Drostan

Well the reason I believe he rebought infra was that he was going to try to re-declare on someone bigger than he was at that point when our wars expired. Of course, that was not possible in the long run, but I know he had sufficient funding to do so and it does have some sense to it.

When Karma redeclares on Pacifica, we'll examine this comparison more seriously.

Right, we've lost lots of members (some had been absorbed when a protectorate disbanded and have since reformed a new alliance), but the key difference between the facts and your account is that those members didn't all attack STA like you said they did. 2 of them did. Only 2. You can keep spinning but it will always come back to facts and right now they're not on your side. When I joined a month ago we only had around 24 members and so while it was tough losing some oldies, it's hardly like we're falling apart. We're still bigger now than we were a month ago.

What matters are facts and yours seem to be all broken. First of all, only two rogues actually attacked you contrary to your 'statistics'. The third person spied thus betraying his possible intention to attack and then was promptly thrown into anarchy thus not being able to declare. So 20% assumes that we are a 10 man AA which is not correct. Secondly, Hatter was recorded as the single biggest drop in NS for at least one day if not many and I am pretty sure he ate a nuke nearly every day if not every day. This is not minimal damage as the STA themselves announced in their latest announcement on the state of the alliance. (ooc)The offending nation was deleted a day or so after the war expired as well for having an offensive AA.(/ooc) In summary, we have thus far only had two rogues attack you (yes, we have more rogues, but they found other alliances to attack). More of our rogues have hit Legion than STA and yet... You seem to be conveniently missing that damage has been being done, and that only two people from our alliance affiliation have actually attacked yours. In fact, the third person who intended to attack you was anarchied prior to his being able to attack by Kronos. To say that Hatter sustained no discernible damage is insane as over the course of the first bout of war he went from having significantly more infrastructure than me to having significantly less. I am sure he rebought infrastructure, but don't take my word for it, take the fact that his NS change was the biggest loss on Planet Bob. That's not opinion, that's a fact.

Tis the season. And it's better to give than to receive Best of luck on your journey.

I've had my disagreements with Valhalla in the past (OBM especially), but even I know that they've got your back when push comes to shove. And we've got their backs too. Glad to see this upgraded.

As someone who recently enjoyed a WRC-enabled nuclear cupcake preventing another rogue from striking the STA, I take exception to some of the accusations in this thread. I have nuked and been nuked and while you may say "I could have done it better" that's hardly grounds for war or reparations. Sorry. The only person who wore the Kronos AA when they committed a hostile act (gather intel op) on STA was Ptricky to my knowledge, and he is the one whom we anarchied prior to him attacking. We actively raid rogues in Kronos, and being that these rogues came from amidst our ranks, we were the first to know and thus got the drop on their slots. In one case, we so thoroughly got the drop on them, that the rogue wasn't even able to attack your AA. While I can see your frustration that you cannot deal with this more on your own terms, you have certainly over-stated your case against Kronos in this matter. But if I were in your shoes, I'd have been mad too and probably would have made demands of STA which you almost certainly would have refused. And I certainly wouldn't expect grub to send any tech our way on your behalf. At which point the ball would have been in our court whether we wanted to go to war over some flimsy rogue antics. Of course, the situation was reversed, and so I personally would have been happy to leave the ball in your court and await a declaration if you felt that strongly about it. Of course, If you had declared I would have already been in nuclear anarchy from one of those rogues and it would have made defending my alliance a lot harder, but you are free to ignore that if you wish. We can only speculate on the reasons why rogues attack who they attack unless they openly declare it. I know Hatter had beefs with you that dated back a long time, and believe me, I (along with most of Kronos) would have much preferred him to stay among us as a leader and friend. But that's not what happened. I have had no issue with the STA before this and thus I fail to see why I would wish them to come to more harm than is necessary. If I had the infra, I would buy a WRC, but I do not (especially not now). But you certainly can't say that we have done nothing as I am sure that Hatter sustained huge amounts of damage as has/will Ptricky (another person with whom I used to raid in happier days). Yes, these were our friends, but that did not stop us from fighting them when they left our AA. I am left with this question: should I declare peace with Ptricky or allow him to recover so that he can declare war? It would appear that everyone thinks we are laying down anyway and it seems strange to be fighting a former friend to prevent him attacking a party that has nothing but harsh words for me. But my government makes those decisions and I follow them. This period has been difficult for the membership of Kronos as well. I appreciate those who have worked on the STA side to keep heads cool. The point of my message is not to goad or complain, but rather to give you some perspective. If I were in your shoes, I'd be upset too, but this is the sort of thing that either helps us gain an understanding of each other or entrenches our mutual dislike. Nothing more or less than that. It seems that this incident has been widely blown out of proportion and it is a shame that it was dragged into the public eye in such a crass manner. This didn't play out as it should have, but there it is. It is done. *hugs Ragashingo*

I also don't get why so many people are busting out the popped corn... This is just a matter of course.

It has come to my attention that another rogue has joined the fray. Ptricky has decided to join the rest of you CoUNTs.

o/ Penkala, Sometimes the big red button says it best. Sidenote: I wondered what had become of James Dahl. I must admit, I am surprised. EDIT: Oh yeah, and even if Penkala never was threatened in any way, I support first strike nuking of non-nuclear raid targets. Why, you ask? Because they need to learn their place in this world and play nice. Just give us what we want, and we'll all be better off for it. Good to see SF and CnG are seeing eye-to-eye on the oppression issue. EDIT the 2nd: I am actually not being sarcastic here in the slightest.

I too agreed with Bilrow the other day and then wept in the shower... it was a strange day for me. Anyway, if Hatter insists on continuing his rogue rampage he will continue to shed nation strength at an alarming speed. I am quite sure he has been buying back infrastructure.

Most blocs have one or two more or less representative alliances and those would be the ones I'd say are more or less superpowers. The thing is that the discrepancy between the 'super power' bloc members and the others doesn't seem as great as it used to be. Here are my estimates: TOP (more or less the face of the Citadel side of the web) MK (more or less the face of CnG especially after recent events) NpO (more or less the heart of FB) RIA (I am inclined to say that they are informally the leader of SF, but SF is much harder to call as their power is much more shared in my mind than the other blocs) There are other well-connected alliances out there but these strike me the most obvious (except perhaps RIA). But there are many who are not much behind these in terms of political clout that are too numerous to mention.

The difference is that if KoFN didn't react to this like a tech-raid but reacted like it was an undeclared war, Athens would have had a much harder time with the PR. I guess I just assume that alliance dignity matters to most people more than a few hundred infrastructure and tech. I am pretty sure had KoFN fought back that things would have gone quite differently. See, all tech raids roughly follow the logic being used there. The difference is that KoFN had the choice to react to this as a war or as a tech-raid. By reacting like it was a tech-raid they lent some legitimacy to their attackers' cause. This sets a precedent but it could have gone either way. That's why this was a mistake ultimately. PB history books will not call this a war but a tech-raid, and that was largely chosen by KoFN in my opinion.

While I do think you somewhat over-state the case, there is some truth in what this man says. If I were the KoFN, I would not treat this as a giant tech raid, I would treat it as an undeclared war. I would strike back as well as I could (which is probably limited given the nature of the alliance) and I would seek to find allies to help me in the fight against a much larger foe. No alliance likes to be violated like KoFN were, and so if it were my alliance I definitely wouldn't be peacing out. But then again, these guys probably don't have much interest in war, and would rather just get back to growing their nations in private. *shrugs*

I feel like people are getting the wrong impression here (how could that happen, right, lol). MK is not whipping Athens for their mistake because Londo is taking responsibility. MK doesn't have to punish Athens because Athens is punishing Athens. Thus, sovereignty preserved, mutual defence re-affirmed, and case closed. I think it may be reasonable to doubt the sincerity of the apology somewhat or at least to question the motives, but they apologized. That's gotta count for something. Cooler heads do prevail. The last time I weighed in on this issue I was very over-tired and sick and it affected my posts unfortunately. But now, feeling much rejuvenated, I'll admit that I see this in a somewhat different light and with more clarity. While the incident was regrettable, it also showed that Planet Bob is not willing to tolerate such things, and that is enough for me to rejoice. MK was confident that their allies would make right and Athens is. Thus, there is no need for a trip to the wood shed for Athens to be flogged by MK, and there was no need for Grub to declare on Athens. It all makes sense. I'm not saying it's pretty. But it makes sense. Xiph: As for the praise one ally, chide another approach you spoke of, I can understand why you find that frustrating. However, in this incidence I think it is not unreasonable to say that you are disappointed by Athens actions but respect MK's loyalty. Of course, I still think that you'd have to have been crazy to begin with if you couldn't read the text of this OP from the relationship MK and Athens share already. Which is why I think it was a bit unnecessary. But it seems a good reminder can be an effective tool.

Athens is a terrible alliance for forcing their members to actually explain their dissatisfaction instead of simply threatening those that they're arguing with. Poor show. I struggle to find a scenario in which "bring it" is an appropriate response unless you're talking about a basket of goodies and you're headed to a picnic. I guess this could become pretty limiting to Athens members after all.

While it is always possible that Londo is simply doing this because he is charismatic and knows it's the only thing that will work towards clearing his name: it is working. If your words are insincere then I have no doubt that you will find many more occasions for apology. But I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt. Athens has seemed a bit more aggressive lately, but overall they've been a standup alliance and like their allies, we should not forget it all over this one incident. I was a bit taken aback yesterday when faced with this happenstance, and may have taken too accusatory a tone. A cynical man may look upon this incident as CnG simply flexing some muscles but I choose to give the world the benefit of the doubt and consider it a dangerous situation that was defused by diplomacy. I hope Athens will walk a little more softly for a while, but Londo is a well-spoken man and has always seemed willing to hear the various sides of an argument. That alone persuades me that Athens deserves a little faith. Good luck, Londo. I hope that tensions will ease and that perhaps one day soon you might pay us a visit.

I couldn't agree more.

MK has absorbed a lot of the heat that rightfully should have been Athens'. That's the bullet I speak of. I feel quite sure that no actual conflict will result from this. I've been reading the threads where most of Athens continues to argue that they did nothing wrong and the one where Athens officially apologized and am trying to make sense of how a sincere apology can exist in that climate. I say rolled because these guys could not have been less prepared for what was coming. Also, I doubt that Athens would tolerate this level of 'rolling' from any other alliance. Finally, you're asking me to believe that Londo had no idea that this would create a big stir? Nobody once raised an objection or implied it might end badly? Everyone involved didn't even notice that 40+ people had been messaged to attack targets or didn't see it as a big deal? Come now. It's not reading too much into it to assume that Athens was well aware that many would react badly and it would cause a fuss. I don't know who organized it, but I do know that there's no way that many people decided to attack KoFN for the hell of it spontaneously. Anyway, I am done here and the situation appears to be over. I just feel like there's been a lot of embarrassing double-talk. Though on the plus side, I don't think anyone questions the solidarity of CnG (if they ever did). A lot of threats were tossed around and a lot of people came out looking bad. An ugly scene all around. I hope the lolz were worth it. EDIT: Trinite, you seem to have misunderstood something I have said. Tech raiding in general is the strong taking from the weak. My problem is that many alliances who practice tech-raiding try to claim that it is something else. It seems to me Athens is one such alliance. Your arguments about protectorates are a smoke screen. Are you claiming that people don't join alliances for the community? That's just sad. Individual nations do have the choice to be neutral and then they war with whomever they want whenever. But alliances generally have guidelines for raids. And alliances have governments. Alliances usually issue a Declaration of War before attacking. Athens actions just show an enormous amount of disrespect. Some people are alright with that and others not so much. Of course, KoFN have made it easy for them. But they disrespected their allies too by getting them embroiled in this. We could argue about it until the cows come home but I will use a common scapegoat: public opinion. If this were indeed such a normal thing, then why the fuss? Because the world just really doesn't like Athens? You can find all sorts of rationalizations but everyone could have predicted this would make people very uncomfortable. Take from that what you will (which is apparently nothing).

That's what Grub does.

Singing treaties simply to avoid getting rolled and not out of friendship is generally frowned upon, yes. And alliances with 40+ members rarely want protectorates. They know how to play, as is evidenced by having nations over 1000 days old. Don't get me wrong, I think Kights of Ni! come out of this looking rather bad themselves because they didn't even attempt to fight or to get others to help them fight. The real difference is that Athens doesn't openly say "there is absolutely no morality on Planet Bob only the strong exploiting the weak and that's what we're doing" and yet that is the mentality required to justify their actions. Which I honestly have no problem with. Except it sucks to then see MK leaping in front of them to take the bullet for a ridiculous scheme cooked up out of boredom. When I say coordination I mean that someone had to tell FoB about it, and I doubt that many Athenians just randomly decided to tech raid the Knights of Ni. I just find it funny because Sparta and many others would be crying bloody murder if NSO or another alliance had done this, but it becomes cute when Athens has. Just a quirky sort of thing they do. Shinpah: Well clearly it is the right way to wage a war so long as you have other big allies flexing their muscles. This way you get to win without even declaring or losing a single defending casualty. But I am sure MK will straighten you out. You must admit that it's a little tough to swallow an announcement wherein the "voice of Karma" is swearing defence for an alliance who just rolled another one because they had no discernible treaties. I'm just saying, these actions seem to fly in the face of what was being said when the Karma war broke out. I also think it's funny that everyone is acting like Planet Bob is picking on poor little Athens given the situation. Anyway, I get that from start to finish this was posturing, I just find it interesting. Athens did this to cross a line. It only became a mistake when people started booing them for it.

Agreed, Athens has some pretty unshakable allies. I think they've put their foot in it here, but I doubt there will be much consequence from it because they have many allies with whom they are as thick as thieves.

Sorry, man, but this just doesn't make sense. I mean, sure, the first part about standing by your allies. But you think it's better to attack every nation in an alliance? Here's one major difference: an unaligned nation can join an alliance. Sure, an apparently untreatied alliance can sign treaties but that just encourages the signing of retarded treaties simply for the sake of protection. Doesn't that promote one of the most widely frowned upon phenomena on Planet Bob? Here's another difference: that alliance is organized. Here's another difference: Athens sent more than half their targets into anarchy because their tech raid looked more like a war drill. Here's another difference: two members of a bloc coordinated attacks on a single alliance. My biggest problem is that everyone refers to this as a mistake as if there was somehow some lack of clarity about this. They also pretend like this just happened out of nowhere when you no full well that Athens and FoB clearly considered doing this for at least a day or so before actually executing it. They keep saying "nobody even heard of them before we rolled 'em lawl" and yet that just shows that they went searching for these guys. This wasn't a moment's lapse in judgment. Athens was making a statement. If they don't see the difference and don't see it as wrong in any way, then why are they apologizing? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either way, this reflects poorly. Now, I have no problem with people standing by their allies when their allies screw up. But I have seen a lot of verbal gymnastics employed wherein it seems like Athens' allies can't decide whether to handle the situation by denouncing it or defending it. One moment it is wrong and requires an apology, and the next it is no different from their regular raid policy and is entirely justified. I respect sticking by your allies, but I don't respect bending over backwards to pretend that your allies lay only golden eggs. I get that people feel compelled to play by the rulebook of partisan politics, but let's cut the crap already.

I'm pretty sure they're free to express any opinion that doesn't amount to "let's fight!" Not altogether unreasonable. Not because it poses any threat of starting a war, but just because it looks cheesy and lacks class.

If there's one thing that can bring two disparate parties together, it's the mutual frustration that Pacifica still has not learned that Planet Bob does not revolve around them. I do not know what threats were given in private that allegedly prompted this message, but honestly, I cannot imagine someone thinking MK wouldn't back Athens up if they attacked. I will agree with Raga in that anyone who would be deterred from attacking because MK stated that they were still intending to honour their treaty (d'uhh) probably would have made for a boring war anyway. I still fail to see what throwing this in everyone's face does differently than communicating directly with whoever was sending whatever threats have been alluded to. I also apparently missed that crucial turning point where all of Planet Bob decided they had it out for Athens. If NSO had done this I'd have expected declarations to fly for sure. I don't buy that people are just trying to trump this up to get at Athens because they've been drinking so much haterade. Doesn't make sense. EDIT: For vanity! For Ragashingo!