Vilien

[quote name='Earogema' date='09 March 2010 - 09:16 PM' timestamp='1268187715' post='2220275'] They did ask. They asked the very same person who signed the protectorate with Echelon. For some, this might not seem sufficient since he answered incorrectly. I understand that. Also, the most logical approach would have not been to threaten PC, or to not take protectorates they can't defend. [/quote] I'm going to take a leap here and say that you're implying that any non-SF or CnG alliance should not be taking protectorates.

[quote name='Earogema' date='09 March 2010 - 08:23 PM' timestamp='1268184542' post='2220140'] It's not just because they aren't well connected. They seem to be idiots at FA. [/quote] I never argued that Echelon was a competent alliance. I wouldn't even dream of saying something that ridiculous. However, attacking a protected alliance and refusing to pay reparations is pretty tasteless whether or not their protectors are incompetent.

[quote name='Earogema' date='09 March 2010 - 08:20 PM' timestamp='1268184345' post='2220130'] I'd argue that making this a 40 page thread over something that WILL NOT HAPPEN is even more tired. In fact, we save plenty of time this way. [/quote] This doesn't bother you at all? You of all people? [quote name='Gerald Meane' date='09 March 2010 - 08:20 PM' timestamp='1268184351' post='2220131'] Considering that echelon has given an ultimatum of reps or war, and know pc won't be paying reps I'd say that it has a little bit more merit to it then telling an uninvolved party to do something about it. That being said regardless of the outcome we here at \m/ will be supporting our allies if it comes down to war. [/quote] Thanks for the information.

[quote name='welshgazza1992' date='09 March 2010 - 08:18 PM' timestamp='1268184211' post='2220125'] No, PC have given their just reason for not paying reps. Echelon is still complaining, that's why they should "do something about it". [/quote] Their reason for not paying reps boils down to Echelon being poorly connected. That's complete !@#$%^&*. Switch this with, say, a RoK protectorate getting raided and you can sure as hell bet we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

[quote name='welshgazza1992' date='09 March 2010 - 08:10 PM' timestamp='1268183738' post='2220104'] Echelon, it's been said already. Put up, or shut up. (also, Kait's demeanour is still cute. [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif[/img]) [/quote] "Do something about it" as a justification for flagrant attacks on an established alliance? How tired.

[quote name='Banslam' date='09 March 2010 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1268178638' post='2219871'] Not having the wiki updated until couple days later ≠ not having a wiki updated until several months later. [/quote] Because, even if this were true, an alliance has to have clearly labeled protection on the wiki to expect to not be attacked by raiders.

Enjoy forty pages of the usual people strutting and bleating about how they're not going to pay reparations after they aggressively attack a sovereign alliance.

[quote name='Infidel Israeli' date='09 March 2010 - 06:18 PM' timestamp='1268177004' post='2219801'] Fear the mighty moralist front [/quote] Our valiant forces will send only the most indignant messages to our enemies.

Being a small alliance that destroys other alliances for !@#$% and giggles is a good way to earn a blitz from the Moralist Front. Hopefully you don't have to find that out the hard way.

Congratulations, sir.

You're a fine man and a credit to your alliance. Let's hope you're with us for four more glorious years.

[quote name='King Puffington' date='09 March 2010 - 03:59 PM' timestamp='1268168694' post='2219600'] Vilien implying that I'm irrelevant. hahaohwow.jpg [/quote] Oh, you.

[quote name='King Puffington' date='09 March 2010 - 03:54 PM' timestamp='1268168397' post='2219594'] Communists, Moralists, you're both terrible. So good pairing, I guess. [/quote] Who are you supposed to be again?

[center][img]http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/5633/tmflagresize.png[/img][img]http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/2088/nlfresize.png[/img] [/center] [center][u]Why do they gotta Front?[/u][/center] ARTICLE I Both alliances agree to be respectful to one another in public and private, and resolve any disputes through proper diplomatic channels. Both alliances agree to respect each others' sovereignty. ARTICLE II Neither alliance shall take military action or engage in espionage against the other; similarly, no financial or military aid may be rendered by either alliance to any party committing hostile action against the other. Any information gathered by one of the signatories with potential impact on the security of the other shall be promptly and privately forwarded to them. ARTICLE III Both parties shall come to the defense of the other in the case that one party finds itself in a defensive war. ARTICLE IV Member nations are strongly encouraged to provide assistance, based upon need and the best potential for development, between both alliances. The governments of the signatory alliances are expected to promote this kind of cooperation and encourage their member nations to be involved in it. Article V If one of the signatory alliances decides to cancel this agreement, it must give the other party 72 hours notice prior to the official cancellation, during which all articles will be upheld. Signed, For the Moralist Front: [i]Vilien, Speaker[/i] [i]The General Assembly[/i] For the National Liberation Front: [i]deSouza, Central Committee subcomandante Marcoz, Central Committee Fadeev, Central Committee[/i]

I congratulate my friends in NLF on their DoE, though I must admit I didn't read any of that awful stuff that deSouza posted.

Making Orpheus your MoFA is probably a mistake.

Revenge is one of the strongest human motivations. There's a reason it's such an attractive goal.

Congratulations and good luck with your enterprise from your fellow Red team brothers. Do you have an IRC channel?

Oh [i]boy[/i], another thread about hacking.

It's good to see you guys thriving.

[quote name='PrideAssassin' date='07 March 2010 - 02:43 PM' timestamp='1267991291' post='2217089'] To call the current situation an aggressive act on our part is laughable. [/quote] Pretty much everything you've posted in this thread has been laughable.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='06 March 2010 - 01:29 PM' timestamp='1267900424' post='2216108'] Haflinger, read and recognize. Aggressive action is forbidden*, but dangling a small alliance or two in front of someone else in case they might attack and allow you come in with an over-the-top, well coordinated counterattack planned for weeks/months in advance is acceptable. Got it? Thanks. [/quote] Do you ever get tired of losing credibility?

[quote name='Haflinger' date='06 March 2010 - 10:02 AM' timestamp='1267888010' post='2215910'] See, Bob? They've bought the story, and now they're going to meatshield for Fark. [/quote] I wasn't aware that we'd entered a bizarro world where being "preemptively" attacked means that you're the aggressor in a conflict.

[quote name='Methrage' date='04 March 2010 - 07:59 PM' timestamp='1267750985' post='2214305'] Think if I were to create an alliance compromising of 1-3 members to start although growing from there, similar to other micro alliances but instead ruled by a charming dictator. Would you rather sign a protectorate, mutual defense pact, or neither with this alliance? Now imagine if I decided I would rule this alliance without changing my current alliance membership, would that change your answer? [/quote] Be very careful when you answer this one, I think it's a test of some sort.

I wonder if the people still using outdated forum software have gotten the message yet. That said, boy oh boy.