BringMeTheHorizon

It's not

Today marked something that not everyone in Monsters Inc thought we were going to do, not something I assumed they could achieve before I joined them. It's been a long bumpy ride from our respective homes over a year or two ago we've come together in an alliance called Riot Society. All we wanted to do was be our own little home for ourselves, by ourselves, and we achieved that. We had members who caused us to be raided for our raids (nothing has changed), outspoken members, and members who we went to bat for getting them off ZI lists, and defending them when they were on ZI lists. To defending our raids, and to making fools of ourselves. To poaching our raids, to making them realize that being raided is not the worst thing to ever happen to them. Almost all of the original members of Monsters Inc were in Riot Society at one point in time, but Monsters Inc has become so much more than we thought it could become. Now this isn't for anyone else, but for ourselves, and to say that no matter what we do, what we've done, we'll continue to eat our vegetables, and looking both ways before we cross the street. I'd also like to give a shout out to Kashmir, especially yolo; as well as Kaskus, especially Unknown Smurf. Now i'd like to give a special shout out to each individual nations on our AA, because without you guys we'd never have been able to get over a million with as reckless as we are. Jonesing - You're new, but you bring a different aspect that we're not used to. We've always been small nations with a ton of nukes in those tiers. Not that you or I are huge NS means, but it's a different aspect for us as an alliance than what we are used to. Lord Caparo - I don't know why but you want to keep me in this game, mostly for giving out aid, and helping plan things. So I'm not sure if I should thank you here. - [9:02pm] Razorade: BM|Away [9:02pm] Razorade: i said more than aid [9:02pm] Razorade: i said your experience, your activity and basically how easy you are to talk too for everyone He did say more than what I posted! Shave N Haircut - What a wild ride, we've been working together for almost two years now. I'm still nto sure why you listen to me, and my crazy ideas. Septimoose - You joined today, so that's cool! Kingneptune - I remember you back from Riot when I had to go to Fark, and see if I could get them to stop attacking. You're a good fighter, and keep us all feeling light hearted over on our ten announcements per day. roochi - We got you from TPC when we mass raided them, and you nuked me on your first try, which isn't bad. I'm glad you joined us, and I think you are too. VitaminTHC - Again, why you follow me around i'll never know. One of the coolest, most chill kids i've ever met. You're not the only one of my raids i've poached, I'm glad I raided you. Hombre Sabio - I'm glad you nuked NPO for the fact that you left Order of the Rose, and joined us. I think you'll like our different kind of play. Empress Bella - We've had our difference, huge differences, but you're a decent person; though we can both agree, $%&@ LSF Asero - I feel like I should know you better, but we seem to have never really interacted which is weird, but hey you seem like you know what you're doing on our announcements. Kim Jung Su - The very first person I raided/poached. I stole you away from an alliance called Central Powers, as I did with Vitamin THC. Actually I had your AA raided, and half of you joined, you were by far the most out spoken, and most influential in our beginning days if Riot Society. I'll sit your nation well while you finish school. Good luck, kid. Natefire - I know you were a raid who joined, don't very talkative, but hey you get a shout out anyways. Mansheim - You seem like a fun kid, always active, and always coming up with new ideas for our AA. I'm not sure if you were in Guinness or joined Riot Society later before it disbanded, but i'm glad you joined. You'll be a good gov member for a long time to come. Lord Hitchcock - You're a !@#$@#$ loud mouth idiot on the OWF, but I have a soft spot for you. You joined Riot Society, and took it to your heart, and cared about it (I think more than I did). You have taken what I started, and continued it to heights I never imagined a rag tag band of raiders, poachers, and miscreants could go. ericsw123 - I have no idea who you are, you're active though, so you get a shout out. killak1234 - I almost denied you because of your name, I'm not sure if you made it as a joke at first, but you are not what I imagined when you joined. You're active, and good at following orders. You'll do well here. Captain Blackbeard - Brah, no idea who you are. Doug Henning - It's !@#$@#$ doug, what else needs to be said? SaltyRichard - You wrote our charter so i'll blame you for our recent raid problem; other than that you're majorly active, and want us to be a very streamlined alliance from the top down. You have good ideas, and I hope you keep bringing them up to keep making us better. Argon Targaryen I - Never before have I seen a completely new nation want to learn the game, and want to try their hand in government so fast. You even came up with ideas for deputies that they must be under 150 days old. I hope you get to be gov soon, and I can't wait to see what you do. Gaston - New kid, grasps the game. Soft spoken as one can be on a text based game, does his duty in tech deals, follows orders, and only speaks up when needed. Perfect member for any alliance. Alaric I - Besides MI6, I think I'm the best poacher out there. I'm glad you joined, i'm sure you're glad you joined as well. Activity, fun, and aid. I promised you it all, and you got it all. Emperor Abandon - Joined with me during my retirement home spin, and you've followed me ever since. You're a good kid. Need to be a slight bit more active in our announcements then just with me in PMs. Everyone else, you're very new to me, and please don't be upset if I didn't get to you. I hope to get to know you soon because you are the nations that make Monsters Inc what it is. An active alliance who puts it's members first. I know most people think we'll crash, and implode eventually. We know's maybe they're right, maybe we wont, but I'm glad that we're still going at it. Here we are at a million NS, even though some nations are half our NS we like to think that we've crossed a milestone that no one ever thought we would be able to do. We'll continue to $%&@ up, and move on like we've always done. Thank you to everyone that we've met on the way, and hello to everyone else we'll meet on our way.

I do find it pretty hilarious that you guys thought the same thing we did, because the ceasefire didn't come from us, and we were told you were in support of it, or at least ok with it. So we naturally assumed that when you guys started attacking us it was just a ruse at buying time to move more people int peace mode, or to get more people ready for more attacks; while we didn't nuke or attack anyone it worked out more in your favor.

NSF capitulated so fast, and hard it was just plain old sad. Though according to saxplayer that was the reason SN-X was formed.

Go talk to sabcat.

Golly jee, king zog. There you go making stuff up again.

If you mean understanding that they are one, and that they both agreed to a ceasefire, and LSF breaks it, when MInc was about to agree to reps and pay. Then we must consider SWF to be the main offenders of breaking the agreement to pay reps as well. Then I think we understand quite well that SWF broke the deal to pay reps for peace between us.

Well actually LSF sent new attacks during the cease fire we had in place, SWF has been he only one to hold to the ceasefire, as of right now before our final round of talks tonight 6 pm. To my knowledge LSF was apart of this ceasefire in place. So if we take the knowledge that LSF is SWF, and vice versa. SWF failed to keep the ceasefire while we negotiated a final rep number that was being gotten ready to be paid by myself. Also it depends on how we view the new attacks via LSF, they can claim all they want to be one alliance, we can choose how we see it. We're not apart of their little club, and we see them as two different AAs, but if they want to be viewed as one their MDPs already were triggered.

They don't because they line you are quoting from me says that it was taken from the DoE, and subsequently removed via our new charter. Something you're quoting from LH has yet to be updated or even added to our internal policy. So no they are not conflicting. One was something removed entirely that someone was quoting as fact. The other is something that hasn't beed added or updated. Though I thank you for your continued scrutiny of our charter. One say's explicitly what, and one is implicit. I hope you know the difference. The explicit one was removed via a new charter instead of guidelines from our DoE. I would like to thank Sabcat for being easier to work with than SWF, in understanding the fact that some of our leaders are no readily available to partake in our little war, has been in this whole situation.

That line was in the DoE of Monsters Inc. That was when they were six members big, with no charter. Just a "set rules". That was changed awhile ago, just never announced via the OWF, as I mean really, who wants to read a charter update on the OWF? The line has nothing to do with us now, or in our charter, or any part of written down internal policy. He would have been right going just off of the DoE, but if we go off of everyone's DoE ever, a lot of charter's or first set of rules will always look different than what they have now.

You're right, I said charter in the OP, and I was wrong. That doesn't negate that we didn't break our charter. Words have meanings, and I use the wrong word giving the wrong meaning to the world, in having them assume that our charter had that clause in it. I should have used internal bill, procedure, policy other than charter. Charter was a place holding word for the something that is technically an internal policy. As LH pointed out, it's not in the charter yet, but it will be. So even if we go by the current charter we have now, there is nothing wrong, and even with our internal procedure there is nothing done wrong by our members. So if we can agree that I messed up using the word charter in the OP, we can move on to agreeing we did not break our current charter as found on our forums, even with our internal procedure. So there shouldn't be anymore debate about that.

Rational is saying for peace to be achieved we need to edit our charter; in addition to other things? Now The other things aren't bad, and we can handle, but is it rational of them to force us to change our charter for peace?

Actually please show me where we violated our charter? Where are you getting that from? Because I do not see that in our charter, if you'd like the most current version of our charter you can go to our forums. Where it actually says nothing about what you are talking about. For your information http://montersincorporated.proboards.com/thread/56/monstrous-charter?page=1&scrollTo=465 posted before the wars with the last edits before the raids, have fun admitting you had no idea what you were talking about in regards to our charter. Thank you in advanced. If I posted one third of what people have wanted me to post from our alliance i'd have been banned forum wise. Also, if anyone wants to know the latest peace talks, SWF demands that we change our charter for peace to write in something that specifically guarantees that we change our policy of "picking on" smaller alliances. Because as of right now there is nothing in our charter about tech raiding, but if you listened to King Zog we have broken our chrater. So it's weird that SWF wants something in our charter for peace that actually limits our ability to declare raids. Golly Jee, King Zog, why do you think that is? Misinformed about the attempted extortion is the only thing you've been right about so far. As soon as I found out, I apologized for them, and unilaterally banned that person from raiding. Now some people may think that's not enough. I say, simply, you have your way you'd like to do things, we have ours.

This was the first time I was shown these extortion claims to be true. This is unacceptable for our nations to try, and do. I have banned super tramp from raiding for one month, and I want to apologize for his behavior. I have no qualms with raiding, but extortion for peace (which happens a lot from others) is not something I agree with. It's not something I've done, or will ever do, and I hold the same position with those in my alliance. I will never apologize for raiding, but I will apologize that your one nation was held at random for tech, and no nukes. This will also weigh in our decision on how his ends. I do thank you for finally showing me these screenshots that's I requested. I am truly sorry for what he did/said. Though that doesn't change our stance on the retaliatory attacks on our other nations.

You're right about Monsters Inc nations raiding a target. That target did not launch any other attacks, two different (no the one who was raided) SWF nations then attacked two uninvolved monster inc nations. Then three more after an Monsters inc did the same as the SWF retaliation. So that leaves us at Two raids, and on retaliation to the retaliation, a grand total of three wars declared by Monsters Inc. Then five retaliatory wars by non raided SWF members. For total of 3-5 wars declared with SWF declaring more. No qualms with them declaring more. We regarded it as such that we (the raiders) went to SWF for peace first, they said reps or nothing, saying we shouldn't be surprised they attacked. So I wonder what would have happened if we didn't go to them first, and waited for them. Would we have seen more, and more declarations on our nations? We weren't going to wait, and find out. We were happy to walk away with them doing more damage to us then we did to them, with reps to both original two nations on both sides that were attacked out of the blue. Rejected by SWF.

I'm not blaming them for defending their AA, i'd have gone about it in a different manner, but I can't/won't fault them. What you see as is our responsibility to pay our way out is not entirely wrong. They declared 5 wars to our three, initially, doing more damage than or raid combined. Is that not enough? Also, LSF holding a DMT/MDAP with SWF has more than enough fire power with them via treaties to help SWF with, bringing more to the table than we can.

The difference between a tech raid, and alliance war being?

Would you like screen shots of where I said i'd pay reps? I want peace, but not at the expense of those who were not involved in the tech raid. I didn't know I was playing the victim, thank you for telling me, i'd have been at a loss otherwise.

Actually, we tried peace first. They wanted reps, for their nations that were attacked, and I shouldn't be surprised that they attacked. Fine. So I asked for reparations for the two nations they attacked in kind to even it out, they got their pound of flesh, by attacking three more of our nations, and we could all move on. They got their attacks 5 declared against our three, token reps per each, and we go our separate ways. They said no. I then suggested CPCN, someone who SWF, and Minc both trust, and work with, to help us reach a mutually agreeable end to all of this (yes I agree with you) sillyness. So far, SWF has been how do I say, more than unwilling to come to an agreement.

We have a fundamental difference on what we consider tech raids. So Ill take your second statement as confirmation of your attacking of Monsters Inc. Why is it obvious? The followed our charter, and didn't break it. Why should we kick them out? Also we did approach SWF before SWF even approached us, even after they escalated attacks. Did you miss the part where I said we approached them first on how to end this whole raid before it escalated?

It wasn't a war, it was a tech raid. It's now a war because SWF (well within their rights) escalated it into an alliance war. Us liking it, or not liking it has no bearing on what we consider a tech raid, or what turned into a war escalated by SWF. With your interpretation, I can assume I will see LSF tonight?

Now yes, but not in the first place was there an actual alliance war that warrants a DoW, which has been the rhetoric of SWF to spout during our talks with CPCN. I was just fixing your confusion in your post above.

It was never a war in the first place, so please, calm down.

The line says you deal with the consequences, not other members of your AA deal with your consequence. You're right, they are dealing with that consequence of them being attacked. other members of their alliance being attacked. Now that doesn't mean we as an alliance allow non-involved parties to have those consequences pushed upon them, or enforced by SWF who are well within their rights to attack how they see fit. I don't expect them to, but if they wanted reps they could have asked us before attacking un-involved members, and presto reparations paid. They decided to attack, not even get in contact with us. So again I reiterate, that if I had no gone to talk to them after their first initial attacks on un-involved nations, do I then assume that they would have not come to us, and kept attacking us? Or just attacked those nations, and then came to us to end the raids? Though I expect you not to care, and say what ever happens to us or the other nations is our own fault, and I wont fault you for saying that. Though it's misleading, and disingenuous to the nations we all protect in our alliance. Can I ask you plain, and simple. Do we forfeit the right to defend our un-involved nations because of two raids?

Because no one from SWF came to us to ask for reps, except me going to them to ask what we could stop this from escalating. The answer was only reps to the two people who were first raided, and too bad for the ones we attacked in return. Now if they came to us before attacking uninvolved parties, sure, yes, reps for everyone that was initially raided. Just because they choose to attack first before attempting to diplomatically resolve this means we can't defend our members how we see fit? No where are we defending our raiders, we are defending our alliance from more attacks in retribution of our raid. I was even told there should be no surprise that SWF is attacking, and by the time I got in touch with SWF, first may I add, that they had 5 declared wars to our three. Two initial raids, and one nation who was doing the same thing that SWF did, saw coordinated attacks on members, and decided to defend their alliance mates. If you want to see it as implicitly defending our raiders actions, sure, you want to see it that way, and only that way. I wont fault you, because it can be seen that way. What you are blatantly ignoring is that we also have the right to defend our nations (not involved in the tech raid) from escalation as we see fit, just as SWF saw fit. Also, I didn't know you were privy to our internal discussions about the two in question that did the raiding. Now will you ever know what we decided with these two nations no, but what we decide are the consequences for those two nations are what we decide, not SWF or anyone else. Again, as I said in PMs, in embassies, and here. That if there was no escalation to non-involved parties we would have paid reps, had they came to us first. Or even if they just attacked the two raiders in question, there would have been no escalation from us. I don't get where you think we get/have to let SWF attack non-involved parties without trying SWF to get the raids ended, and reparations for their affect nations. We are not ignoring it. Though in your eyes it should be perfectly fine to let SWF attack our non-involved non-raiding nations in turn? I don't want to keep reiterating that or charter was no broken, or that you think it is, must mean that it was. We aren't ignoring our charter, if SWF came to us before escalating, and asked for reps, i'd have paid them to them, simple as that. I will also reiterate that we are dealing internally with our two raiders in question, but we also reserve the right to defend our nations as we see fit, just as SWF did. We have no qualms with how they escalated it. You are right on the first part, I guess, in a round about way. They sent over two attacks on non-involved people, then one of our members seeing two nations attack decided to defend them and attacked SWF, leading SWF to send over three more attacks on non-involved raiders. So before I attempted to clear up this misunderstanding it was 5-3 in declared wars in favor of SWF. Their leader said too bad, your guys got attacked, pay us reps. Now, I would have paid reps if they came to us before sending attacks in turn. Would they have kept sending more, and more attacks against us as they didn't even come talk to us about the raid, and to get reps before hand? Who knows, we weren't going to take that chance. We did not violate our charter. The raid wen't bad, but instead of trying to get reps for their members they decided to attack ours in kind. They then wanted reps for them to stop attacking. I said i'd pay reps for your nations affected form the raid, if you pay reps for the nations affected by your counter attacks. Each nations were un-involved nations at the time. Basically a hey, you go your way, we go our way. Two for two. It's over. He said no to reps for my nations, and only for his. Which is his right, but don't mistake us to roll over, and let him continue to attack our nations which could have been diplomatically solved if they had sent me a PM, or anyone in our government a PM. I am not the leader, your first mistake. Your second mistake is actually thinking our charter is in a public space for SWF to see it. Your third mistake is that the raiders were never attacked in return other nations on our AA were. Let's be honest, if they had come to me, about the raids before attacking, and asked for reps, they'd have them. Period. So, rush, are we to forfeit the right to defend our non raiding nations? Or just say hey, since you got attacked because some one else's mistake we wont defend you, sucks to suck?