> Well, sorry, but we aren't paying reps.
<ogodai> Well, we aren't going to pay - with regards to that, my apologies.

<Waltar|Invicta> We've come to a reps number too.

<ogodai> Hooray

<Waltar|Invicta> Yep. As Imentioned to Matt, we're looking for 3m for each nation at Invicta that he attacked.

<Waltar|Invicta> Figure that's fair.

<ogodai> It certainly SOUNDS fair

<ogodai> Well, very sorry.

So, SLCB admits that their member went rogue, and that the reps requested (a paltry $3M for each of the two victims) are fair, but they refuse to pay it. And they continue to harbor the rogue.

Hmm.

You know, someone might very well suggest that such a scenario would be an excellent way to goad an alliance into starting a war. Yes, indeed. Someone might very well suggest that. But of course I would never say such a thing. :) Besides, who would be dumb enough to fall for such a hamfisted ploy?

Certainly not us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 642
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

A few days ago, member nation Kurtopotamia of Seaworthy Liberian Cardboard Boxes (SLCB) launched an unprovoked attack on two Invicta nations. Well, maybe "unprovoked" is not the right word. Certainly Invicta didn't take any military action against SLCB. But, to be fair, our alliance and our Purple Unity brothers did have the temerity to unseat the Stickmen senator, Michiel de Ruyter. So I can see how that might have made Stickmen member SLCB feel a little threatened.

But, to be fair, SLCB carefully and painstakingly looked into the matter. I know they must have done so carefully and painstakingly because of how much time it took them to figure out what was going on. Now, someone might very well suggest that more than 24 hours to establish that a member had gone rogue borders on dithering. Someone might very well suggest that. But I would never say such a thing. :)

But, finally, it was established that Kurtopotamia had not acted with the support of the SLCB government or their allies. It was a pretty straightforward matter of a member who had gone rogue. Easy. We've all been there. Member goes rogue; member is reprimanded and ordered to stand down; member either does so or is ejected from the alliance to be dealt with as the victim's alliance sees fit; and, of course, member is expected to pay reps. These are pretty established procedures between alliances when a member has gone rogue. Easy, like I said. Right?

Well, apparently not. Apparently SLCB has taken it upon themselves to decide that their member – whom they concede was in the wrong by going rogue – does not owe any reps at all:

So, SLCB admits that their member went rogue, and that the reps requested (a paltry $3M for each of the two victims) are fair, but they refuse to pay it. And they continue to harbor the rogue.

Hmm.

You know, someone might very well suggest that such a scenario would be an excellent way to goad an alliance into starting a war. Yes, indeed. Someone might very well suggest that. But of course I would never say such a thing. :) Besides, who would be dumb enough to fall for such a hamfisted ploy?

Certainly not us.

Talk to Waltar please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...