Vhalen

[quote name='CubaQuerida' timestamp='1281749132' post='2415171'] What NB / Porkshrmp / BasktballN / TFD does is not war and is not in the least bit respectable. You have perpetually taken advantage of the fact that the round is only 60 days long and one nuke can disable up to 10% of a nation's collect. Therefore you can call yourselves underdogs, non-cowards or whatever you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you only hide for 50 days just to declare on people who are high NS, send one nuke at the 55 day mark, and then log off. I have YET to find any of these rogues worth fighting and it's just sad that TE has to come down to this rogue-witchhunt every round. Reminds me of Al Qaida... Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings, honestly I'd be surprised if you are even checking your nation or the forums at this point! [/quote] In my experience, the round is effectively 45 days long, and then you have a 15 day cycle where you do your best to ward off a curbstomp. You mean that's not everyone's experience? Some people get 55 days? That's just...just...unfair! Shenanigans! *grabs a broom*

[quote name='commander thrawn' timestamp='1281675561' post='2413964'] Can I make a thread whining about how RE are bigger than us? [/quote] Feel free, but expect a comment about how you guys are 63 times bigger than me (by nations) or 36 times (by NS). That is, if I bother looking at the forums again before the round's over. I do have you in average NS, though. Also, why is it nobody can carry on a conversation in TE? I've had the most boring wars here. I say things, nobody replies. What's the deal? Is it in your little "how to" handbooks to be utterly silent? Are you afraid I'll get into your heads?

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1281140696' post='2403274'] The nations on none are exactly that, without the AA because of reasons not under their control. [/quote] And perhaps, if you (by which I mean PC) had presented this thread as such initially, it wouldn't be attracting the comments it's getting. *shrugs* I can't help but think you've chosen this course on purpose, and actually wanted these nations (theoretically your protectorate) to be raided, in the hopes to present you with the opportunity to war an alliance you vastly overpower. Call me cynical if you want (you're probably right, but it's justified). [quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1281245084' post='2404329'] Ironic that one of the protected nations is actually being raided by a member of Poison Clan. [/quote] It was only a matter of time. Hopefully he's unreasonable and they declare war on themselves. That should make for some pretty phenomenal amusement, right?

[quote name='sammykhalifa' timestamp='1280940779' post='2400793'] That's nothing, you should see what they are doing to OUR alliance. It's okay though. I'm working on a plan to destroy them from within. [/quote] They'd do well not to underestimate your plan. I mean, look how well it worked on Iunctus.

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1280220463' post='2391034'] Too bad it isn't in itself a moral position. Whoops! Absolute truths and facts do exist. Absolute morality does not. If all you can come up with to counter the objective truth of moral relativism is "lol dats an absolute claim ownd!!" then you need go back to the drawing board. Phoning it in again? [/quote] Your claim that absolute morality does not exist is, in itself, assuming knowledge you cannot possibly have. I assume, from your continued protests that O-dog provide evidence, that you can cite some sort of universal law proving your side of the debate? Somehow I doubt it. [quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1280233225' post='2391115'] If all you're going to do is throw around nice-sounding words and hope that you've included a decent argument somewhere in the mess then I'm done here. You ask questions and answer them as a rhetorical device - too bad the answers you provide for them (or anything else for that matter) aren't backed up or explained in any way. Get back to me when your debating style consists of more than arguing by thesaurus. [/quote] To be fair, he's debating someone whose style apparently consists entirely of yelling, "Nuh uh! Prove it!" without the validation of having scientifically proven his own assertion first.

[quote name='lebubu' timestamp='1280175135' post='2390027'] Unfortunate. I'll miss GGA comedy threads. [/quote] Don't worry. There are plenty of promising alliances eager to step into their shoes.

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1280073917' post='2388359'] That's not what you said, idiot. That post has nothing to do with alliances over/under a certain size. [/quote] Well, yes, I suppose my previous post didn't quite baby-feed you enough, which is understandable. I tend not to dumb myself down past a certain point, but rather assume the reader aware of the subject matter, and capable of drawing simple inferences, such as that [i]raiders tend to regard alliances beneath a certain membership as effectively unaligned[/i]. I apologize for using such shortcuts, and in the future, I will attempt to provide kindergarten-level translations when speaking to you. [quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1280097225' post='2388793'] Umm...huh? I think this entire thing as pretty much proven the RPC isn't successful. [/quote] Another example of your stellar cognizant abilities. Why do I feel like quoting MattPK, all of the sudden?

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1279918985' post='2386535'] What are you blathering on about? Raiders don't recognize none as an alliance because...it's not. When you put none as an alliance affiliation you're saying...wait for it...you're not affiliated with an alliance. It's amazing isn't it? [/quote] Obviously, the AA comparison was directed toward "alliance below a certain size," and not "none." Hmm, that little overlooked detail on your part invalidates your entire post. It's amazing isn't it? [quote name='Daikos' timestamp='1279927950' post='2386690'] I've read a lot of nonsensical statements during my time on this Planet but this is really competing for one of the top spots on the list. You should be careful, if you loosen your grip on reality anymore you might float away entirely. [/quote] I wonder if the inability of the common reader to recognize satirical commentary is a sign of a deeper problem. Alas, we may never know.

First off, I see post after post of "Why is red special? We raid such-and-so, and blah blah blah." When organized, large-scale campaigns of raiding are conducted on the other spheres, perhaps this will be valid. Until then, shut up. You know who you are. Moving on. [quote name='wickedj' date='20 July 2010 - 02:44 AM' timestamp='1279608259' post='2380197'] Pssst..that didnt work out so well last time itll work even worse this time [/quote] Clearly, NpO's mistake was to declare a war, when they should have simply explained that they don't recognize alliances with certain names, and declared it a large-scale tech raid on unaligned nations. Obviously, by \m/ standards, nobody would have anything to complain about, and the only possible recourse would be for allies to try to negotiate for ending the raids. After a few cycles of raids, it would've ended, with nobody important hurt. Right? [quote name='Ryuzaki' date='20 July 2010 - 12:46 PM' timestamp='1279644380' post='2380797'] I don't believe that individual nations have those rights. They have the right to exist and the right to join an alliance, but that is about it. [/quote] Why do alliances have these rights, then? And why at a specific number of nations? 10 have no rights, 11 are sacrosanct? Isn't that kind of arbitrary? Why not only recognize alliances whose names begin with certain letters of the alphabet, or are over 10 letters long? Perhaps you need to review your entire code from the ground up. It seems inherently flawed. Oh, here's your reasoning, though you don't state it aloud: [quote name='Bob Janova' date='20 July 2010 - 02:47 PM' timestamp='1279651659' post='2381031'] Maybe not directly, but the only reason \m/ is able to pull stunts like this is through the power of SF backing them up. [/quote] Raiding is an inherently cowardly activity, organized raiding campaigns even more so. And when someone has to limit themselves to attacking weaker unaligned who [i]already have several defensive wars[/i], it speaks a great deal to their character, or lack thereof. You reap what you sow. When the hammer eventually comes down, expect a lot of chirping from the gallery. It'll be well earned.

So, I glance at this topic tonight, and am astonished to see it's 197 pages long. I reflect on my comment (ages ago, it seems) that if this drags out, IRON will be at a distinct advantage (a comment, by the way, that shahenshah pretty aggressively disagreed with). I come to two conclusions: 1) shah probably ought to admit I was right. 2) I'm amazed IRON is still keeping white peace on the table. At this point, it's pretty clear Gre isn't interested in that offer. Might as well start making demands. I know it sounds silly, but if you're not demanding anything, there's nothing you can give up during negotiations.

Personally, I was disappointed by the lack of candy.

[quote name='Shamshir' date='06 April 2010 - 06:24 AM' timestamp='1270553036' post='2250261'] I don't think it's the bottom half you need to be worried about but the nation of IRON. IRON have a way out and the longer they take to surrender the longer this war will draw out. While I can understand that many in CnG + some otherundeserving buggers may be annoyed by the fact they are not getting thier reps. The fact is that they have those reps in the bank. Regardless of what happens to the Grämlins they will get thier reps one way or another. It's how long IRON and DAWN wants to be paying these reps for that will determine when they surrender. If they do which I hope they will. [/quote] Oh, you have it all wrong. I'm not worried about anyone, and would be perfectly content if both alliances ground each other into a fine powder. I was just pointing out that IRON still had military options, despite how their representative posters in this thread make it sound. I thought maybe we could hear a little less about how 60 people are oppressing 350, if I pointed out how easy it is to render much of Gramlins' effective strength useless, and play the numbers game in the middle ranks. But I can see my comments fall on closed ears, so if it makes you feel better, forget I said anything. Feel free to embarrass yourselves at your leisure.

[quote name='Branimir' date='05 April 2010 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1270505218' post='2249600'] Was fun seeing Letum destroy Denial, btw. [/quote] I dunno, I came away with the opinion that they both made utter fools of themselves. [quote name='Letum' date='06 April 2010 - 12:39 AM' timestamp='1270532330' post='2250091'] That is one way to phrase it. The other way to phrase it is that IRON, a war-weary alliance of 3.4m NS, has to fight off a fresh alliance of 3.9m NS and an immense advantage within a certain rank range. For example, IRON only has 20 nations that are [i]within striking range[/i] of the top 37 of Gramlins. With both a numbers and strength disparity, those nations would be toast. IRON has no capacity to force a victory in this war, which means that any resolution rests on whether the Gramlins will shift from their position due to public, rather than military, pressure. [/quote] Of course, this also means that there're a lot of Gramlins members who cannot even attack anyone in IRON (and certainly not anyone in war mode), which reduces the Gramlins' effective strength. Assuming IRON isn't asinine enough to come out of PM in a foolhardy enough fashion as to present juicy 3-on-1 targets (a likely assumption), I'd think the numbers advantage in the middle and lower tiers would give you guys the capability to hand out a fairly effective beating throughout the bottom half of Gramlins, with their possible response being limited by both their topheaviness and their smaller numbers. I suspect that quite a few IRON nations are at NS levels nonrepresentative of their actual strength (tech, military wonders, etc.), which would only make it more one-sided. I wonder how long Gramlins wants its bottom half continually trashed.

The biggest problems with these big federal programs (I include health care, Social Security, welfare, etc.) is that they inevitably turn into a horrible mess. Welfare and unemployment are regularly, deliberately abused. SS is spending more than it's taking in, and likely doomed to eventual failure (those who're currently paying into it aren't likely to see a dime from it, unless something drastically changes). Why should I expect this to turn out differently? I find the arguments comparing it to schools rather interesting (since private schools are almost always better than public ones). I assume we'll see hospital levies on our local ballots? Around here, they're lucky if a school levy ever gets passed, so I imagine we'll be closing most of our hospitals soon enough.

[quote name='ikMark' date='18 March 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1268955278' post='2229658'] Who are you, and what have you done to Chad? [/quote] He's been Chadnapped. There's a reward, so long as you return him before I finish this: [quote name='Atlashill' date='18 March 2010 - 10:17 PM' timestamp='1268965004' post='2229813'] /me sends a case of Boulevard Wheat Ale to each Iunctus member of legal drinking age, and a 12-pack of Virgin Cola to everyone else. [/quote]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='03 March 2010 - 02:04 AM' timestamp='1267600178' post='2212417'] Somehow I don't think you understand the mindset of a raider. [/quote] I think he sums up the typical raider well enough. I've yet to run into one who regularly attacks upward against multiple targets. [quote name='Newhotness' date='03 March 2010 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1267666326' post='2213163'] thats only some raiders. and then there are those who would like to be in an all out alliance war but arent in one so instead they raid, and if the raided nation fights back then hell yeah, its like christmas morning. They get that all out war they wanted, even if its on a smaller scale [/quote] Why would they care all that much if the raided nation fought back? They typically only choose those at the low end of their attack range, who are therefore at a significant disadvantage. They probably also had 3v1 odds in the first place, and can reasonably expect no retaliation from as-yet-uninvolved third parties. So yeah, it's not really like war at all, is it? (Edited for clarity.)

[quote name='Newhotness' date='12 March 2010 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1268372786' post='2223096'] AND, as Don stated, [b]new[/b] friends were made. And im sure [b]new[/b] enemies have been made. so again, nothing new [/quote] On that note, I'm done with this thread.

[quote name='Don Fernando' date='12 March 2010 - 12:15 AM' timestamp='1268371255' post='2223049'] Your not in our shoes, the same as I'm not in yours. I haven't judged you, why do you judge us. Peoples perspective on things changes with the position the set themselves in. I'm just glad i've met new people, and this whole mess got straightened out, despite the troubles we've had trying to get things fixed properly. [/quote] [quote name='Newhotness' date='12 March 2010 - 12:24 AM' timestamp='1268371816' post='2223068'] no, it just means i see it differently than you. as stated before our friends are still our friends and the people that hated us still hate us. The reason why they hate us may have changed, or their hate may have grown stronger, but the fact is they still hate us. So nothing has changed, and if nothing has changed, i see no harm being done by this incident [/quote] I wasn't aware it was particularly judgmental to suggest that anyone with a brain could see where the overwhelming public opinion was. This thread speaks volumes to the fact that, while the two of you may want to pretend otherwise, somebody in PC clearly noticed. And as for "nothing has changed," your comment about friends still being friends, allies still allies, and enemies still enemies...well, it doesn't include those who hadn't any strong opinion one way or another until this incident. So yeah, something's undoubtedly changed.

[quote name='Baldr' date='11 March 2010 - 11:55 PM' timestamp='1268370046' post='2223013'] So after all the "We won't pay reps" talk, PC says they'll pay reps - but they don't say how much. The $210M that was calculated as the damages (which is what your rules say you will do.) The $100M that Echelon asked you to pay at first? The $50 that they asked you to pay later? Less? I think it's good that you've agreed to pay anything at all, but I think it would be fair to post the amount. People are going to see this differently if it's $3M than if it's $200, etc. [/quote] I think the primary reason they didn't say how much is that they were still "discussing that privately" with SBA. [quote name='Newhotness' date='12 March 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1268370717' post='2223027'] just because you see it as bad PR doesnt mean we do. We know that no matter what we do, someone will find a way to say its bad PR. thats just the way things are. BUt that doesnt mean we feel it has had a negative effect [/quote] If you don't see any negative effect, then you're blind. But anyway, good to see the situation finally addressed in a more reasonable manner.

[quote name='Caffine1' date='11 March 2010 - 07:31 PM' timestamp='1268354229' post='2222646'] Regardless of how people outside of PC feel about nuking in techraiding, PC seems to be forbidden from doing so. It just seems a little ridiculous. [/quote] Why let pesky rules get in the way now? [quote name='Rey the Great' date='11 March 2010 - 08:50 PM' timestamp='1268358938' post='2222754'] I guess if nobody redacts his policies within months. It should tell you something when your alliance hasn't had a very successful negotiation/foreign affairs (from some people's perspective) history. Not everyone who opposes you can be wrong, you know. Get new, decent negotiators with more tact. [/quote] It should tell you something when your alliance's position is almost universally considered embarrassing. Not everyone who opposes you can be wrong, you know. Get new, decent posters with more tact.

[quote name='Tick1' date='11 March 2010 - 11:45 AM' timestamp='1268326275' post='2222193'] AirMe, I'm not stating SBA isn't an alliance. I'm clearly saying that SBA is 'SBA' and not Spacebattle Alliance. Poison Clan did raid the alliance SBA, but Poison Clan didn't raid Echelon's treaty partner Spacebattle Alliance. Whether or not people will agree with me doesn't matter the fact is AA doesn't stand for Alliance Acronym Affiliation. [/quote] You know, it really says something about PC's collective intelligence if your best argument is that you were unable to figure out that Spacebattle.com Alliance and SBA were the same thing. [quote name='KingSrqt' date='11 March 2010 - 12:24 PM' timestamp='1268328607' post='2222235'] actually in most if not all instances the old AA is protected by the alliance that was merged into. [/quote] And, in any case, it would be foolish to check with the protector, if you believed that to be the case. [quote name='Supa_Troop3r' date='11 March 2010 - 12:36 PM' timestamp='1268329330' post='2222247'] Not so much, due to DT probes in a rank within our charter and still a member. Some what the same relationship blackwater and the order of the black rose share? From my understanding of that matter. Side note: I don't see what the point of this thread was. Poison clan already stated before this thread, reparations were not going to be paid. So echelon government does what? Post a thread, whining about how ebil Poison Clan is? All this does is try to slander PC and make Echelon out to look like a bunch of cry babies. With that said though. @tick1, your reasoning for the AA, is stretched too far thin. On that note, everyone have a good day. [/quote] It's only slander if it's not true, you know. [quote name='Ruggerdawg' date='11 March 2010 - 12:55 PM' timestamp='1268330464' post='2222263'] If Echelon were trying to extort PC, why would be asking for [i]less than the amount of damages[/i], and why would we be asking that the money only go to the [i][b]affected nations[/b][/i]? This is restitution, not extorting. Now, if the damages caused to SBA were $50mil and Echelon was demanding $200mil, that would be a little closer to extortion. But the damages are $212mil and Echelon is asking that SBA be compensated with $50mil. [/quote] Clearly the affected nations were plants in a 3-year-plus plot to trick PC when they raided, in order to extort about 25% of damages. The masterstroke was how they knew a former member would be contacted, and instructed him to be vague in his answers. An absolutely brilliant plan...and it would've worked too, if it weren't for those meddling kids. [quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='11 March 2010 - 02:02 PM' timestamp='1268334470' post='2222328'] Let see if I understood this properly. You are saying in the middle of a flair up over attacking a small alliance with a treaty, other alliances are planning to do the same thing post war? [/quote] Frankly, if I were running an alliance with a mutual defense treaty with PC, seeing this sort of thing again would be enough to make me seriously rethink it. I wouldn't want to be obligated to step in when they do something even stupider and get called on it. (Which appears to be only a matter of time, given past history and their current thoughts in this matter.) On that note, such plans wouldn't surprise me at all. It would surprise me if the planners didn't put the writing on the wall far enough in advance for displeased treaty partners (those who found themselves reluctantly obligated to defend people who seem hellbent on getting themselves rolled) to disentangle themselves ahead of time, without dishonor.

[quote name='AlmightyGrub' date='11 March 2010 - 01:34 AM' timestamp='1268289604' post='2221917'] I think [b]if everyone was reasonable,[/b] tech raided within the ranks of the unaligned and left it at that, we would all be much happier. The reality is not that alliances are raided, but that the raiding parties seem to take delight in refusing to take any sort of responsibility for it. I will have the greatest respect for \m/ if they behave responsibly, raiding freely but making amends when things go wrong. I will not respect anyone who continues with the ''well what are you going to do about it'' line of defense. Fortunately for PC no one is going to assist Echelon because everyone is kind of busy elsewhere, but this arrogant attitude regarding the trampling of other people's alliances without possible consequence will be called to account one day by someone... I personally wont ever bother again but I am sure someone will. [/quote] Bolded the part where your theory completely falls apart.

[quote name='Earogema' date='11 March 2010 - 01:10 AM' timestamp='1268288129' post='2221887'] Then I shall simply repeat what I've said earlier in the thread. The only logical course is for you to commit to action. Words on the OWF aren't bad, but none of PC's allies seem to have canceled on them. In fact, they seem to have shown quite well that they will support PC in the attack. Either you dig up more incriminating evidence or you attack. The only other option is to stew away angrily and hope that eventually you get enough treaties or the PC cancels on them, but tbh, I doubt Echelon will ever in itself be a threat to PC. Besides, it would only be hypocritical to mock the 6 month Athens CB and then attack on a older CB yourselves. If there are any other possible solutions, you are welcome to try them. Diplomacy seems to be the last measure, and the threat you gave to PC pretty much threw that out of the window. All I can say is that basically this will just ferment until the next global war. Echelon will not act. It is obvious. I'll see you when some protectorate starts a global war for no real reason. Also once again- I'm not saying that this is just or right, simply that it is the only logical course. [/quote] It's certainly A logical course...but not the only one. If you think wars are won and lost on the battlefield, you're sorely out of touch with the reality of CN. The "words on the OWF" that you so quickly dismiss are far more important than you seem to believe. They change opinion, opinion changes alliance relationships, and wars are won and lost. (Besides, constantly looking like an arrogant jack@#$ in public certainly doesn't IMPROVE foreign affairs. Ask NPO.) Look, at best, PC looks careless and sloppy; at worst, malicious, duplicitous, trigger-happy, and arrogant. The former sounds like the kind of alliance that needs to address some leadership issues, and the latter sounds like the sort of ally who eventually gets their friends rolled. If you guys believe it'll ferment until the next global war, all the more reason to settle it with the pittance asked. I mean, you already have Echelon's political opponents arguing for them. Embarrassing.

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='10 March 2010 - 09:32 PM' timestamp='1268275063' post='2221661'] I don't think there is any amount of time at war or destruction that will cure this hatred. [/quote] Well, if everyone involved disappeared, that'd do it. The more pages this grows to, the better that idea sounds, actually. [quote name='MaGneT' date='10 March 2010 - 09:40 PM' timestamp='1268275551' post='2221667'] Read what you're saying! Why would anyone hunt down the forums of alliance they believe to be disbanded? [/quote] Your point's no better than his. Why would anyone check the wiki of an alliance they believed to be disbanded? Or for that matter, the bios? I mean, the AA already reads "Unaligned", right? Tada.

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='10 March 2010 - 04:58 PM' timestamp='1268258645' post='2221287'] No. We must babble about this pointlessly for days, eventually devolving into a discussion of the NpO's attack on \m/ for comparative purposes, before moving on to TOP's reps and....oh, I dunno....throw in a "you're just as bad as 'x' was" comment or two. [/quote] You're just as bad as Zog was. I'm sure if NpO had said their attack on \m/ was a tech raid, this whole last war would've been a long stupid thread discussing the lack of reps...a different situation altogether. Nah, I don't see how it'd come up. [quote name='Jaymjaym' date='10 March 2010 - 06:28 PM' timestamp='1268264017' post='2221413'] I can't believe some of the arguments being used here. My question to the people defending this is, when you take the [b]"They're my ally or my ally's ally" factor out, do you really believe that PC hasn't made a mistake?[/b] Are you really attempting to blame the fact that they did not research enough on Echelon? In the end, Echelon government should have been approached. Wiki said they were disbanded/merged? Most alliances protect the disbanded AA for some time after the fact, which leads to the conclusion of checking with Echelon. Former member said they were no longer treatied? Check with Echelon to confirm. Whatever way you look at the situation, the responsibility lies with the raider to check with the current/former protector to make sure that they are no longer protecting the AA. That said, [b]I don't believe PC did this with any malicious intent.[/b] I also believe that in their eyes, they thought that they had checked all that they needed to. This was nothing more than a simple mistake, however when you make a mistake, you should take responsibility for it and do what's right instead of what's easy. [/quote] Blind loyalty is one of the worst things about Planet Bob. "They're on my side, so they can't have done wrong," is among the stupidest possible approaches, yet you see it all the time. People, it's alright to think for yourself. I promise. You know, I don't think PC was particularly malicious in this either, just being their typical opportunistic selves, and probably a little less careful than they ought to be. Now, on the other hand? Instead of simply acknowledging that both sides had some fault, they'd prefer to make themselves look like a bunch of morons (\m/ has been particularly helpful on that front), they opt to blindfold themselves and mindlessly chest-thump. (Don't get me wrong, it's not like Echelon's approach here has been stellar, either.) Frankly, my favorite thing about threads like this is that it helps me know exactly who I don't want to be associated with. Of course, the list just keeps getting longer...