trance addict

[quote name='madspartus' timestamp='1280379661' post='2393584'] on the plus side, were having a nice little BBQ over at MHA to welcome some recent refugee's. Sorry not everyone can make it. Oh and its great how ramirus still goes to great effort to berate and insult every single person who leaves, still insisting they are stupid for not following him to the end. [/quote] Isn't proper form and fashion on planet BOB, that when a nation flees their alliance during a time of war they follow proper protocol. such as posting a resignation in the resignation thread and follow outlined individual surrender terms as indicated below? To: Toranaga From: RAND0M HER0 Date: 6/24/2010 1:56:40 PM Subject: Exit From War. Message: Post in the surrender thread on the CN forums stating your withdrawal from the war: http://forums.cybern...p?showtopic=213 -You may not send aid to GRE or declare war on an IRON nation in relation to the current war. - If you wish you're free to join IRON PoW, for up to 45 days while you find a new alliance, during which IRON will protect your nation as best we're able. After 45 days IRON will no longer be obligated to protect you, and may request you leave the AA. While on the IRON PoW AA you may not declare war on any nation, nor send aid to any nation at war with out permission from IRON. Attacks will be held until June 26th Server Time for you to complete/agree to the terms. If you haven't done so by that point we'll need to resume attacks until you do. Random Hero, IRON Councilor

[quote name='Sardonic' date='23 July 2010 - 09:40 AM' timestamp='1279896006' post='2385850'] Recent incidents have drawn to my attention the fact that some alliances think it is perfectly acceptable to accept nations at war. I do not believe this is justified by standard conventions. Let us take for example a recent incident in the abstract (with names removed for the privacy of those involved): Let us call the entities Alliance A, Alliance B, Alliance C, and Alliance D. 1. Alliance A enters a state of war with Alliance B 2. A member (let's call him member X) from alliance B joins alliance C with active wars 3. Alliance D, who is C's ally, threatens alliance A to peace out with member X immediately, or they will attack the nations attacking X. 4. Alliance A refuses to peace outright, and instead elects to let the current wars expire on member X. So my question in all this, who do you feel is justified? The situation is somewhat oversimplified, but the concept remains the same. [b]A)[/b]Would it change your opinion if Alliance B was a microalliance raided by A? [b]B)[/b]Would it change your opinion if instead of electing to diplomatically talk about the issue, B launched wars against uninvolved nations of A? [b]C)[/b]Would it change your opinion if C had an outstanding other issue with A, wherein a member of A completed a tech deal with a nation engaged in combat with C? [/quote] A) Is it a tech raid or an alliance war? In your orignal set of examples it refers to alliance A enteeing into a tate of war with alliance B. Then it is changed to a raid of alliance A. Are there CB's; treaties/protectorates; What is the size of alliance B B) I would note that Alliance B elects to physically protect their members from outside aggression. So my opinion may or maynot change but it definetely would be affected by the path chosen by B C) There are way too many variables not given to make a fair judgement. - What is the outstanding issue? - Is the tech deal an individual or alliance wide deal? - is the issue resolved or ongoing? - you mention a tech deal with an engaged nation at war? is the war a raid or part of the defense of the raided nation?

[quote name='Voytek' date='22 July 2010 - 03:46 PM' timestamp='1279831573' post='2384755'] You have to look at those kinds of posts as having been made with the premise that all tech raiders are drooling caveman gangrapists taken as a given. [/quote] Or you could look at the post as it was stated, what happens to the equation as presented when a nuke is introduced? Did I pass any judgement on tech raiders?

[quote name='mrwuss' date='22 July 2010 - 03:23 PM' timestamp='1279830213' post='2384726'] Tech raid is much cheaper. Free Tech + Cost of replacing soldiers lost < Cost of Tech [/quote] Well that's a snazy formula. What happens when a nuke lands on your nation from a nation your tech raiding, what does that do to the calculations then?

[quote name='Max Power' date='21 July 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1279745060' post='2383192'] So fernando12 is at 8500 infra without a Pentagon, Silo, CIA or Air Base? I wouldn't go above 4000 without at least three. Boy'll get rolled the second he comes out of peace mode, and with that, um, trade circle, it's not like his collections'll be all that great in the meantime. [/quote] Don't forget he has 0 Guerrilla Camps and is a -11 for improvements available.

[quote name='Tromp' date='20 July 2010 - 03:22 PM' timestamp='1279657347' post='2381183'] I see you have sadistic pleasure in seeing Gremlins being destroyed. Such a sad display, really. Totally irrelevant to what he said too. [/quote] Or gRAMlins are having the sadistic pleasure of running a once fine and noble alliance into the ground, because the offer of WHITE PEACE has been on the table for what 3 months?

[quote name='flak attack' date='16 July 2010 - 11:13 AM' timestamp='1279296773' post='2374564'] http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Aqua_Interalliance_Cooperation_%26_Economic_Treaty The lack of citation does not mean one does not exist. [/quote] Grämlins withdrew from Aqua ICE on the 22nd of November 2009

[quote name='nippy' date='16 July 2010 - 10:19 AM' timestamp='1279293572' post='2374503'] who is Syz?[/quote] (DAC)Syzygy of New Syzygia

In 3 days they have declared 3 alliacne wars and a coup. We're going to need an abacus to keep track of this alliance. I see a bright future.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 07:22 PM' timestamp='1276474961' post='2336517'] Particularly, let me know when there is a single nation in IRON within my range. [/quote] [quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 June 2010 - 02:30 PM' timestamp='1277839784' post='2354236'] I will admit some personal failings I failed to foresee how many people would be swayed by the lies and misinformation opposing the realities of what we're demanding. I failed to foresee that people would actually ignore my repeated explanations of the process we are demanding and pretend that their process was somehow more valid... and that so many people would actually be taken by it! [b]I failed to foresee how many GRE members would run away because they feared for their infra or got hurt by the OWF opinion (not all of them meet these criteria, but many do!)[/b] . . . [b]I'd rather go to ZI.[/b] [/quote] MPK in order for you to be set free from your sins, it would help if you admit [u]all[/u] your failures. The one glaring omission in your list personal failings has been your lack of will to actually follow through with your morale crusade against IRON. For more than 2 weeks you have had a number of IRON nations within range, and have also had the opportunity to attack IRON nations whom have had more than 1 year of service in IRON. Why is it that you ridicule other former GRE nations and declare that they ran away "because they feared for their infra"? You yourself are infact running away by not declaring as you clearly stated on June 13th "Particularly, let me know when there is a single nation in IRON within my range." Please when throwing your crack rocks please exit the glass pipe before hand.

[quote name='TOLWYN' date='29 June 2010 - 10:37 AM' timestamp='1277825823' post='2353967'] IM OF THE INCLINATION THAT IT TOOK NAAC OVER A MONTH TO BUILD THEIR FORUMS, AND WITH AN ORGANIZATION AS POWERFUL AS THAT IM NOT SURPRISED. [/quote] ahhh, now I smell re-roll.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 June 2010 - 02:54 PM' timestamp='1277754848' post='2353050'] Are you actually suggesting that if all parties to a document agree that they cannot amend it? GRE doesn't want to force anybody to do anything. If they are inclined, they will accept the amendment. If not, they will not. I fail to see why this is conceptually difficult or malicious. [/quote] You have also failed to attack an IRON nation within your attack range while being out of peacemode, it does seem that lately you have many failings.

[quote name='Owney OSullivan' date='24 June 2010 - 02:11 AM' timestamp='1277363499' post='2348569'] Enjoy your nation's decline, Ramirus. [/quote] You haven't learned, his nation isn't declining, it is mereily increasing in the opposite direction.

At some point it would be fitting for IRON/DAWN to pull their offer of white peace (maybe when gRAMlins accept it?) and inturn set out a new list of demands to achieve peace. Maybe in the range of 150K Tech (roughly the amount they owe in REPS to CnG/Superfriends)?

[quote name='deathcat' date='26 May 2010 - 11:42 PM' timestamp='1274935357' post='2313148'] DC Serves up some of those logs.. Nice and seasoned! [img]http://www.kodak.com/US/images/en/corp/1000nerds/pritchard/Logs2.jpg[/img] [/quote] You Provide the Logs, this monster will take care of them... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo4K1dM2GH4

[quote name='flak attack' date='26 May 2010 - 07:26 AM' timestamp='1274876772' post='2312288'] Clever way of totally avoiding his argument, but I'm afraid it's not going to work. Sal isn't in GPA. [/quote] have you check his in-game nation lately?

3 million sent

3 million sent

3 million sent

3 million sent

I don't understand the Aqua on Aqua violence thing, I thought LUE was Pink?

Would read again.

[quote name='flak attack' date='02 February 2010 - 12:50 AM' timestamp='1265093418' post='2152595'] [IMG]http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i73/rnn2walls/liquidmercurytopfivelosses.jpg[/IMG] Still riding so smug right now? [/quote] And back and forth the smug-o-meter sways, today it seems as though MK is taking it on the chin... Top 7 Day Smallest Nation Gains 1) -74,217 Strength Change - bawheid of Jiveland - Aqua Team 2) -65,030 Strength Change - Drai of Kanto - Aqua Team 3) -56,150 Strength Change - Trace of Malazan Empire - Aqua Team 4) -56,133 Strength Change - o ya baby of o ya baby - Aqua Team

[quote name='bzelger' date='03 February 2010 - 11:19 AM' timestamp='1265217557' post='2156746'] Vanguard and MK are not interchangable, and the treaties do not have provision for jumping ship when we feel slighted regardless. [/quote] Is there not a cancellation clause? I mean if you do feel slighted then that might be the enough is enough, to reconsider the treaties held with those alliances. Please don't take the above statement as my view of what you should or shouldn't do. I am not in your alliance, nor do I have all the facts. My comment is merely an alternate view based on your statement. Unless you have a non-cancellation clause ie. MHA-Gre, then you should have a provision for jumping ship (such an ugly conotation)as you put it.

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='03 February 2010 - 07:07 AM' timestamp='1265202470' post='2156347'] History between FAN and NoR? The first Nordreich was a member of the Initiative and so was FAN. They fought on the same broader side, though not on the same fronts, in Fall Schwarz (aka GWII) and Fall Ragnarök (aka GWIII.) The second Nordreich reformed at war with the Continuum while FAN was still fighting their long war of resistance against the same parties. And now as the third Nordreich enters our first major war, we see FAN besides us - this time on the same front. Yes, I suppose that is interesting. [/quote] Except you forgot the time when FAN Blitz Nov/NoR on the D-Day anniversary (I think it was D-Day maybe Remembrance Day?)