Gerald Meanĕ

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='10 May 2010 - 05:26 AM' timestamp='1273465574' post='2293245'] then why all the commotion and hustle to bring up how TBB is a rogue instead of simply stating you are tech-raiding him? that is my issue? if it is simply a tech raid, state it as such. no need to state he is a rogue at all. [/quote] To be honest I don't really know. I haven't been involved in the issue with tbb aside from seeing these threads.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='10 May 2010 - 05:03 AM' timestamp='1273464207' post='2293201'] since Caliph pointed out that what TBB is doing is CN textbook definition of rogue, i decided to point out the CN textbook strategy and precedent of dealing with rogues. neither one involves a third uninvolved party hitting the rogue which is what \m/ is doing. thus, it can be deduced that \m/ likes what Gremlins is doing. [/quote] Except that we aren't dealing with him in so far as he's a rogue, instead as an unaligned nation which happens to fit into our raiding policy. Really what it boils down to is this, tbb took an action that made him unaligned, and that let people who didn't like him raid him. It sucks for him, but why he decided to go it alone instead of working within his alliance, or with other alliances to reach his goal is beyond me considering how well one man stands tend to work out.

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' date='10 May 2010 - 04:53 AM' timestamp='1273463611' post='2293188'] What kind of better things would we do with our time? [/quote] We could plant trees?

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='10 May 2010 - 04:49 AM' timestamp='1273463379' post='2293179'] I know what I see. Whether \m/ worked it out in advance with Gramlins, your actions have the same result. Hell, it just looks bad. Ending the raiding ban...I think everyone knew that was coming some day. Ending it over this? Please. [/quote] The ban ended as we were done in terms of growing what we felt we needed to, and a hilarious target appeared. To be honest I wanted to let cn pick who we were going to raid first, but tbb just had to show up and scream "please raid me if you don't like me".

[quote name='The AUT' date='10 May 2010 - 04:45 AM' timestamp='1273463091' post='2293166'] I didn't see Emperor Marx stating otherwise therefore I took it as some sort of list you guys keep. Though I wouldn't be surprised if you did actually keep one, can I be on it? Pretty please? I just want the attention! [/quote] I'm sure other people have !@#$lists in terms of those they wouldn't mind hitting. As for you I don't think you're !@#$%* enough to be on our !@#$list. You can be on our clean list until such time as you become !@#$%* enough okay? [quote name='ChairmanHal' date='10 May 2010 - 04:42 AM' timestamp='1273462934' post='2293161'] A raid implies if he PMs for peace he will automatically receive it. Telling someone you are going to destroy them eliminates the possibility that they will receive any peace. [/quote] Yea sorry, but I don't ever remember that little nugget. I'm assuming this will be over for tbb when he gets out of range of people who want to hit him. Not sure when that will be though.

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='10 May 2010 - 02:38 AM' timestamp='1273455472' post='2293010'] My actions are those of my alliance. [/quote] An alliance requires more then one entity man. Having an irc, or doe doesn't change the fact that it is only you in your alliance now.

Now just declare war on goons tbb and the circle will be complete.

Totally my bad there.

I think tact/foriegn affairs could exist, but there would have to be something tangible to be able to lose off of them aside from a few pixels. If it were possible to have territories that could be lost to other people or something then players might be willing to be more tactful and so on. Until such time there's very little aside from political gains that are worth getting from tact so why bother.

Somehow this is going to get even more hilarious with the trend it has taken. Shine on you crazy diamonds.

[quote name='ComradeHitochi' date='26 April 2010 - 11:45 PM' timestamp='1272321911' post='2276501'] And were willing to take whatever repercussions for now. Its not that were doing this to spite GGA, as stated before we had pretty good relations with GGA, just a couple differences. I know that I, and many members of wF, definitely agree that they have a right to start their own alliance. That is all. We would protect anyone, if we knew they weren't alliance hoppers and willing/able to do the work necessary to run an alliance. And if we knew them. And if they don't blatantly hate pandas. And if the chosen one, enrage, agrees. [/quote] Well then again hopefully this isn't used against you in the future in any negative way.

[quote name='Enrage' date='26 April 2010 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1272320893' post='2276486'] Which charter did he accept when joining the alliance? The charter before the last coup, or the charter before the other coup, or the charter before the coup from 2-3 years ago? [/quote] The one he was obligated to read and understand before joining the GGA, and from what I understand the GGA did not make a new charter, just changed the existing one. As far as that goes he willingly violated what he was obligated to uphold. The problem here is that you guys don't like the fact that the GGA is acting on that in a way you disprove of, and have decided to intervene in the internal affairs of another alliance. That is a dangerous precedent to set. [quote name='Enrage' date='26 April 2010 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1272320893' post='2276486']War was declared by JB because of a grudge against 2 friends that were displeased by JB's recent actions leading to the formation of RGN. [/quote] War was declared because nations violated the charter to which they signed, and thus I have no problems with it. [quote name='ComradeHitochi' date='26 April 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1272321016' post='2276488'] And were well within our rights to protect whoever the #$*@ we please. They are still well within their rights to attack - and we can choose to defend or not (as can NSO for that matter). [/quote] Then hopefully this precedent does not come to bite you in the $@!. [quote name='ComradeHitochi' date='26 April 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1272321016' post='2276488']Also, as per your earliar post, some other alliances that started with two or less members that we not only recognize, but protect: [url=http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance_stats_custom.asp?Alliance=The%20United%20Incorporated%20Republics]UIR[/url] [url=http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance_stats_custom.asp?Alliance=Midnight%20Order]MO[/url] [url=http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance_stats_custom.asp?Alliance=zealot+confederacy]zC[/url] We started as a 1 man alliance, (insert praise to enrage here), and we know what its like starting out with next to nothing. [/quote] That's fine then in terms of protecting 2-3 men alliances. However you can't deny that they violated their charter, and as such were in turn open to repercussions detailed within.

[quote name='Enrage' date='26 April 2010 - 11:13 PM' timestamp='1272320007' post='2276471'] JB stated war waay before he used his recruiting allegation excuse. He wanted war as soon as Tendo left the alliance.[/quote] And by the charter of the GGA which Tendo accepted when he signed his oath, and is legally obligated to abide by JB is well within rights to act how he pleases.

[quote name='The Compound' date='26 April 2010 - 11:05 PM' timestamp='1272319525' post='2276460'] Since you obviously have mistaken some grammar, I made it bold for you. Aggression is an act of war, but an act of war is not aggression. Just thought I would point that out for you. So if i was poaching, would I be considered "aggressive" towards your alliance? no, but it would still constitute for an act of war. [/quote] If you were actively poaching members I'd say that's an aggressive act. It is one that damages an alliance by taking away members from it, as well as internal disruptions if the members are government.

[quote name='The Compound' date='26 April 2010 - 10:47 PM' timestamp='1272318435' post='2276435'] That is one of their treaties, which the alliance condones. By becoming a member of GGA, the member then must ablidge by the treaties that the alliance has made. If not, then the member could disregard those and attack, lets say, GPA, or some other green alliance. I'm just stating that the membership had to agree to not attack any green sphere alliance, whether they knew it or not. [/quote] The problems are did the people leave the GGA within the confines of their charter that they signed on for, and if how many people constitutes an alliance. In terms of the first one unless the GGA says otherwise I don't believe they did, thus they were still legally bound to abide by their charter, and as I am ignorant in terms of wF's recognition of what constitutes an alliance I don't know many who recognize 2-3 people as an alliance. If wF can show that they've constantly recognized 2-3 man alliances then what they've done in terms of the alliance part is fine.

[quote name='Enrage' date='26 April 2010 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1272317203' post='2276394'] Its in their 'contract' not to commit aggression towards other green alliances. Let GGA Gov (JB) comment on this thread, and let them explain something about interfering [/quote] Can you show me where they have signed onto that then?

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='26 April 2010 - 09:46 PM' timestamp='1272314745' post='2276340'] Well, let me put it plainly for you: We find it to be stupid to hold members in your alliance unless it is war time. Sure, its GGAs right to try to enforce that rule, and its other peoples right to disregard it as retarded and protect those who leave.[/quote] Then it should be noted by everyone else that said people are willing to interfere with other alliances internal affairs. [quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='26 April 2010 - 09:46 PM' timestamp='1272314745' post='2276340']There are certain standards of decency, and someone holding their members at gunpoint so they can cling to whats left of their alliance does not live up to them. It's pretty interesting to see so many people arguing that a few nations who wanted to leave [i]GGA [/i]and make an alliance should be attacked. Really, really interesting lol [/quote] If you willingly sign a contract you are obligated to follow that contract. You can try and spin it all you want, but once they put pen to paper, and agree with those terms they are obligated to follow them. If they don't like the consequences for not following the contract then they shouldn't have signed it in the first place. As for how GGA decides to handle the situation that is up to them, but the fact that others are interfering in their internal affairs is something that should be noted.

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='26 April 2010 - 04:07 AM' timestamp='1272251251' post='2275401'] no one will accept "leaving without permission" as a valid cause to attack a nation unless it is during wartime, [/quote] I do provided it is expressly shown in the charter, and the members know about it before joining. If that's the case then I would say there is a valid case to be taken against the nations going against what they signed on for.

[quote name='The Compound' date='26 April 2010 - 03:11 AM' timestamp='1272247894' post='2275267'] Lol, i like how you use those logs to back your point. I am not gov, i do not represent the actions of the government, what i say does not matter. get over it. Go back to your corner and mope around. [/quote] I must say that's rather double edged action man. Do that to someone with connections, and you could cause some bad things happening. If I were gov I'd make sure you know not to do something like that again.

[quote name='Paladin Kiwi' date='26 April 2010 - 03:04 AM' timestamp='1272247422' post='2275256'] If you think that a "unified" green is one ruled by the GGA, you are sorely mistaken. [/quote] Do you have anything that points towards them attempting to rule a unified green?

[quote name='Paladin Kiwi' date='26 April 2010 - 02:59 AM' timestamp='1272247152' post='2275247'] Well we'd appreciate GGA not declaring war on a 3 man alliance. Oh, and yes, that alliance, RGN, is a [b]Green Team Alliance[/b]. We don't want Green on Green action. [/quote] Well in terms of that then you may want to actually have some semblance of agreement between all members of green on that policy. Seems rather pushy to be touting who can declare on who if you're a part of green.

[quote name='Baltus' date='26 April 2010 - 02:50 AM' timestamp='1272246610' post='2275231'] Well, that may be your opinion, but I do believe that the majority of green and Bob agree that you're not helping unify green, to be sure. [/quote] What exactly is being attempted in terms of a unified green?

Congrats on the elections, and thanks for the dinner and a show with how this threads turned out.

[quote name='Methrage' date='20 April 2010 - 08:23 PM' timestamp='1271791416' post='2267927'] Did Gerald's tech raid on me that went nuclear have an effect on you guys making this decision? That raid certainly didn't turn out to be profitable, although as much as I'd like to take credit for this, I'm sure other factors were involved as well. He was \m/ triumvir as far as I know, so it might of impacted him coming to his choice on the matter. [/quote] In terms of profit it was amazingly successful in what I was trying to gain, and to be honest were I still in range of you by the end of my war I'd have done round 2.

[quote name='Methrage' date='16 April 2010 - 06:22 AM' timestamp='1271395350' post='2262343'] Its still possible I could get more, doesn't take that much aid to rebuild to 1k infra. When fighting Fark I rebuilt from under 1k several times to get more nukes and I didn't have much of a warchest then either. [/quote] Well then it should be interesting to see who aids you secret or not.