StevieG

Dont know if im way off the mark, but the first thing that popped into my mind was that maybe \m/ would rather tech deal with some alliances, and those alliances may not tech deal with people who raid??? I would personally choose tech deals over tech raiding myself if it came down to it . Could be miles off, but just saying ya know

[quote name='Penkala' date='16 April 2010 - 04:42 PM' timestamp='1271389350' post='2262201'] It's generally a good idea not to send tech to the people keeping your allies in a state of constant war for no good reason. That being said, it is one member sending tech. One member who may or may not know what the situation is. One member who may have already been paid for tech and now *has* to send it. Blaming the entirety of MCXA for 2 aid packets by 1 member is... well, it sheds a lot of light onto your already transparent motives. [/quote] Pretty much this. However, I do think the MCXA should try and stop their members tech dealing with Gramlins. As should all the following Alliances who are technically assisting Gramlins in their war against IRON and DAWN. Peoples Order of Truth Sparta Fallen Legion The Indigo Plateau Poison Clan Federation of Allied Republics MCXA WTF Applicant Celestial Being Fallen Knights Saint Patricks Brigade Black Water military contracting Invicta/Regnum Invictorum NATO TDO Nordreich GDA The Blood Brothers Citadel Trading Company RnR The Confederation of Canada League of Imperial Nations The Ninjas Blue Turtle Alliance Army of the Twelve Monkeys SOS Brigade Fallen Knights SOS Brigade Alliance of international defence Sanitarium World Federation Phoenix Rising Bushido The Order of New World Domination Nusantara Elite Warriors

[quote name='Van Hoo III' date='16 April 2010 - 07:16 AM' timestamp='1271355391' post='2261535'] Londo and his NPO commentary aside, I don't think most of us are condemning the act. I think the idea is that making a public announcement about it seems more like a publicity stunt than anything and sort of takes away from the gesture. I know several alliances who are not willing to tech deal with the little green creatures, but thankfully they aren't cluttering up the OWF with announcements saying so. [/quote] I think IRON and DAWN are grateful for the gesture, as it helps bring about more awareness of their plight, if not also a little less damage capability by the way of decreased tech levels to Gramlins nations. And will hopefully bring about more alliances taking a similar stance, with the ultimate goal being Gramlins backing down from their ridiculous position.

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='16 April 2010 - 04:06 AM' timestamp='1271343993' post='2261349'] A) You state your neutrality, but then take a blatantly non-neutral stance; some would even hazard to say it is quasi belligerence, though that would be a faint stretch. Regardless, you are taking a passively aggressive (and I deplore this particular oxymoron) stance against Gramlins. If you are going to do this, at least come clean and admit it. [/quote] Come again? If placing a halt on aid going to nations at war with IRON is a "blatantly non-neutral stance" by your definition, then you are very wrong. Aiding nations at war with another alliance is an act of hostility on that alliance. As I see it, GDA arent aiding anyone now still at war, and are thus neutral as stated. Anyone aiding Gramlins now is taking direct hostile action against IRON and DAWN. The world we live in now seems to think that is ok. I wonder what action C&G and co would take if IRON and DAWN started receiving outside aid.

[quote name='King Death II' date='14 April 2010 - 04:08 PM' timestamp='1271214495' post='2259616'] If I recall correctly, DAWN is still in a war against Gramlins........ [/quote] Thats correct.

[quote name='Arcades057' date='14 April 2010 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1271212907' post='2259571'] Speaking of TORN, sometimes it brings out the worst in your friends. [/quote] Or who are not your friends at all.

[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='13 April 2010 - 09:41 PM' timestamp='1271148088' post='2258530'] My your tone has changed. [/quote] Sarcasm escapes some. Maybe the wasnt enough of a hint.

[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='13 April 2010 - 03:02 AM' timestamp='1271080933' post='2257318'] Why do you have my quote in your signature as though you are proud that GLoF's rashness bailed you out of one front in a global war? Doesn't needing someone else to bail you out sort of reinforce my point, which was more about TORN's position than 57th's? [/quote] Actually, Nexus were already getting beat up bad, and a lot of their nations were heading for bill lock or peace mode at an alarming rate.

[quote name='Cortath' date='12 April 2010 - 05:06 PM' timestamp='1271045165' post='2257043'] Well, it's all pretty simple, Archon. I like a lot of people who like TORN. It's a pity TORN and Pacifica can't talk over our issues, isn't it? [/quote] [quote name='Cortath' date='12 April 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1271044888' post='2257038'] I just relish you looking like a fool, bigwoody. [/quote] What a way to talk over our issues. Edit: Grammar

[quote name='NeCoHo' date='12 April 2010 - 03:37 PM' timestamp='1271039835' post='2256916'] Did TORN ever catch any spies in its midst? [/quote] I originally came to TORN as a spy. Turns out I decided to just make it my home

[quote name='Ezequiel' date='12 April 2010 - 11:39 AM' timestamp='1271025562' post='2256636'] With the reparations of your surrender, when do you guys expect to pay them all off... Or at least, when do you want them to be paid off? You guys are doing great, keep up the good work. Ezequiel. [/quote] 4 to 5 cycles will see all our Reps paid off. Thanks.

[quote name='shilo' date='12 April 2010 - 11:24 AM' timestamp='1271024652' post='2256617'] How many billions can TORN move on a single day? How much dongs would that be per minute? What makes you a special awesome bunch, except hrt emote posts? [/quote] Just over half a billion per cycle. Seriously though, our slots right now are sitting at about 90% full. Not bad I'd say.

Congratz to all the ribbon recipients

Good fight, Good night.

[quote name='Guffey' date='05 April 2010 - 01:17 AM' timestamp='1270387046' post='2247468'] many of the small unaligned nations are new to the game. The get tons of messages about alliances, don't really know what to do. Suddenly they find themselves being attacked for what they think is no reason. Our goal is to inform them of what is happening to them, the protections of alliances, etc. Its giving a helping hand to new players of the game. [/quote] While I do support the right to tech raid, I can only applaud you for your efforts here. Good luck.

[i]Need a light?[/i] Not enough Zerglings for my liking.

Congrats Peron

[quote name='Timeline' date='21 March 2010 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1269144295' post='2231854'] A pre-emptive assault on a group of alliances at peace by another group of alliances at peace. What part of that do you not understand. NO ONE within the first strikes on C&G was at war with anyone from the NpO vs \M/ war, you started a whole new war, I still can not for the life of me understand how you can not see that, SO WHAT if grub gave you the go ahead, grub does not run bob, nor does he have any treaties with those that attacked C&G. [/quote] Yea, at the time both groups were at peace, but were involved in prewar discussion. And im prety sure Alliance defcon levels were raised significantly prior to attacks, with it lining up to be a world war.(\m/ not backing down, NpO not backing down, STA NSO FOK, and FARK amongst others already involved) Its not like Top and co just attacked out of the blue as you are trying to indicate. C&G were going to be in a state of war one way or another with Top and co as soon as they attacked lets say Fark, in defense of NSO. That cannot be disputed. The pre-emptive attacked has been acknowledged as a blunder given hindsight, and was kind of an unprecedented move, but the outrage it caused and continues to cause and propell arguments such as yours is a little over the top. [quote name='Timeline' date='21 March 2010 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1269144295' post='2231854'] As to Archon, could it be that he was working on getting NpO peace, i mean after all MK do have a treaty with NpO ? [/quote] Everyone is entitled to enterpret certain conversations in their own way, but I'm pretty sure that was not the case in this instance. The way he came across in those logs that were public support the argument that he was trying to isolate the Topand co v C&G front. This is really off topic so I dont wish to discuss this anymore here. I was merely giving a rebutal to your less than factual statements.

[quote name='Timeline' date='20 March 2010 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1269068473' post='2231113'] Someone needs to check their facts before posting, TOP - IRON - TORN - TSO - FEAR had made no DOW vs any alliance at war with anyone during the \m/ vs NpO war, (going by Wiki) what TOP and co did was a first strike attack on C&G the same Day \M/ and NpO gained white peace, shortly after the rest of the \M/ vs NpO war gained peace. Yes the day \m/ vs NpO war ended TOP and co attacked C&G with no CB other then, "we did it before you did it to us" the only problem is TOP failed. So yes TOP started this war. [/quote] Yes, it was a pre-emptive assault on those who we would find ourselves at war with anyways by coming in, in defence of NSO. TOP and co did not start the war, that was started by the NpO. The reason for the pre-emptive assault was a strategical decision which backfired spectacularly. The NpO-\m/ war ended AFTER the initial assault on C&G by TOP and co. And there are even logs showing that Archon got \m/ to speed up their efforts to gain peace so as to isolate TOP and co.

[IMG]http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r91/aG_StevieG/chartlong.jpg[/IMG]

Nothing personal, but that flag is so ugly man. Are you gunna flash it up a bit?

All they had to do was go to SBAs forums. I mean they found the guy that signed the treaty on SBAs side and cause he said they were kind of disbanded after not being in the alliance for months that was the que to attack? Why not also find out the Echelon guys who signed the treaty and were still in Echelon? Seems to me that they were trying to find a reason to attack and not actually looking for a raid target that was trully not protected.

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' date='11 March 2010 - 04:07 PM' timestamp='1268280773' post='2221765'] I genuinely believe PC did everything they thought they needed to to secure the right target. I also genuinely believe that all this wiki talk does point to failures of both parties. That is where I stand, take it for what you will. [/quote] Do you not think they should have searched out the SBA boards and investigate the reaty that is stated there?

[quote name='MaGneT' date='11 March 2010 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1268279771' post='2221741'] I concur, actually. Let's hope this gets settled. I'm just frustrated by the people who are insinuating that PC does this maliciously, ya know? [/quote] Ya fair enough. I can understand the mindset of looking for raid targets. All is well that ends well. So just make it end well for SBA.

[quote name='MaGneT' date='11 March 2010 - 03:34 PM' timestamp='1268278759' post='2221725'] I've always used the Wiki as a primary source of information of anything that isn't on page 1 of AP. You cannot seriously be suggesting that raiders comb through pages of search results in order to ascertain whether or not their target is protected. The whole point of the Wiki is to avoid having to do that! And please don't insinuate that I'm biased, if that's what you were doing. (If you're not, I apologize.) Even though DT has a MADP with PC, I've told them that I disagree with some things they've done (FoA, for example). In this situation, I genuinely believe that PC made an honest mistake. [/quote] Going to the alliance in questions forums would be the best step to take and have a look at their treaties in their public section. If you beleive that the alliance is dead and disbanded then you should check with whomever they hold treaties with that is stated on their forums. That process would have lead to PC finding out that they werent in fact disbanded or merged, and were in fact protected by Echelon. PC may have very well made an honest mistake here, I am not disagreeing with that. But reps would be a good way to atone for that mistake.