Vhalen
-
Posts
626 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Vhalen
-
-
[quote name='Aeternalis' date='09 March 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1268178269' post='2219851']
and what happens if they don't pay?
[/quote]
Hopefully it'll establish a precedent where someone can just go edit a wiki then treat it as fact. That'll be fun, won't it?
What if PC suddenly discovers its protectorates are no longer protectorates, or maybe some treaties suddenly disappear. As long as you have a wik screenshot taken around the time of the attacks, it shouldn't be a problem, right? Certainly PC wouldn't want reps for their "protectorate."
Look, I'm not saying anyone's absolutely, perfectly in the right here, but I'd be surprised if anyone who's bothering to argue that an outdated wiki entry justifies attacks can do it with a straight face. As the attacker, it's YOUR BUSINESS to know what you're going into. If you don't, you typically get bad results. Ask NPO. Ask TOP.
Seriously, you're embarrassing yourselves. -
[quote name='flak attack' date='05 March 2010 - 11:34 AM' timestamp='1267807151' post='2214931']
The guy is in New Zealand, so American law doesn't apply to him.
[/quote]
Well, the crime crosses international boundaries and takes place on American soil, so I guess you'd charge him, then look at US/NZ extradition: http://newzealand.usembassy.gov/uploads/images/o16y8MOyHW2l-jJTxaMpeQ/ExtraditionUSNZ.pdf
Offhand, I'd say you could make argument for a couple of those offenses. (Whee, taking things way too far!) -
[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='03 March 2010 - 10:41 PM' timestamp='1267674377' post='2213295']
This is hilarious. How the hell can someone be a rogue if they are participating in an ongoing war and simply change their AA? You are really grasping at straws.
[/quote]
Obviously they're not a rogue...they're a deserter! Don't worry. I'm sure TOP will deal with it later.
[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='04 March 2010 - 02:18 PM' timestamp='1267730621' post='2213879']
[b]You don't get to decide who is or who is not a member of our alliance[/b] just because it makes your job "easier" in this war. Nevertheless, you can try and argue this all you want. If you sanction a member of our alliance we will take steps necessary to respond in kind.
[/quote]
Granted. You can say "Joe Average of Average Nation flying the 'Solitary' AA" is part of TOP, but I don't think there's any reasonable expectation that anyone outside TOP would see it that way. If you want to be generally acknowledged as a member of an alliance, you ought to be flying its AA. Otherwise you get all kinds of messy confusion. So, my view is, while the "sanctions for being a rogue" stance is disingenuous here (since everyone involved knows why the AA is changed, who they really are, and who they're with), someone who AA-swaps during an altercation should have no expectation of that AA's protection while they're not using it. Raids and such would be free game. (Granted, it'd be pretty stupid to raid LM, but to each his own.) -
[quote name='wickedj' date='28 February 2010 - 03:19 AM' timestamp='1267345422' post='2208000']
It was discussed in another thread and i dont recall what became of it but someone mentioned it would be hard due to international laws
[/quote]
Maybe you can't do anything legally (I don't pretend to know), but most ISPs, in my experience, don't care to be associated with those types. I've never dealt with an ISP in NZ, but all the ones I've spoken with in the past have been very good about canceling accounts of hacker/troublemaker types. I admit it's been a while since I had the dubious pleasure, though. Regardless, it's worth a shot to ask, especially if you can provide evidence of repeated trouble (and it sounds like you can). -
[quote name='Eric Cantona' date='04 March 2010 - 07:40 PM' timestamp='1267749928' post='2214279']
You don't have to insult each other in every single thread, you know...
[/quote]
I'm not entirely sure you're correct, sir.
Anyway, looking over the discussion so far, I've learned that PC and TPF are jerks for, respectively, breaking and having a treaty (which, incidentally, we can all agree isn't the oldest one). A pity, because if it were, that'd be germane to the conversation at hand. I don't know why I bother having idle curiosity. I should know it all ends in flames, by now.
-
Ditto that. I made a big misjudgment this round, and ended up getting nuked for two weeks.
Maybe I'll make some sort of effort next round. Think that would be worth it? -
Well, I think it's totally reasonable. We do have colonies on Mars and the moon, after all.
-
Interestingly enough, you can even give someone a defeat alert and THEN redeploy and conduct your two ground attacks as normal.
-
Mine sure hasn't worked that way.
-
/ignore
Done! -
Actually, I think this could be a really good time for you to be "looking for a home." Giant wars tend to increase activity quite a bit. I'd recommend watching the forums a little, maybe visiting some alliance IRC channels, and seeing who seem like your kind of people. As for color changing, purple's a decent sized color sphere with a good variety of alliances, so you should be able to find common ground with someone. Good luck!
-
[quote name='Kream' date='03 February 2010 - 12:11 AM' timestamp='1265173892' post='2154811']
Am curious two also best of luck yall 1oo
[/quote]
We'd better come up with a good story, then!
[quote name='sammykhalifa' date='03 February 2010 - 12:25 AM' timestamp='1265174721' post='2155031']
I salute our worthy opponents and the unstoppable march of Modern Technology.
[img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2690/4311982490_a3fbcfce81_m.jpg[/img]
[/quote]
Sammy! You weren't supposed to let that intel leak! Now they'll expect it. *facepalms* -
[quote name='admin' date='02 February 2010 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1265173070' post='2154721']
What is the story behind this? I want it.
[/quote]
Good sir, that is part of our cutting edge new war technology. Unfortunately, R&D has deemed the details of the project classified, for fear of our wartime foes reverse engineering the traintank. -
-4, -142 is 93%
0, -150 is 96% -
You declare war, and peace breaks out. Something's not right...
-
Yes, this is for real. It's nice to see that Grub has acknowledged that he can't just do whatever he feels like off his own volition without consequences. We feel good knowing we fought for our rights. Time to move on.
And the people that he consequenced acknowledged the same.
-
wait, the irony of this statement astounds me. seriously, Caliph. you are gonna go with that. if Polaris loses, we will have an era of pathetic thugs and bully that can go around and hit other alliances because "they want to".
Wait, I thought we just got out of that era.
-
Overall the sides have lined up pretty much exactly as I expected them to, even among those finding themselves treated to the other side.
I have never placed much faith in the treaty web, especially in light of how often the words of the treaties are disregarded when push comes to shove amongst many in the Cyberverse.
I see the treaty web used less as a commitment to common defense (as it should be) and more an excuse to dogpile opportunistically. We can hope that the current altercation might change that, though. (Yeah, right.) Apparently it's not all that hard to come up with other excuses.
-
I question my sanity for continuing to read this, but...
I suppose you give 48 hour notice to your raids and only raid people larger then you on principle?
It was a 30 member alliance -- a size universally acknowledged as a sovereign entity. Therefore it was not a raid; it was an undeclared war. Since it seems this has become a pattern, it has dangerous implications. I can't say I'm thrilled with the way this unfolded, but it doesn't come as a surprise that \m/ and company aren't garnering much sympathy.
Because it's nobody's business but the three aggressor alliances, the victim, and Corp. Nobody was allied to FoA, nobody had any sort of real interest whatsoever in the conflict. As plenty of people from our government have said multiple times, our business is our own and we're not gonna go blathering on about it in the OWF. Because it really just isn't anyone else's business.
And maybe if Grub had, you know, ASKED what happened in private channels before giving ultimatums about stuff he didn't know anything about, this would have gone over much smoother.
With my limited knowledge of what happened (mostly due to not giving enough of a rat's ### to dig up details), I'm inclined to agree with your second paragraph. However, I strongly disagree with the first. It's everyone's business when a mad dog starts biting the neighbors, even if you don't know them particularly well. Let's face it: that's why NPO got knocked off the mountaintop. They were unpredictably, dangerously aggressive, and it made everyone nervous.
Hmm, doing the same thing and expecting different results, what's that describe again?
-
So, you're asking us to brown-nose him. Any time someone is annoyed with us, we should try to appease them? When someone openly states multiple times that they'll go to war with us, we should kiss his feet? I know those three members screwed up, and we apologized for that. What else does Grub want, a cake?
Civility and butt-kissing are two different things. If you don't comprehend that, perhaps it's safer for you to avoid such trying things as conversations.
Why do you have such an interest in making sure \m/'s charter is enforced?
Well, it seems to me that if it isn't being adhered to, then it isn't a valid document. Perhaps that means they're unaligned?
Without that flowery declaration you posted there would be no war, that is fact.
I imagine it would just be a raid, instead, in that case, and nobody in \m/ would complain.
Seriously, though? This whole thing seems stupid to me, from basically every angle and side. Someone wake me when it's over?
-
I have a real hard time caring about this thread one way or another, but:
IRC is all IC. Very rarely can people separate it from OOC.I disagree with this completely. I consider IRC completely OOC, unless specifically stated otherwise.
-
Circle complete unless someone backs out. Thanks, all!
-
get fish man. Much better for our trades as well as I joined this thinking I am getting contruction/fish/wheat/uran
Working on it...waiting for a few queries to come back.
-
The problem with this idea, even if it were implemented, is that it's easy to inflate casualties at the top ranks at the endgame, simply by buying full soldiers each time you're nuked. Hiring soldiers and placing them at ground zero to be irradiated isn't tactically sound at all, and shouldn't be rewarded.
Ok, admit it, you spent the last few weeks watching Olympic Curling
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='09 March 2010 - 07:32 PM' timestamp='1268181484' post='2219993']
It's debatable whether their surrenders terms allow them to declare war on Poison Clan. Even if they are technically allowed, they're obviously in no position to do so.
Public call outs like this can be useful sometimes. I do not believe this one of those times.
[/quote]
If they're not allowed by surrender terms, then the public call out makes much more sense. Furthermore, one could argue that the alliances they've surrendered to might be obligated to enforce the protectorate, if they've tied Echelon's hands in the matter.
[quote name='890765' date='09 March 2010 - 07:41 PM' timestamp='1268181981' post='2220018']
We weren't an alliance that had been officially/unofficially disbanded for 6 months. If someone raided us, there would be issues.
[/quote]
Not if they edited the wiki first, right? I mean, it could've said ANYTHING before that.
[quote name='Thomas Jackson' date='09 March 2010 - 08:15 PM' timestamp='1268184057' post='2220120']
And thus began the great Wiki-Vandalizing Craze of 2010.
[/quote]
Yup, I called that one.
[quote name='LegendoftheSkies' date='09 March 2010 - 08:17 PM' timestamp='1268184149' post='2220122']
I bet if someone really did that, it wouldn't take PC several months to fix it.
[/quote]
As long as you can get a screenshot before it's fixed, that's all that matters, isn't it?
[quote name='Mamazlilmistake' date='09 March 2010 - 11:17 PM' timestamp='1268194996' post='2220517']
If i recall you do not support raiding of any kind. I am quite sure you once told me it is barbaric. As such, is your opinion not bias on this topic??? Echelon could have just as well not tried to pull one over on us, and your little kitty cat would still be all sandy.
[/quote]
You seem to be pro-raiding, so your opinion's also biased, right? Let's throw out all non-neutral opinions in every thread ever. (I invite you to visit the new forums, with 99.9% less text.