The Crimson King

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1297384799' post='2628530'] If they think that we are going to let them get peace with all these people in peace mode they are sorely mistaken. [/quote] Then perhaps you should not have let them get to PM in the first place. See that is the amazing thing about callouts like this. These nations are obviously not in perpetual peace mode, they went there because of this war. Now in Karma you tried this argument because NPO entered the war first, and had the ability to set itself with PM however it saw fit before any counter was declared. In this situation you guys had the not only a statistical advantage in the upper tiers, but you also had the element of surprise. So the fact that there are 80 nations you want out of PM simply shows that there are either 80 nations you failed to do anything with in your initial blitz or your opsec was not good enough before you hit, and NPO was tipped off and had time to get people to PM. Either way, those nations are there because of your failure.

[quote name='xoindotnler' timestamp='1297371842' post='2628271'] Oh hey this again. [/quote] Actually, while I can see that on the face of it this it appears to be another attempt by someone to champion the totally discredited stance that the use of PM is not the widely accepted strategy most reasonable people consider it to be, but is in fact the move of a coward, it really is oh so much more. The problem is that for the argument to have weight, it would require that the central premise of the OP, that NPO is hiding their top tiers while their allies burn, is actually correct. But as has already been pointed out ad nauseum in other threads, their allies are also in PM in the same ranges. So one would have to question exactly who the OP wants NPO to come of PM to defend, since no one is getting hit in the the top tier that they are calling them cowardly for hiding in. Because they managed to overlook this simple fact, the OP in fact makes your standard "lolpeacemode" thread look like fine literature in comparison to what is presented here.

[quote name='denkimon' timestamp='1297347302' post='2627942'] good to know that when 12 alliances declare on us, it's only PART of 12 alliances that declare on us. As in, the PART you need to use in your mathematical garbage. I mean really? You really believe this? How long did you spend contriving this utter crap? Well anyway my (personal anecdote of wartime domination / peace mode joke / 12 v 1 reminder) completely neutralizes your argument. Also Schatt sucks. [/quote] This is the best you can come up with? This basically reads, well someone is calling us on the BS we are throwing around and using the numbers we threw out there to do so...quick...denounce common sense as mathematical garbage. Congrats you also have the ability to count to 12. By that same logic you are using, a situation where 30 aa's with 2 members a piece declared on goons would also be cause for GOONS to cry curbstomp, and post a thread on how you will not be disbanding in the face of this onslaught. You starting to see why the number of aa's that hit you has no bearing to the question at hand yet?

[quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1297353550' post='2628003'] Lets sum this up as its like 10 days old. Some MCXA members were pissed that Valhalla and TPF didnt defend us. TPF's Response: "You didnt defend us in the current war" Even though the Doomhouse front didnt exist when we entered. Then your get mad we didnt defend you in Doomhouse-NPO. What goes around comes around. Not only that TPF should respect that our terms were that we not to enter in any of the war fronts for the remainder of the war. Honestly ive lost all respect for TPF, they only care to shield Pacifica now. I once would of loved to call TPF a good friend but I cant really comment on that now. [color="#FF0000"][center]All opinions are those of my own.[/center][/color] [/quote] Nice try, but not even close. TPF is in no way upset that you are "not defending us" in this war. Our concerns about your entry and exit from this war were voiced to your trium, and they know where they lie. As far as why your membership was pissed, that sounds like something they need to take up with the existing trium then, because obviously they are not getting anything close to the entire story regarding the communication we had with you in regards to this war. So I haven't the slightest idea where the "TPF is upset we did not defend them" is coming from. We told your gov, on the night you notified us you were entering, that we had intel that we/NPO were going to be pre-empted shortly. At that point it was clear that we would be on separate paths and fronts in this war. Our concern was not with your choice of allies to defend but rather the strategic implication of the targets you chose. I provided SCY with my opinion, told him it was just that, and he can take it or leave it. He chose to leave it and that is fine. But you guys knew the deal going in. I laid out the exact counter that I though was going to happen if you went in (you would get countered by the majority of CnG, specifically ODN) and that you would have little to no back up support on that front because MK and co were going to pre empt NPO. Your response was that you did not care, you felt that your entry would force surrenders from a specific list of aa's on the other side, and that you had more than enough firepower to take on ODN and co for a long time should they counter. The exact situation you wound up in was discussed as an extreme high probability with your trium prior to your entry. All I can do as an ally is provide you with my take of what I feel would transpire given the choices you were making. The situation was outlined clearly for your gov, and they knew the risks going in, and the back-up they would have available. They also understood that NPO being hit would obviously draw us to defend our direct MADP partner rather than chaining in onto a front where you entered on an ODP bloc, and told us point blank that you would not be requesting assistance from any allies. This is not an "I told you post", it is simply clearing this up since you seem hell bent on dragging this out on the owf. Our concerns around your departure from this war had nothing to do with a non re-entry clause or anything of the sort there either and again your Tri is informed about what our concerns were there as well. You wound up in the situation you did because of the choices of your government, who knew damn well the lay of the land before they made the decision for MCXA to enter and what they were walking into. If you are unhappy with the outcome of the war, then I suppose you have two choices. You can either come out here and blame everyone around you (which is what you are doing in this thread) or you can get the facts and properly inform your membership of what transpired, analyze where your mistakes were made, and realize that the reason you wound up in the situation you did was because of yourselves and no one else. That may actually get you on the track to fixing whatever issues you see with the outcome of this war. Once again, this is simply my advice, and you are free to take it or leave it. Edit for spelling

[quote name='mattski133' timestamp='1297313739' post='2627691'] I have no idea what you're trying to say here. It's common knowledge your side put most or all of their 30k nations and above into peace mode. That is basically a fixed number. In fact, since GOONS came out swinging, our number is the one most likely to have risen by the 17 or so nations that got knocked into that range. As far as declaring on NPO, you're going to say we can't count our wars against them, despite 45%, yes 45% using your own figure, of all wars against NPO were from GOONS? It doesn't matter at all that NPO couldn't declare on us. We still had hundreds of war slots engaged when the Hopeless Coalition got on its feet and attacked. How many slots does it take to successfully stagger in the 30k and lower range? Probably 3 bro. At least 2. Which would be somewhere around 500-750 declarations against. I don't think you quite got there. EDIT: and our lower ranks are more active than our upper ranks, really, to say that any GOONS nation is inactive is sort of wrong. we're no legion. [/quote] Way to go, you missed the point completely. See what was once again being argued is that you were somehow "piled on". This has been a common theme in the GOON sympathy cry since you were countered. Now obviously if you are claiming that you were piled on that means, by definition, you feel that a disproportionate number of nations declared on you compared to the slots you have open or nations in the ranges targeted. See it does not matter if we targeted the entire aa, or just 35 k or 45 k or whatever. If you want to claim that you are being piled on it means that in whatever range we declared we would have committed a vastly larger ammt of nations than what you had available in that range. So the question once again comes back to one of simple math. There is obviously a benchmark somewhere as far as number of nations counter declaring on you that we have somehow surpassed thus taking this out of the realm of a counter and into the realm of a curbstomp or pile-on or whatever other terms you plan on using. Obviously you are aware that your nation count in the ranges we targeted vastly outnumbers that of most aa's, and that there would need to a "pool" of aa's required ot hit that range, so your argument that you got countered by 12 aa's is useless (To illustrate this point...if 20 aa's the size of Sanitarium declared on you would it be a curb-stomp...of course not). So therefore the number of aa's is a straw man in relation to the argument that you are making. The real question is how many nation would you consider overkill to counter 270 nations with 100% of their slots open given the considerations I outlined in the first post. Once you provide that answer, which will define the point where a counter changed to a pile on in your eyes, then we can compare it to what was actually sent against you to see if your claims you are being piled on are correct. It is really not that hard a concept to grasp. Actually, by your own statement that we failed to provide enough nations to counter all of your guys, you are in fact proving the point that you are not being piled on like your alliance keeps claiming it is As far as your activity levels I was not commenting on goons at all. In fact it is quite the opposite. When mounting a counter we would have to assume 100% activity levels for your nations since it is impossible for us to know which are and are not active, therefore we need to hit everyone (which subsequently raises the number of total nations we need). On the other hand WE need to consider the activity levels of the nations we would be sending in and compensate the gross figure for an inactivity level so that we net the correct ammt of nations for the counter.

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1297274921' post='2627113'] The numbers here don't back your claim. The combined lower ranks of the 13 we're at war with outnumber our own. And we wouldn't have it any other way. EDIT: The numbers of those at 30k NS and below (an informal benchmark): GOONS: 273 NPO: 429 Legion: 240 NSO: 81 TPF: 71 ASU: 68 NAC: 44 TLR: 38 Invicta: 33 Olympus: 33 CoJ: 17 Sanitarium: 9 64Digits: 7 COMBINED: 1070 1070 to 273, or about 4 to 1. You were saying? [/quote] I have been waiting for your side to toss some sort of erroneous numbers out like this for a while and I am surprised it took this long. Now lets look at what actually did happen with the wars declared on you shall we. First off the numbers you are using are current, after most people are through a few rounds of wars. Sorry but it does not work that way. You have to go back to the day the wars were declared. Obviously there are a hell of a lot more nations below 30 k now then there were 2 weeks ago. 2nd, you decided to declare on NPO, not the other way around. SO you do not get to then use their low tier numbers in a defense of you getting bandwaggoned. You had a real simple way of not being at war with the 400 + NPO nations in the low tiers, just don't declare on them. THis logic is also beyond mundane since it also does not consider that MK and FAN also hit NPO in these ranges, they were in mass anarchy, and could not counter you. So by the same logic Legion is currently engaged in an even one on one battle with goons (240 vs 260 nations) and there was no reason whatsoever to call in CnG (or perhaps CnG is also guilty of piling on?) So sorry the 400+ nations in NPO don't get to be added to your attempted claims of a pile on. Now lets back up to when you actually hit NPO. I had started to break these numbers down in another thread but just to recap, GOONS had 287 nations at the time they hit NPO, approx 270 were under 45 k NS. GOONS accounted for nearly 45% of active wars on NPO 36 hrs after the initial decs came down. Out of those 810 available war slots on those nations NPO had filled a total of 7. That is a lot of damn slots left to fill in a tight ns range. Now I asked the question earlier of exactly how many nations one would think they need to counter GOONS and fill those slots in order to provide a successful counter while also taking into consideration things such as activity levels in the lower tiers (since smaller nations are less active), irrelevant nations (the 20 day inactive 3ns nations on both sides), and keeping a sufficeint reserve in PM to cover staggers and the like down the line. I have still yet to get an answer to this. What I have heard is a lot of people with the uncanny ability to count to 12, and while I do congratulate most of you on this impressive feat, it does not prove that you were unfairly countered or "piled on". If you want to go back and look at the above scenario and then provide me with what you think would actually constitute a "pile on" in the terms of number of nations attacking you in the context I outlined rather than simply counting the aa's that countered you then perhaps we can see if your argument about being piled on holds any weight.

[quote name='Timeline' timestamp='1297298278' post='2627436'] didnt know this was post your dead [img]http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/9679/thedeady.jpg[/img] Still don't see the point. anyway on to the real question at hand We talked to UINE before we talked to ODN and Co about peace, but you was not to know that and then again it isn't as if you know much anyway, I do like how TPF who refuse to act on a MDoAP comes out and tries to belittle MCXA who went to war for their allies, now before you run off at the mouth about how TPF went to war for NPO, that was your reason for not entering the war when requested to do so by your MDoAP partner MCXA. Now lets look at it this way shall we, what if TPF had honoured the MDoAP, and eased the pressure off MCXA, what if Valhalla had honoured their treaty also. Sure we left the battle field and UINE stayed but that was their choice also when we left the battle field, UINE was been hit by Athens someone we was not at war with, in fact we was at war with two alliance that was at war with UINE that was ODN and INT, everyone else joined the war to hit MCXA or had hit alliances that had already peace out. Bottom line at least we entered the VE-NpO war and did what was right by our allies and not sit by and watch them burn, but trusted me I am not going to have any sleepless nights over seeing TPF burn as they watched us burn. just to point out, if UINE asked us to stay we would have, but once attack a treaty with MCXA means we will fight to ZI for you if it improves the chance of winning, treaty with TPF means they sit and watch you burn as they bath NPO [/quote] You really don't have a damn clue what you are talking about. If you want to drag this out on the OWF we can do so, but out of respect for a a long standing relationship with a lot of your gov both past and present I would first suggest you go to SCY and get copies of all the logs he has with comversations with both myself and mhawk leading up to your entry (especially the ones where YOU were the ones to specifically tell us you would not be requesting our back-up in this war at all) and the ones revolving around your departure from it. There are certain claims you are repeatedly making that are plainly false. Some of them have nothing to do with TPF so I will leave them be for now. In regards to TPF sitting by and watching you burn, regardless of what you may think or may have been told, you never requested our assistance on this front and specifically made a point to tell us that you would not be requiring or requesting any assistance regardless of counters before you even entered the war. SO if you care to explain how TPF "hung you out to dry" when it was you guys who specifically told us you would not be requesting assistance prior to entry and never asked for any assistance in the approx 2 days you were at war before NPO got hit, I would be real interested in hearing it. Edit: typo

[quote name='Lord Levistus' timestamp='1297060316' post='2623654'] Ok, I guess i really hit a nerve with TOOL. You're allowed to believe whatever you want to believe, but maybe your perspective is skewed because you don't want to think ill about a supposed friend. Maybe you've bought into this great awe inspiring game breaking strat that will magically unfold and rescue NPO from the clutches of evil. Maybe some of what you've been told is a crock. Maybe I do have a fair amount of information at hand about what is actually going on. Maybe I understand what a Pyrrhic Victory is. Maybe you should lighten up and let tPF defend herself. You should read a little slower next time. TOOL would of course fight in the name of tPF. I am in no way saying that TOOL would DoW for NPO. However, the efforts being put forth by tPF's allies would be for the sake of NPO, tPF is just a go between. Of course, should you drop most of your str into hippy also and continue to pile into GOONS you'd prove me wrong. Should tPF come out of hippy enmasse, and not piece meal, and actually take the hits with their allies, I'll be proven wrong. I'd love to be wrong. It's because ML is burning that I'm making these posts. I lay some of the blame on ML, of course, they still had to press the button, but they wouldn't have done so without tPF trying to bring them in. One other thing, I've never used the "We aren't doing this for the reasons you think. Don't presume to know the relationship between Valhalla and our allies." line. Not that it's ever stopped anyone from making assumptions about what others are doing. That's why we're all here, right? [/quote] You honestly have no idea what you are talking about, and the amount of ignorance toward topics you claim to know so much about is astounding to say the least. I am not sure how much easier to spell this out for you but lets try this. When NPO got hit we went to ALL of our allies and explained to them we would be entering in their defense as is standard practice in these situations. All allies were told their help would be appreciated should we be countered, but we would in no shape or form try to force anyone into a war they did not want to enter. And guess what...that was all it took. There was no arm twisting, no coercing, no evil mind implants in the dark to get them to swear allegiance to big brother. They agreed to help because we hold long term bonds with these alliances and as shocking as this may be to you, they are our friends, we are honored to call them allies, and we show them the respect that comes with that. They did not need to see a map of the treaty web, run numbers for sides, or have a some back room pow wow to decide who they were fighting for, the same way they know that TPF would not need to see those things either if any of them came under duress in the future.. This does not make them mindless, this does not mean that TPF is somehow pulling their strings, or any other drivel that is in your post, and if you can't understand that then honestly I have no idea how you define friendships in this realm.

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1297015314' post='2622317'] You can interpret chains and oA's however you want it seems, but there is nothing as concrete as deciding not to activate when your MDoAP ally is hit. Unless, of course, Legion fully accepts VE's rationale that VE is fighting the defensive war, in which case we agree with them for not oA'ing in with Polar like their other allies did. [/quote] Actually if you noticed I have not commented in this entire thread about the legalities or interpretations of anyone's treaties. What I was however pointing out was the simple double standard in play in Sardonic's post where he can claim no one has the right to tell others how to interpret their treaties and at the same time start a war over Legion not interpreting its Polar treaty the way you all wanted them to (and thus bringing in NPO via more standard means). As to why Legion did not activate with Polar that, in the end, is between Polar and Legion and you are just as free as any other members of the peanut gallery to speculate. However if one takes a stance that any third party attempting to tell another aa how and when they should activate a treaty is "pathetic", one should also assume that same person would be loathe to sign their name to the document I quoted given that it does just that.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1297010466' post='2622211'] Please do not be putting the words in my mouth. That was an entirely different situation. Also you and all the others criticizing C&G's view on their treaties should just stop. [b]There is nothing quite as pathetic as somebody trying to tell two alliances why their view of their treaty is wrong.[/b] [/quote] Wait....what is this exactly.... [quote name='TheNeverender' timestamp='1295928088' post='2597854'] [center][img]http://imgur.com/iVphG.jpg[/img][/center] The New Polar Order and her myriad allies have gone to great lengths to protect a single alliance from damage in this latest global calamity. Rather than putting forth a maximal effort in what was perceived to be a losing effort from the onset, these alliances have conspired to take the beating so that their flagship alliance can remain strong and resolute. [b]Of particular note is the valorious Legion, whose mutual defense pact with the New Polar Order remains untapped........ [/b] For the Goon Order of Oppression, Negligence and Sadism: Sardonic, GOONS Pilot [/quote] Seems you had no problem not only telling Legion and Polar exactly how their treaty should have been viewed, you went a declared war over it as well.

[quote name='Lamuella' timestamp='1297009770' post='2622197'] so, if you're accepting the Doom House conceit of a declaration on one being a declaration on all... doesn't that mean that your optional defense pact doesn't apply? After all, TPF attacked Doom House, rather than the other way round, if you're accepting this conceit. [/quote] And if they agree with that stance then they also agree that the 3 of you hitting NPO is the same as hitting TPF because of our MADP with them. See how you lose this argument no matter how many times you try it Welcome to the war Avalon. Glad to have you by our sides once again Edit: Syn was one minute faster than I it appears.

[quote name='Derwood1' timestamp='1296974477' post='2621714'] You guys have more guts then the folks you are defending. [/quote] 2010 called, it is still waiting for you to honor your NEW treaty

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1296975709' post='2621762'] [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display_charts.asp?Nation_ID=418916"]Gotta do something to keep morale up.[/url] [/quote] I suppose this is just as relevant then? http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance_stats_custom.asp?View=Charts&Alliance=Goon%20Order%20Of%20Oppression%20Negligence%20And%20Sadism Or we could get back to the point that the damage dealt in this war is not equally divided by the number of aa's you are at war with. This has nothing to do with any graphs charts or any other witty link you plan on posting but rather simple common sense which is what seemed to be missing in the original post I quoted. Edit: bad link

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1296971996' post='2621598'] As we're fighting 12 alliances we'll allow you to take credit for 1/12th of that 2m damage. 2,000,000 / 12 = 166,666.67 Man, we're kicking your butt. [/quote] So by this logic, HoT has also managed to Dish out 167k NS of damage to GOONS Congrats to 64D slayer of giants

Thank you guys Happy Hunting

[quote name='Tequila Mockingbird' timestamp='1296970110' post='2621426'] tpf declared on goons a member of doomhouse, thus entered a state of warfare with all member alliances tl;dr tpf declared on us but have fun all the same! [/quote] You declared on NPO who TPF has an MADP with, therefore you declared on us.....see how this works... Nice try though

We will attempt to keep this as short and to the point as possible. The undersigned alliances recognize that the signatories of Doomhouse accords have expanded their aggression via military attacks against member nations of our alliances and providing copious amounts of financial aid to the enemies we have chosen to fight. Though we have tried to tolerate their feinting swipes, we will brook no further aggression and will immediately begin to defend ourselves. [b]Signed: For The Phoenix Federation: The Crimson King: Evil Overlord, Peddler of Death For Olympus: Titan Council. The Pansy Buffalo Niagara President SO Grendel queenhailee Mississippigurlie For Invicta: Dan2680, President of Invicta, Emperor of the Ice Cream Cabinet, Master of Right Turns and Long Straight Aways Nascar8FanGA, President of Invicta. Master of Left Turns For The Cult of Justitia: Schattenmann, Presbyter Yawoo, Strategos[/b]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1296798043' post='2618942'] Certainly. It's real simple. NPO and their meatshields, having not been ravaged by the wars, would be in a much more powerful position. NPO is one of the few alliances able to rally support and provide a credible threat to the power structure. It's not a giant leap of faith to think that they might use this new-found relative power to cause problems. Even if their FA policy is terrible, they may gradually grow in power to become a real threat again. [/quote] SO lets see, they have a terrible FA policy, and have the same friends they always had, yet eventually somewhere down the line they may at some point possibly come back looking for us. It's real simple, the boogeyman is under the bed and he is coming for me...Grab your torches and pitchforks [quote] I fail to see how I am "delusional" for recognizing that NPO can't be allowed to rise again. You might not like the reasoning but it is what it is. NPO is a deeply violent alliance that has shown no signs of changing their ways, they merely have not had the power to enforce their will as before. We don't intend to even give them the slightest hint of a chance to do so. Had they atoned properly, things would be different. And no, reps are not atonement, that's merely fulfilling their end of the surrender terms, true atonement should have come with proper diplomacy, apologies to those they had wronged, and a dramatic shift in attitude. Quite frankly, they still seem like the aloof bunch of cretins that I recall from the days of yore. [/quote] So the alliance who just started a war with no cb and attacked an uninvolved alliance who had no ties to an ongoing war is also trying to decry the alliance they attacked as too aggressive? And please drop the Christ complex. Just cause your alliance has died and risen again it does not give you the sole authority to pass judgment on other aa's or decide what penance they must participate in to atone properly for their past sins. The threat an AA posts to your security is not inversely related to how much of MK's ass they kiss regardless of how much you may think it. [quote] That's not what I said. They would probably not be able to take us out even if we had left them be. That does not mean we should eliminate the chance of a more grievous injury at a later date. Also you forget, it's not just NPO, it's their entire sphere of influence which had almost escaped the war. [/quote] No, see that is exactly what you said. If you go back to your original sermon you tried to present a case that we would have been a threat post war if we were not rolled. Now perhaps I am wrong trying to interpret "threat" as the clear ability to take down you and your friends militarily in the near future, since, as we already covered, this would certainly not be the case. I suppose that leaves them being a threat because they may "think" differently than you or hold dissenting opinions. Clearly this would be a direct attack on the established groupthink and anyone not getting their daily news from Big Brother should immediately be put down. [quote] Nope, we just need to beat them until they are no longer a threat to us. We do not intend to charge NPO a dime. [/quote] Oh so now it is only until they are no longer a threat to you. What happened to the righteous crusade to save all of the inhabitants of this realm from the degradations that will surely be beset upon them once Big Red comes back into power. Why does it stop at GOONs? Or are you trying to say that yours is the sole guiding light and moral compass that will lead us all forward throughout all eternity........ [quote] I think you need to put down your tea, it's a might bitter. I suppose I should not be surprised to see such a defense of NPO coming from one of the alliances so dependent on them. [/quote] OK I will bite, Please give me the inside scoop of how my relations with NPO work on a leadership level and how TPF is dependent on them. Clearly you will have a much better grasp on this that I would EDIT: [quote] Heh, you NPO are all the same, stuck in the past. [/quote] Given the content of your posts I find it highly amusing that you are accusing someone else of living in the past. In regards to the present, welcome again to OSA to the front

[quote name='Commisar Gaunt' timestamp='1296801313' post='2619027'] If you actually understood my post, I wasn't calling ML cowards but mocking the absurdity that throughout this whole war your side has tried to affix that label to everything that MK and friends do. I didn't really expect someone who thinks TPF is a good alliance to get it though. [/quote] If you actually understood either the post you responded to or the one I followed up with you would see that the point was being made that calling either ML or MK cowards for not posting DoW's is basically ridiculous. This was in direct response to MK members calling out ML for being cowards for doing the exact same thing that MK did. Thus why we are having this stimulating conversation. Luckily you did at least once again save a deft and skillful wielding of the deadly NO U for the end of your post, so we do have that to be thankful for.

[quote name='Commisar Gaunt' timestamp='1296800206' post='2618995'] We don't consider the pathetic assortment of refuse you claim is an alliance as actually being one. I assume you're having difficulty understanding the simplicity of that. [/quote] When all other arguments break down, the mighty NO U shall surely sweep in and save the day....

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1296798869' post='2618966'] What about, MK declaring some wars without bothering with a DoW because they don't feel the need, while ML does the same thing except makes up ridiculous stories as to why they're doing it instead of just explaining what they're doing plainly? I believe your post covered that their actions were about the same (declaring some wars to defend an ally without posting an official DoW), but did you factor in that MK/Umb were just doing straightforward business while ML tried to decide that the people they're hitting are rogues and that they're technically not engaging in an alliance war? [/quote] I was responding to the poor attempts being made at labeling ML cowards. Both aa's may have had their reasons for doing what they did but neither had anything to do with cowardice. And if you think ML would try to hide from someone's tough friends, then clearly you do not know the first thing about them. Now in regards to what you are saying here, the primary issue here MK/Umb were not "going about straightforward business". In fact had they done that, they would have posted a DoW when they decided to declare war on TPF, and guess what...this thread would not exist. So if MK gets to rewrite what is a pretty agreed upon and standard rule (actually posting a DoW when you go to war) and make a new definition of what is required for this to happen that apparently applies only to them, how is it that they also get to dictate how another AA is then able to view the actions and responses of this new trail they have decided to blaze? If MK can decide what they feel constitutes a reason for a DoW (and if i am understanding you correctly you feel they have every right to do so), then ML can surely have the same right to decide what they consider as a rogue action, especially given that this is "new ground" we are treading here. If you are going to argue that MK has the right to dictate the final say on ML's definition of a rogue, they you also must agree that TPF would therefore have the final say on what definition and standards MK must use to declare war. Again this is not much different than the coward/no coward argument above. Once again I will point out that the disconnect from standard procedure here did not start with ML. Had it been followed from the beginning we would not be having this conversation.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1296798485' post='2618953'] No, it has everything to do with the necessity of the formal DoW. This has been pointed out ad nauseum so I can only assume you are being intentionally dense. [/quote] And I specifically asked you for the requirements that must be met to have a formal DoW posted by MK when they decide to declare on someone. You have said such things as our pm count caused us to not meet these requirements, so therefore such requirements clearly exist (or you are making !@#$ up as you go which surely cannot be the case). I can only assume you are having difficulty understanding the simplicity of my request for information.

[quote name='Commisar Gaunt' timestamp='1296797306' post='2618931'] MK and friends attacking NPO with a public DoW = cowards ML trying to sneak a couple wars in without a DoW = not cowards Please Dochartaigh, your [buzzword about cowardice] and [buzzword about hypocrisy] and [more buzzwords] are really getting bad! Maybe you should stop [something tears] you [something about a baby] and [something about doing something about it]! [/quote] You also seem to be having some difficulty with this so lets take this slowly: MK and friends attacking NPO with a public DoW = something not even mentioned in the post you quoted. But way to reach. Now to the point being made here if: ML trying to sneak a couple wars in without a DoW = cowards Then: MK trying to sneak a couple wars in without a DoW = cowards OR: ML trying to sneak a couple wars in without a DoW = not cowards Then: MK trying to sneak a couple wars in without a DoW = not cowards What cannot possibly equate is: ML trying to sneak a couple wars in without a DoW = cowards and: MK trying to sneak a couple wars in without a DoW = not cowards

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1296793940' post='2618861'] I'm sorry, I thought the fact that our nations were in anarchy or otherwise engaged was too obvious to bring up. I would certainly declare more than 3 wars if it were possible, or attack during anarchy, but I can't. [/quote] I would also think that you being unable to declare wars on nations in PM was too obvious to bring up, but you managed to do it about 5 times in this thread already. [quote] Because there were only two nations, not our entire upper tier. You were at war with our ally and I guess we thought it was pretty obvious what was going on. If you needed your hand held, you could have checked with us in #mushroom. [/quote] I think the disconnect here revolves around the exact requirements MK has outlined for when they post a DoW and when they don't. Apparently it has something to do with there being only a certain number of nations in range above 50k NS out of peace mode while also factoring into account how many of their sub 50k nations are in anarchy and what day of the week it is and if the groundhog saw his shadow or not. Perhaps you can just save us all the trouble of tracking you down and outline these exact requirements so that everyone is aware in the future.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1296792916' post='2618815'] We don't have nations in range [b]as our nations in range are in anarchy, fighting the NPO or[/b] their potential TPF opponents are in PM. This is feeling very circular. [/quote] You see how you kept leaving the bolded part out of your initial argument as to why you could not post a DoW, thus why we are in this conversation in the first place. What any of the reasons above have to do with not posting a DoW is still escaping me however.