kulomascovia

Yaay, we have a DoW~ :awesome:

To be fair, Crustaceans are pretty hot.

~Making this thread relevant~

Your justice isn't blind.

[quote name='Overlord Wes' timestamp='1336048797' post='2962827'] I beg to differ. LMFAO does indeed sux. [/quote] *Puts on Hipster Glasses* I knew them before they were popular. Also, they were better before they became popular.

Citadel is very flattered by being attacked by one of the best TE veteran alliances, which is OP. We are a young new alliance with more than a half quite new to TE members, still have a lot to learn and the war with OP, with us being on the defensive side, will definitely benefit us a lot and enrich us with more knowledge. Our current Leader kong92 is happy to be blitzed by 3 OP members; two of them are his old friends Paul and Halushki. He does apologize for his inability to post here and sends his warmest regards. OP's blitz was one of the best ever. We thank all well-wishers on the forum here. We'll try to do our best

Military; we don't need to waste money on useless wars. Medicare and Social Security: old people are old for a reason. They are no longer useful to society. I don't see why we should have to care for them.

What if we cut military spending?

Mostly Harmless Alliance: 8 Haven't heard anything bad about them. Green Protection Agency 10 Neutrality is perhaps one of the most consistent and ethical ideologies out there. Fark: 8 They keep to themselves Independent Republic Of Orange Nations: 8 Nothing much to dislike Sparta: 9 I have had many pleasant interactions with their former members. World Task Force: 10 Neutrality is perhaps one of the most consistent and ethical ideologies out there. Orange Defense Network: 8 They seem harmless enough The Order Of The Paradox : 8 I love Paradox Interactive Umbrella: 8 I like Umbrellas New Pacific Order: 8 Long history Global Alliance And Treaty Organization: 9 I like cats. Viridian Entente: 9 Dedicated and loyal bunch. The Democratic Order: Neutrality is perhaps one of the most consistent and ethical ideologies out there. New Polar Order: 8 Nice people FOK: 7 Haven't heard anything bad about them. R&R: 8 Great pip Mushroom Kingdom: 8 I like Mario. Nordreich: 6 I don't like Germany or its history. LoSS: 8 They have a decent flag. Nusantara Elite Warriors: 9 I like Indonesians The Legion: 8 I like purple Valhalla: 8 I like purple Multicolored Cross-X Alliance: 9 Not really multicolored Nueva Vida: 8 fun guys The Foreign Division: 9 Very fun guys Federation Of Armed Nations: 7 I don't like guns very much. NATO: 8 They have an interesting history. Global Order of Darkness: 8 I like bacon. The Grand Lodge Of Freemasons: 9 I sold tech to a guy that may have been in GLOF. Legacy: 7 For a relatively new alliance they certainly don't have much legacy. The Templar Knights: 6 I hated the Templars. They were mean to Altaïr The Order Of Light: 7 What do hammers have to do with anything? Asgaard: 8 Great people iFOK: 7 Not so great people Commonwealth Of Sovereign Nations: 7 Not really a Commonwealth but whatever. Athens: 8 I like everything Greek. World Federation: 8 Baloney! Goon Order Of Oppression Negligence And Sadism: 7 Not really oppressive, nor negligent, nor sadistic. Fellowship Of Elite Allied Republics: 7 They have 'Of Elite' in their name. Global Democratic Alliance: 10 Almost best alliance ever. Argent: 1 I would give them a 0 but they have that beaver thing. Guru Order: 5 I am neutral on this subject. Christian Coalition Of Countries: 7 They don't really do a lot of Christian things... Ragnarok: 8 I like Nordic mythology The Phoenix Federation: 9 I like Phoenixes. Random Insanity Alliance: 1 What?

RE is #1 again

[quote name='Alexander The Second' timestamp='1303881647' post='2700199'] good stuff I wanted to have a good go at OP o/ TPC [/quote] I love your sig. [quote name='dy Cazaril' timestamp='1303881985' post='2700206'] For heaven's sake, it's spelled [size="7"]ROGUE!!![/size] I'm sick and tired of red cosmetics getting blamed for everything. [/quote] Red cosmetics are the bane of TE.

BOO HISS /me goes on a rampage

[quote name='2burnt2eat' timestamp='1303254922' post='2693985'] Out of all the things I had to expect to be your fallback, that's it? I think I just busted a gut laughing, because you must be completely oblivious to what's been going on and what's been said on the forums and IRC, let alone the tidbits I just said. Everyone has their own reasons for going after Acti or hating them. Go ask around. Just for S&Gs, because it's a fun thought of you maintaining that defense throughout the entire process. [/quote] I'm not falling back on anything. That's what I've been saying since this whole situation started. I am not oblivious to what's been going on, I simply do not think that AcTi's past actions (or anyone's past actions ) constitute a reason to attack them.

[quote name='2burnt2eat' timestamp='1303250891' post='2693955'] You deny accountability for Acti but demand accountability for the people you call "rogues"? The logic in that is astounding. Unfortunately for you, I don't hail actions as wrong simply because of the color of the coat somebody is wearing, just as I don't hail something wrong simply because they come from a certain alliance. [/quote] AcTi has nothing for which they need to be held accountable. They have done nothing to thriller to deserve an attack.

[quote name='2burnt2eat' timestamp='1303245381' post='2693872'] Some of the people like to point out some form of hypocrisy of people supporting this. I ask where. Anyone that defends Acti simply doesn't have any idea of past actions or belligerency, or perhaps just even the "personal charm" of Batallion himself, who likes to take harassment even to other realms (including hacking). Being a target of that multiple times, there's no way in hell I'm going to extend my hand to a jackass, who after pulling himself back up the edge of a cliff, would then push me in. [/quote] The issue is not AcTi itself. The issue is an alliance attacking another alliance without a clear and defined purpose and receiving sanction from a well connected alliance. So it doesn't matter what AcTI has done in the past. What matters is that no one should be facilitating rogue attacks in the first place.

[quote name='Facade' timestamp='1303238038' post='2693760'] You could quite easily end the wars against your members. Just because there is a wait doesn't mean anything. Diplomacy is a wondrous thing when it works. Would you like for me to mediate for you? I'm not a fan of attacking alliances without reasons. I'd be great. [/quote] [quote name='The Pansy' timestamp='1303238841' post='2693776'] You are quite wrong, diplomatic channels are very open,and there is every chance this can be resolved very quickly should you wish to talk, we await your/Batallions visit. [/quote] Why didn't you guys talk to AcTi instead of attacking them?

[quote name='Raider' timestamp='1303194985' post='2693403'] I don't quite think you're counting right. We had an in flow of about 500 nations during the early stages of the war and a large amount from SA joining to fight for GOONS later. We're down about 200 since the war started. I have to check that that though. [/quote] I'm using SCY's stats: [quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1296173870' post='2606332'] 1/23/2011 20,371 players 1/24/2011 20,438 players [color="#00ff00"](+67)[/color] 1/25/2011 20,477 players [color="#00ff00"](+35) (+102)[/color] overall 1/26/2011 20,504 players [color="#00ff00"](+27) (+ 129)[/color] overall 1/27/2011 20,559 players [color="#00ff00"](+55) (+184)[/color] overall [/quote]

[quote name='KahlanRahl' timestamp='1303194839' post='2693399'] My point was, in response to your point, that who cares if it's justified? No one follows that old, at this point, archaic doctrine anymore clearly. [/quote] What archaic doctrine? That one needs an actual reason to go to war? That's not really a doctrine. It's common sense. And also, just because no one follows it doesn't mean that it is wrong.

[quote name='KahlanRahl' timestamp='1303194178' post='2693381'] How long has it been since anyone's had to [i]legitimately do something[/i] to warrant and justify an attack? Hmm? [/quote] A very long time? I'm afraid I don't see your point. [quote name='KahlanRahl' timestamp='1303194178' post='2693381'] As for your suspicions, reread what Dave posted. It's just a raiding protection statement, nothing more. Not a formal treaty. Backlash? If any comes in the form of formal DoWs... who knows. For now I personally am enjoying watching these whiners squirm at an alliance half their size. [/quote] Still, the fact that TIO feels the need to assist an alliance that attacks others for no reason what so ever does indicate that they have an ulterior motive. And indeed, that is what Skippy seems to have indicated.

[quote name='TheListener' timestamp='1303194069' post='2693375'] Preach on! Wait no... what? So you're saying they shouldn't be capable of declaring war on an alliance simply because they don't like them. Does this mean that a Sovereign alliance shouldn't be able to war against someone they feel has wronged them whether actually or existentially? [/quote] As long as an alliance is not an apparent threat to one's security, there is no need for a war. I may dislike other alliances, but that doesn't mean I should go around waging wars upon them. If one feels wronged by a past action, well then you can try discussing your grievances with the purported offender. It shouldn't even come to that. People need to get over past deeds. This idea that past actions can be used as catalysts for war creates a cycle that pits one side against another side for a very long time. This is why politics on this planet has grown so stagnant. Resorting to war is a childish and immature way to resolve past actions.

[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1303188718' post='2693260'] We will! You should join us [/quote] Sorry, I'm all destroyed [quote name='Skippy' timestamp='1303188755' post='2693262'] TIO has more than enough reason to sanction the attack, you should look into their history some more [/quote] What history? [quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303189006' post='2693271'] Yes. It is entirely our fault. We are such bad people. [/quote] Did AcTi do something to provoke an attack? Was this necessary to the defense of your alliance? No, it is not. As such, you cannot claim to have been sufficiently justified in attacking AcTi. [quote name='TheListener' timestamp='1303193086' post='2693353'] Oh come now, TIO has friends too [/quote] TIO has friends while AcTi does not. I suspect that TIO gov. members feel that they can openly facilitate the aggression of this new alliance without much backlash.

[quote name='TheListener' timestamp='1303191438' post='2693323'] Thriller is a Legitimate alliance and they have a legitimate Protector, that being said sure they lack a CB... but hey isn't that the precedence that was set in the past two major wars? [/quote] There is no reason to follow a bad precedent.

Wow, so TIO is sanctioning the attack of AcTI by a band of rogues for no reason? And then everyone supports it? No wonder Planet Bob is bleeding nations at such a staggering rate. Welp, have fun with your self destruction.

We're down to 19,603 nations. We had about 800 more before the war started. This doesn't seem too significant compared to losses during previous wars. I'm not sure if this is just a normal cycle or due to the war.

[quote name='rapmanej' timestamp='1302995901' post='2691681'] "AndrewHG Guys. We got an MK member who has access to this status block" "AndrewHG He has published your/our comments" "AndrewHG So yeah keep it private message until we work out what else the scumbag has access to" such anger over a game! [/quote] Derp Yay new government! Though that kajdav will inevitably lead us to ruin. >=(