The Crimson King

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1288832419' post='2501384'] I tip my hat off to Hell Patrol, they just got done fighting a war and actually have out anarchied a bigger AA (Abyss) which also had the blitz advantage. You have OP's respect for what it is worth [/quote] Thank you for the kind words

[quote name='rodrod' timestamp='1288827733' post='2501318'] But I can say that us in the top tier are doing quite well. You now only have 3 nations above 2k NS. And they won't be there much longer. [/quote] Do you even bother to look at stats before you post garbage like this? Again this appears that you are patting yourself on the back for your expert work on our 2k plus nations. I mean we only have 3 left right? Sounds real impressive. Well that is until you realize we had a total of 4 of them when the war started. So yeah, in 3 days of wars you managed to take a total of ONE 2k plus nation down to 1,896 NS. Real impressive. This is similar to the garbage you have been tossing around about gaining NS thus far. On just 4 of those inactive ghost nations I pulled up you had a growth total of 6,322 NS today due to them jumping. You gained 2,521 NS today according to your stat sheet. Care to explain where the other 3,801 NS went to?

[quote name='KOwens06' timestamp='1288760858' post='2500631'] Uh oh looked like you guys are hurting their feelings, keep it up! [/quote] Careful what you post KO, he may be coming for you next

[quote name='rodrod' timestamp='1288731682' post='2500095'] Wow, you can't argue your points so you attack my grammar. Clearly you are the most classy person here and your opinions are correct because you payed attention to what you typed. /sarcasm [/quote] Actually I have no issue arguing my points. If you want to go back and address the first point I made in response to yours then feel free, or just continue to ignore it. Fine by me either way. In fact most people have done a fine job of making their points in this thread. It seems that you are the one having difficulty grasping what others are trying to say even though the points made so far have been quite simple. A) This is a down-declare: Try as you might there is really no way to argue against this. You declared on an AA with approx 1/2 of your existing membership, 60% of your pre-build up NS and with 1/3rd of the amt of nations over 2k NS and in nuke range that you had, and an AA that was one day removed from another war. Do we care...no not at all. We are certainly not crying about it, however what we will continue doing is calling out your attempts to spin this as a fair and evenly matched war from the outset for the BS that it is. No one wants to hear you crying about your ghosts. As someone else already pointed out, if you have them then bust them. But if you think coming here and saying your inability to keep your own house in order is going to score you points on the argument that this was an evenly matched war, then you may have another thing coming. B.) So far your showing in this war has been borderline abysmal: Given the numbers advantage that you possessed that I outlined above, you should have had a much better initial showing then what you have mustered. Out of a 41 man AA you managed to have 7 nations show up for a blitz. Perhaps you consider a 17% turnout for a first night blitz in the first war of a cycle an impressive showing, but I doubt you will find most people hailing that. Conversely you had over 40% of your AA still in Defcon 5 at the time of the declaration. Given the fact that you were the aggressors and had days to plan this, one would assume you would have at least been able to get your members into a proper defcon state before declaring. Must have been all those pesky ghosts. You managed to place 6 guys in anarchy, while having 2x that number of your nations put in. You had days to plan your initial blitz, yet in a matter of 8 hrs we managed a counter offensive that dwarfed your initial run on our nations. And yet you are still out here trying to claim that you are somehow killing us by using such gems of logic like this: [quote name='rodrod' timestamp='1288733952' post='2500127'] I'll have you notice that The Abyss has grown in NS, while Hell Patrols had lost NS. Why is this? [/quote] Well it certainly has nothing to do with the reason you gave. Last time I checked every alliance has an NS spike on the first day of war. Conversely we were just coming off a war and all of our guys were already maxed on military because of this. So yes, your nations hit their 2 week bonus, collected, and bought a lot of military before attacking. I suppose congrats are in order for this amazing feat you have accomplished. In the end the real conundrum you managed to create for yourself is this. If you do manage to win this war then no one will hail you for it because of the reasons outlined in section A above. What it looks like is you are still butthurt over how you failed miserably last cycle at using Kodiak to create drama and only succeeded in making a fool of yourself. So to make up for it you ran back to the Abyss and down declared on an AA half your size. Very impressive On the other hand if you lose this war you are going to look doubly foolish for those exact same reasons, coupled with the fact that you are running your mouth about how well you are performing. Given the showing to date, and our activity levels compared to yours you should also realize this is a very real possibility. If you had any sense at all you would realize this and shut up. I will not hold my breath though.

[quote name='rodrod' timestamp='1288701032' post='2499803'] What is there to justify. People where called out, their prides where hurt, wars where started. It's as simple as that. [/quote] ..and somewhere along the line someone got the meanings of the words where and were mixed up....

[quote name='rodrod' timestamp='1288676342' post='2499694'] Our bottom 13 nations are below 1k NS. You have 2. That means we have 13 nations that are essintally not going to do us much help in this war, and 28 who will be the fighting force. 28 vs 22 isn't horribly low odds last time I checked. If you're going to bawww then please feel free to surrender and save your pixles. [/quote] You realize this is only an accurate counter argument if every nation you currently have under 1k ns will remain there for the duration of the war and not jump up to hit anyone. Then, and only then, will you be able to use this line of reasoning to offset claims about this being a down-declare.

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1288416616' post='2496995'] The only terms for this peace is that the Parrot Pirates provide the rum so long as The Hell Patrol provides the womenz...so may we drink, and drink, and drink, and drink, and drink, and drink, and $%&@...wait i mean...party [/center] [/quote] True to our word, THP has already provided the female companionship outlined above and it appears our Parrot friends are quite pleased with their newly acquired "booty" [img]http://www.beachvolleytraining.com/images/PirateTeam.jpg[/img] Another fine example the greatness that comes from [size="3"][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwwmglYX7QE]mixing Pirates and Metal[/url][/size] Now we shall all retire to Nancy's Tavern for a night of drinking and debauchery.

Congrats on your retirement GK. Your dedication and hard work over the years has shaped and molded an AA that you should be damn proud of, and one that will be in excellent hands with Mia at the helm going forward. Enjoy your well deserved rest my friend.

[quote name='rodrod' timestamp='1287466289' post='2487498'] Clearly, we won. They even moved to a new AA. [/quote] Yeah we were getting tired of having your anarchied nations showing up on our stats

Taking side bets on which aa anarchies more Abyss nations

Well this turned out interesting

Looking good guys

[quote name='lazaraus45' timestamp='1286297358' post='2476004'] heh, i think the idea is for the rogues to get some attention, i'd say they succeeded anyway, while i have no side in this matter i will say that placing sanctions on aqua members without good reason will get you rolled [/quote] Well I suppose I would have to ask if you think "I'm up in your base" is a good reason for a sanction to be laid down. If you don't know what I am referring to check the sanction screen

[quote name='2burnt2eat' timestamp='1286253290' post='2475532'] Fool of himself? Reading one post of yours and I can see that you continue in the footsteps of the hypocrisy of your good friends.[/quote] Please feel free to expand on this because I honestly have no idea what hypocritical friends of mine you are referring to [quote] This is attention whoring how? Oh I get it. You got to put him under you. You can't rise above our leader in intelligence or common sense, so you make some far-fetched claim of attention whoring. Oh right. That's our drive.[/quote] Please feel free to rephrase this in the English language since I have no idea what you mean by my inability to rise above your leader in intelligence or common sense. As far as his attention whoring, I will get to that later. [quote] We were here first. [/quote] Your 3 day AA seniority would prove otherwise, but far it from you to get hung up on simple facts like that. [quote] Oh how pretentious. Do you really think your crappy half of the members are worth fighting over? [/quote] Actually considering you started a war with the aa, attempted to fake a leadership position, and tried to recruit people to your cause shows that in fact YOU are the one who thinks our members or AA are worth fighting over. If you need further proof of this please go back and read the eloquent post that started this thread by your dear leader whose intelligence and common sence I apparently cannot rise above [quote] A bunch of guys that can't handle a handful of rogues and a tiny alliance like SWAT at the same time? You must be glad that you're getting the help of an outside alliance now. But regardless, that's right; all you have is exactly this: presumptions. Rodrod never messaged your precious members. I did as a joke. Rodrod is an excellent recruiter. Somehow he can't get people to join his own AA, while getting something like eight to attack you. Explain that to me with more of your presumptions please. [/quote] Again please point out where anyone stated we could not "handle you" on our own. In fact what you will find if you read this thread is our membership basically saying "Naw, we got this covered" to anyone who offered assistance. So if anyone hit you it was not of our doing. So actually the only person that seems to be bawing here about getting hit by rogues is you. So to put it in your terms...What's the matter, you can't handle a small AA like Kodiak and few rogues at the same time? [quote] Again, we don't care about your members. We don't care about your AA. Picking on you guys is just plain fun. We actually had some of your members willing to turncoat to our side after my quick propaganda message I turned them down. We don't want them.[/quote] Please by all means then post up the responses you got from them to verify this claim [quote] Some on our side would complain about how seriously you and your leadership is taking this, but I on the other hand love it. If you're willing to keep on going with this dribble, I'll gladly provoke more of it for my own entertainment. The only thing thicker than most of your egos, is the callus on your sense of humor. [/quote] Actually none of us are taking this seriously. For us to take it seriously you would first need to actually present some form of threat, which up to this point you have failed miserably at doing. [quote] Hmm, maybe you should try picking on someone your own size. Oh wait, you can't even handle a bunch of rogues yourselves or a rolled SWAT at the same time. [/quote] Believe I already addressed this earlier but thanks for making the same point twice in one post. It is still just as wrong the 2nd time [quote] How is this attention whoring? Is making a thread attention whoring? Go look at your government, who keep posting like morons when their silence would be golden. [/quote] Ahh, and so we get the heart of the matter. A few of you had issues with the way that some of kodiak handled themselves this cycle. So instead of just simply declaring war, you decided to get a group of people together, plan for 2-3 days, drop your aa, ghost the kodiak aa AA, draft and send out messages to the membership, attempt to secure alliance backing in your plan, and post threads that scream "look at me and how cutting edge I am in handling this situation". So if anyone is exhibiting chronic butthurt symptoms here, it certainly is not us. I guess that wasn't milk we left in your cheerios afterall.

[quote name='rodrod' timestamp='1286244234' post='2475034'] This blatant lie is completely false. I am the leader of Kodiak Corps, and my government is the only government. Judge and his imposters have decided to highjack our AA, we will not put up with it! [/quote] You must have a hard time with the English language so let me take this real slow for you. You made the claim that Kodiak has repeatedly attacked alliances that were engaged in other wars. I, in turn, refuted this point. Since then your responses to that post have basically consisted of "but but but...hey look at me ...I posted a thread claiming I am the leader of Kodiak...that makes me an important person". Again, feel free to address any of the points I made in my original post, or just keep making a fool of yourself with these responses. Either one works for me. [quote name='Mikeyrox' timestamp='1286244491' post='2475061'] I dont really know anything about him. I was just pointing out that if he were truly the leader since the start of the round, he should have called Judge X out before now (since Judges posts on behalf of Kodiak should have made his leadership, sanctioned or usurped, pretty obvious). Since he hasnt done so before now, seemingly at random, it makes his case look pretty darn weak, even to those of us who don't know anything about the situation, except that we like making passing references to Cold War era Germany in this thread [/quote] Actually since this has not been addressed in a complete fashion I will shed some light upon the entire situation for those who do not know the backstory here. Basically this entire "war (and I use the term loosely) began when rodrod and a few of his friends decided to change their AA to Kodiak about 2 days ago. No one in Kodiak had ever heard of him prior to this and none of them were members. In fact, had they done even a minute bit of homework they would have realized that everyone flying the kodiak AA also hails from the same alliance on another nearby planet in this realm. Basically he had decided that he was bored with the current cycle and needed a way to draw attention to himself so he ghosted an AA and sent out messages to its members claiming he was the new ruler (presumably because he cannot actually get people to join an AA that he actually sets up) and certain other existing members of Kodiak were to be rolled. Naturally this had a snowballs chance in hell of actually working since every member of the Kodiak AA actually knows each other quite well from that other nearby planet and furthermore there is no true "gov structure" within Kodiak (we kind of fashion ourselves as more the anarchist type). Had he spent 5 minutes researching this he would have realized this was doomed to failure. Once plan A went to hell, and he also came to realize that this did not get under the skin of any of the existing members (in fact many of us were more than happy to have fresh blood to take on since the SWAT war was peacing out) he figured his last recourse at attaining the attention he so desperately desired was to come to these forums and create a thread proclaiming himself leader of Kodiak. In the meantime he nearly managed to get certain friends of his rolled who were initially condoning his actions and blew this off with remarks like "You think I care if you hit them" So basically what we have here is a severe case of attention whoring. Nothing more, nothing less. Edit: Punctuation

[quote name='rodrod' timestamp='1286241471' post='2474907'] I am the one busting rogues here son. Go back and read the OP Plz. [/quote] Sorry son, but the OP has absolutely nothing to do with the statement you made that I responded to so I have no reason to go back and read it. Perhaps you should go back to the post you made that I quoted and actually address my points in it that called you out on your BS. [quote name='Mikeyrox' timestamp='1286242481' post='2474924'] In all honesty, rodrod you don't have much of a case here that I can tell. JudgeX already posted, what, 2 or 3 DoWs? And has been the de-facto leader figure present on the owf since the start of the round. Plenty of time for you to challenge him before now [/quote] You do realize the rodrod and his merry group of men have not at any time been members of Kodiak and this is simply an attempt to try to draw attention to themselves while they get rolled.

[quote name='rodrod' timestamp='1286226311' post='2474597'] Don't you know Burnt, Judge here is the most badass person in TE because his alliance beat down some alliances that where at war already. Also, obligatory [color="#FF0000"][size="5"][font="Comic Sans MS"][center]DOWN WITH THE GHOSTS! [/center][/font][/size][/color] [/quote] Please feel free to point out where we declared war on any AA that was engaged in another conflict. We have been in 3 wars this cycle The first was with GATO...no active wars when we hit them The 2nd with SF....They declared on us while we were at war with GATO 3rd war with SWAT....again not engaged in any wars when we hit them. And if you wish to consider this current rouge busting a war, then we can do that as well. But it was you who declared on us while we were at war with SWAT But by all means do not let facts get in the way of the wonderful story you are trying to construct.

[quote name='Biazt' timestamp='1285974044' post='2471560'] Everyone in this game likes to hate on the raiding alliances. We're the bad guys, we're driving people from the game, supposedly, we're cowards, hypocrites, thugs, hooligans. No sin is too great to be put on our shoulders. No action we do can be pure of motive. We can be lied to, tricked, and destroyed, and it's justified because We're The Bad Guys. [/quote] As others have pointed out, this statement is simply wrong. Furthermore, being that this is the central thesis from which the remaining arguments in your post are derived, it also makes the everything else after it invalid as well. There are numerous alliances in this game who raid consistently, or have charters that condone raiding, whose actions are never called to task on these forums. You would be hard pressed to find anyone beyond the small minority of absolute hard core moralists in this game who equate an alliance having a raiding clause to said alliance being "evil". I am sure you are not blind to the fact that the hatred shown towards Goons has very little to do with the business of tech raiding itself, but rather the way in which you personally handle the raids (refusing to grant peace until they comply with mercy board terms, raiding what the community feels are established alliance, color sphere mass raids to prove political points etc). The fact that you attempted in one swift stroke, to paint the raiding activity of numerous alliances as on par with the actions of your AA by calling all raiding alliances "evil" is not only laughable, but also quite insulting to those other AA's who handle their raids in a non-abrasive manner. The simple fact is most people do not even consider the majority of the actions taken by goons as "evil". There have been a lot of AA's both past and present who have played the proverbial bad guy with far greater success than anything you are doing. If we must search for proper adjectives to describe the actions of your AA that many rally against than words like childish and immature would be far more accurate then evil. Since your OP seems to be trying to work around the juxtaposition of terms, creating a central thesis using those adjectives (and their polar opposites) would produce an argument that would come much closer to the heart of the matter than anything supplied in the OP. Edit: punctuation

Good fight gentlemen. It was a pleasure

Actually the part about Kodiak not really taking any damage could have stayed since it is applicable in this war as well

Happy hunting

[quote name='lazaraus45' timestamp='1284413103' post='2452685'] I find it ironic that most of the people objecting seem to be from elitist AA's, i figured you of all people would know that[b] wars are fought as much by the quality, activity and skill of the rulers as they are by the NS held by them,[/b] having said that it really makes no sense to charge in head first against PS or tW when most of our membership can't make a check in and half of the SF council haven't even read the target list, i don't expect that SF's IA problems will you make you all go a rubbery one, they are just that, OUR problem, i'm simply saying that if you want to call this some kind of curbstomp at least wait until the stats reflect that accusation, right now, while we are winning it's hardly by a huge amount, when the target list was drawn up i tried to make sure that the NS's of our attackers matched up with the defenders as much as possible, i'm pretty sure that i was the only nation listed to attack nations more than about 250 NS below me, and i made sure that i was the only one attacking both of them targets to try keep it fair [/quote] So if I am reading this correctly what you are basically saying is that because you lack skill, quality and activity it somehow makes using your giant NS and member advantage to declare on 4 aa's (all of whom are either currently involved in other wars and therefore do not have the slot availability to hit you back or just peaced out conflicts) an honorable move in your opinion. Gotcha

I for one can hardly wait for the September 7th update so that I can henceforth roll tanks on GATO.... My post-cognitive dreams have already shown a great and triumphant victory for Kodiak!

[quote name='chris8967' timestamp='1282768519' post='2431148'] You wouldn't have jumped in if NSO had begged you too. NPO would of found a way to avoid it, as always. [/quote] Well this is a rather bold claim to make. Of course by making it one would also assume that you have the ability to provide and clear and concise historical track record in which NPO has habitually ran for cover anytime they or an ally of theirs came under fire to back up this claim. I for one am very interested in seeing you provide this track record.

[quote] [center][img]http://images8.cpcache.com/product/223875208v2_480x480_Front_Color-White.jpg[/img][/center] [center][b][size=4] The Whale Tail Accords [/center][/b][/size] [b]Article I: Sovereignty[/b] This Pact shall not infringe on the sovereignty of The Phoenix Federation (TPF) and The High Order of Notorious Guerrillas (THONG) and shall serve to only embody the friendship and trust amongst the signatory alliances. [b]Article II: Communication[/b] The signatories agree to keep open lines of communication between each other at all times. [b]Article III: Non Aggression[/b] In the spirit of friendship, neither signatory alliance will engage in any hostile action towards the other signatory in any form. [b] Article IV: Protection[/b] In the event that THONG falls under attack, TPF pledges to have their back militarily, financially, and/or politically. [b] Article V: Cancellation [/b] If either signatory finds that this agreement is no longer in their best interest, they may cancel the agreement with seventy-two (72) hours written notice, or immediately by mutual consent. Any violation of Article I, II, or III shall serve as cause for immediate termination by the protector. [b] Signed for TPF: The Crimson King - Evil Overlord, Peddler of Death Desperado - High Panty Sniffer chaz9055 - Minister of Foreign Affairs Signed for THONG: Shakira- Emperor [/b] [/quote] TPF is protective of its thong so hands off