Poyplemonkeys

Lucky Viridians

Only thing I don't really understand is why the nations [i]want[/i] to go back to their alliances who have policies and make decisions that they clearly disagree so vehemently with that they felt the need to leave them in the first place.

Umbrella rules the Cyberverse with an iron fist, wearing a velvet glove.

Made from concentrate is where they take the water out so there's less of it to transport, then add it back in later on so it's essentially the same thing as before but less tasty. I have no idea what 'reconstituted' orange juice is but it sounds vile and I won't be touching it. [center][img]http://www.consumerqueen.com/consumerqueenwp/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/tropicana.jpg[/img] OM NOM NOM[/center]

[quote name='Unholy' timestamp='1293119432' post='2551647'] It's almost like we don't have an old and very trusted ally in PB. [i]Almost.[/i] [/quote] Everyone has old and trusted friends everywhere, that is what causes the strangulation we're witnessing in this war. At the end of the day, if you're genuinely in this war because you want justice for Dark Fist you wouldn't let the fact that you have an old and very trusted ally, who is in a bloc with someone who has a treaty with an alliance who done $%&@ed up stop you... There would be no obligation for your friend to go against you. They are two non-chaining treaties away from your actions. I disagree with the whole 'he's friends with my friend so I can't hit him, no matter what he's done to my friends' ideal when there is no obligation for your actual friend to respond to your actions, so 'he's friends with a friend of my friend' is just utterly ridiculous and should in no way stop you doing what you feel is just.

[quote name='Lukapaka' timestamp='1293117035' post='2551624'] You'd have to sell at least 1350 infra to reach the highest part of my range. I don't know why you're trying to egg on another alliance (or even individual) to attack you, but I know for a fact it's not in my own, my alliances, or my allies best interest for Sparta to engage against NEW targets. Why? [quote]We, the forces of Poison Clan and iFOK, will defend our ally, Nusantara Elite Warriors, against any other nation or force that attempts to use this as an excuse to bandwagon on them.[/quote] [/quote] Yeah, seems we've gotten to the bottom of things now

I don't see how you are serving justice on behalf of Dark Fist... Mostly because you're not, it's just a nice reason to tell the world that guarantees a few hails because you're oh so honourable to your disbanded friends, yet still lets you avoid having to fight anyone that might actually fight back.

[quote name='Lukapaka' timestamp='1293109060' post='2551548'] It looks to me as if you're the ones that want this war to expand. I bet if we did that this war would last a lot longer than necessary. [/quote] So please tell me why you're defending Dark Fist's honour and bringing them justice by declaring war on 2 micro alliances who have done nothing wrong? I know I wouldn't be gleaning much satisfaction from seeing WFF and Europa burn while you leave NEW well alone. After all, it's justice for Dark Fist you want right?

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1293049340' post='2550262'] Oh come the $%&@ on. It's a harmless, consequence free war. What are you afraid of the white peace our side would give you? cowards. [/quote] hahaha Remind me why you chose the two smallest alliances who had done nothing wrong to Dark Fist to declare on when looking for justice for Dark Fist again?

To what end? Hitting NEW is the only way you can get the due justice for Dark Fist that you claimed to want. How is hitting two micro alliances that did nothing wrong going to make any of the ex-Dark Fist members feel any better? How is it providing them with any sort of belief that justice has been done? It's !@#$%^&*, you wanted an easy war and so you took the easy option. I guess if you fought people who could actually do some damage you might end up with legions of members refusing to take part again, don't want that hit to your reputation as such a big, strong alliance

I... can't see what Sparta are adding to the situation at all at this point. I've always been someone who disagrees with the 'lol, why so many alliances, can't you handle them on your own' nonsense that gets branded around but even I'm pretty amused by the fact that Sparta are getting involved here. I just can't see the benefits. No doubt Sparta can otherwise they wouldn't have done it, would quite like them to share their thoughts though.

Oh, well it was a long time ago so I'm not really sure but it's quite likely. No doubt you probably stole the boot before I got a chance or something. GOONS

Well I do quite like Nippy, but I also quite like Hizzy, and Nippy never played monopoly with me Guess I'll just wish everyone fun and agree with those that have said it's a shame to see you winding down, even if you have the cash to do it slowly.

Hey go easy on me and try to ignore the horrible writing style and concentrate on the horrible things I'm saying instead. I'm not like Doitzel/Schatt/Archon who can actually write, make sense and ensure people enjoy reading it regardless of content. That's why this is my first attempt, I've tried to avoid inflicting this upon you until now This is something that has reared its head in recent times due to the NEW situation that’s going on. Now I’ve seen people write things like these, avoiding mentioning specific names, in the hopes that they can inspire objective debate on the subject at hand, but it always devolves into debating the current situation that has inspired the question so I’m not even going to try. I’m talking about this because of NEW, PC, iFOK and whoever else is involved by now. The main thing I’ve been thinking about is the ‘e-lawyering’ that goes on regarding which clause people are using to enter a war, specifically whether you consider the war as a whole, or each individual front when judging whether your declaration would fall under the ‘aggression’ clause or the ‘defence’ clause of your treaty. Personally I believe, and I also think that precedent supports this opinion, that each front should be taken as a separate entity. It seems to me that this being how things were widely regarded in the Cyberverse was the main motivation behind the large number of ‘non-chaining’ clauses in treaties today. The way the vast majority of the optional aggression clauses that I’ve come across are written states that the alliances have the choice to join the treaty partner in an aggressive war that they declare, joining onto the war declaration basically. This seems to fall down when no war is declared by the ‘aggressive’ alliance such as when alliances join in on the other, defensive , side of the war. To tie this back to the current situation, NEW launched an undeclared and aggressive war against the remnants of DF (henceforth known as DF for ease) and it is quite clear that on the NEW/DF front anyone joining the war would be using the optional aggression clause. Again on the other side it’s quite clear that INT and TPE have entered in defence of DF in declaring war on NEW. Due to the non-chaining clauses iFOK and PC have no obligation to defend NEW and I doubt many people will claim they do, however I’ve seen several people defending their decision by saying the treaty calls for optional aggression and they have chosen not to activate that clause. This implies that NEW are in an aggressive war against anyone defending DF which simply doesn’t hold any water for me. You can declare a war on NEW by activating a defensive clause, you can declare a war on NEW because they were the original aggressors, but you are declaring war against them, it is a defensive front as far as NEW are concerned. This is the exact situation the non-chaining clauses are written for, to ensure you’re not obligated to go to war in situations like this and, as stated above, the majority, if not all, optional aggression clauses in treaties I’ve seen don’t legislate for when an alliance isn’t actually declaring a war. You don’t have people later in the war, five or six fronts removed from the original declaration, activating their optional aggression clauses to come to the defence of their ally who chained in to defend their ally against someone who chained in to defend their ally against someone who…. You get the point. Would things be different if PC and iFOK were one front removed from the main war? If NEW and FEAR were in reversed situations would they be saying they weren’t activating their optional aggression clause against ODN because they would be on the same ‘side’ as the original aggressors even if it was ODN declaring war? The only way I can envisage that working would be to see the ‘sides’ of a war as a single entity. NEW were the original aggressors, regardless of the situation anyone declaring on that side of the war is declaring an aggressive war and anyone declaring on the other side is declaring a defensive war. Difficult though because you’re still going to have to break it down to individual alliances rather than declaring war against a ‘side’ otherwise you’ve hundreds of broken NAPs/NA clauses littered about the place. $%&@ this !@#$, my writing is a mess and so this is incredibly difficult to follow no doubt. Unless treaty activations are based on individual fronts I’m of the opinion we will end up with !@#$%* micro wars going forwards, restrained to only a few fronts, and that’s as good a reason as any to avoid it right? Besides, the treaty web is way more likely to explode this way, and everyone has the option to do whatever they like “obligated” via treaty or not. PS: Poison Clan needs better treaty writers (I enjoy the irony of my criticising someone's writing after this mess as much as you no doubt will), obviously the spirit of the treaty is what matters and so the non-chaining clause would apply, but it was written stupidly and this is the 2nd time PC have broken a treaty on a technicality because they were written inadequately.

[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1292916872' post='2548055'] Where did the "network hungers" thing come from? [/quote] The Phoenix Hungers. Kilkenny used to sign off literally every post with that line. It must be half starved by now.

[quote name='TheFlyingLobster' timestamp='1292911387' post='2547837'] Doesn't matter if we were a bit rushed and didn't get a perfect blitz. FEAR needed help suddenly and we'll be damned if we wait another day. Friends > Infra everyday. o/ FEAR o/ Europa [/quote] Good stuff I like this attitude.

NEW government reactions in this thread seem at odds with requesting their allies to stay out of the war How very odd.

Oh $%&@ you.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1292527230' post='2541041'] Yeah sorry, not buying it. Even beyond that though I have not a single doubt that had the coalition had more power they would have acted on the existing terrible CB of UPN accepting people who we were at war with. [/quote] Your choice pal, but you have the logs so it's odd that you can't see what's right in front of your eyes. The only 'manufactured' CB even mentioned was by Hero of Time wanting to start a red honey pot and nobody even entertained that idea at all as you well know. The other things discussed were the tech raid on the UPN nation by a GOON that was resolved without discussion with UPN government (later found out to be resolved by the nations involved themselves) that they thought was just GOONS jerking them about and UPN accepting rogues on GOONS into their alliance and expecting them to get peace because they weren't in any wars at the time. You'll see several people saying things should be kept to the actual issue, not the rogues, when we were under the impression it actually was an issue... [quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1292523712' post='2541000'] Come back to GOONS. [/quote] I tried, it wasn't for me Sorry...

Really nice work there MHA/Azrael, enjoyed that a lot Hope you can keep it up throughout the tournament. I usually wouldn't pick holes in something that has clearly had a lot of effort put into it, but since there was a mention of 50 tech at the bottom... In the 2nd paragraph on page 1 of the Verde e Brancos article you've written Thier instead of Their. Also in the 3rd paragraph you've written straigh instead of straight, and visionarry instead of visionary.

Nobody in the 'WCE' logs was trying to manufacture a CB except Hero of Time and he was fairly soundly told he was being an idiot by most people if I remember rightly. Most people were there because they thought UPN had an actual grievance, rather than being butthurt over the fact GOONS was pissed off at them accepting rogues into their alliance.

It'll be fun when it all comes crashing down around you

[quote name='Brutilius' timestamp='1292432595' post='2540220'] Everyone wants to beat Nemesis, why all the hate people? But really, we should walk through the group phase.... [/quote] Not without me in goal. 3 clean sheets in the first 3 games if I remember rightly

Decimating The Cartel when they thought they could bully us around because we were a brand new and small alliance without protection. They tech raided OTF Alliance when we had over 100 members but no treaties and refused to pay reparations so we just tore their middle tier to shreds until the top few nations we couldn't reach had to agree peace anyway because of what we were doing to all of their other members

Fair enough, others actually able to make decisions may have said it too but I didn't look past the first posts I saw on the subject, so I'll just assume that even if they did say words to that effect, it's still in line with the more than reasonable policies you've outlined above.