ktarthan

[quote name='Methrage' date='13 April 2010 - 12:43 PM' timestamp='1271187817' post='2258935'] You have three wars going with one of my members, I don't care what you call it. I'd actually rather you don't stop the attacks so I have good reason when I declare on you in a few days. [/quote] Yes, we heard you the first couple times - you don't care what we call it. But [b]you[/b] are the one who continues to call them tech raids when they are absolutely not. If you keep saying it, then you are [i]lying[/i], and we have every right to call you out on it. Not only that, we have already told you several times that we are [b]not[/b] going to peace out of those attacks, and that [b]we don't care[/b] if you attack us. Stop trying to labor these points. Stop trying to make yourself feel like you are having any sort of impact on this situation other than providing comedic relief.

[quote name='JamezBfod' date='13 April 2010 - 10:50 AM' timestamp='1271181025' post='2258841'] Some of us are unaligned too, I guess. [/quote] Techraiding these guys right now.

[quote name='Methrage' date='13 April 2010 - 08:04 AM' timestamp='1271171033' post='2258703'] GOONS have been poking me with a stick by trying to get me to surrender when not at war after I stopped posting here several days, now I consider ourselves at war and they will feel it when my offensive slots clear. Talk is just that, I prefer action in situations like this, so we'll see. I don't care about those flying the CSA AA. [/quote] Did you really, once again, forget the part of the thread where you declared war on us before we started sending out surrender terms?

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='13 April 2010 - 05:49 AM' timestamp='1271162946' post='2258617'] GOONS...because a sense of humor is something to have when someone else is whining, when GOONS are whining, well it's srs bns time. Congratulations. The "mighty" GOONS destroyed a micro alliance over a matter involving $6 million, 100 tech and 500 soldiers (guess all that money and tech needed security guards...). Such difficult war targets, it's amazing that you managed to pull it off. Now you are getting flustered over someone trying to play white knight? The only people "bawwing on the forums" are YOU. Hand over your raiding card. I'm giving to GPA. At least they don't baw on the forums when they have problems with someone aiding rogues, they just take care of business. [/quote] Dang Hal, that's cold. [b]Stone[/b] cold. You've caught us........................ we're bullies...........

[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='13 April 2010 - 01:38 AM' timestamp='1271147921' post='2258524'] The person you attacked from his alliance was deleted were they not? [/quote] There was one who hopped from an AA we are at war with to Citadel - it was deleted - and appears to have been rebuilt. There's another AA hopper that Methrage is for some reason taking offense at us continuing to attack. Our war with CSA is valid and has a declaration here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=84016 He says it's a "tech raid" to gain knee-jerk support, then when we point out it is not, he says "It doesn't matter what it is, it is war". Methrage is simply sticking his nose where it doesn't belong, and trying to act like some fool defender of justice.

He... he... still never answered my questions.

[quote name='Methrage' date='13 April 2010 - 01:07 AM' timestamp='1271146053' post='2258506'] If you have a question state it, as I'm not sure what your talking about. Also its up to GOONS if they end this war between Citadel and GOONS or not before escalation. [/quote] It seems you've having a hard time following this thread that you are following intently. Let me refresh your memory: [quote name='ktarthan' date='12 April 2010 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1271141844' post='2258461'] Are you really still talking? This makes even less sense than everything you've said to this point, and that takes some doing. It's kind of hard to appreciate the humor in the quote when you provide absolutely zero context. It looks like like... a reasonable response to some question you asked? Ha ha GOONS acting normally? And in what universe could any action that GOONS has taken towards either CSA or The Citadel be construed as a tech raid? [/quote] You only came close to addressing my first question, and it was rhetorical. And who the hell are you kidding? "[b]It's up to GOONS[/b]"? You come into this thread and offer safe haven to an AA that we have legitimately declared war upon, ask us to cease attacks, declare war on us when we refuse, and now you're saying it's up to us to decide whether or not this will escalate? I guess what I'm trying to say is The Citadel is not an alliance and we don't care a speck about you or what you do. The only reason I am even conversing with you is because you remind me a bit of Rebel Virginia but without any of the charm.

[quote name='Methrage' date='13 April 2010 - 12:53 AM' timestamp='1271145208' post='2258501'] I'll be there as long as I'm not in anarchy at the moment, otherwise I'll wait till I'm out. ktarthan seems to be another within range, perfect target as well. http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=369789 I still need to determine my third target, who should it be I wonder... [/quote] Maybe if you dodge my questions long enough - they'll just go away? I am literally having more engaging and interesting conversation with the dust on my desk. Also, please do declare on me. You know I love it when you declare down by 80% like that.

[quote name='Methrage' date='13 April 2010 - 12:38 AM' timestamp='1271144289' post='2258491'] I thought we were already at war, why else would all my members including myself be getting messages asking for surrender. [/quote] Awesome job dodging the actual point, once again! You must be some kind of ninja! Regardless, there's a reason I specifically said "declare [b]a[/b] war". As in, literally declare war on one of our nations (I'm assuming your target of choice would be nippy). Did you already forget earlier in the thread? [quote name='Methrage' date='09 April 2010 - 10:59 PM' timestamp='1270879155' post='2255242'] The Citadel recognizes a state of war to exist between The Citadel and GOONS considering they are at war with half of Citadel and continue their attacks after being asked to cease by the offended party. Any who want to join in on our side to hurt GOONS a little are welcome to enter on our behalf. [/quote] You already declared war on us. Please do try to keep up. [quote name='Methrage' date='13 April 2010 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1271144655' post='2258496'] As I've stated Pre-existing wars can be peaced out by the end of today and war can be averted for GOONS, although on 4/15 I have a few offensive slots clear up if you guys choose to continue this. Your choice what to do, just don't complain about your nations not being a challenge like nippy if you choose to continue this and get countered in a few days. [/quote] I really must ask - what makes you think we care? You've got to be kidding if you think we're going to peace out of wars on nations that hopped from an AA we are legitimately at war with just to avoid [b]you[/b]. Edit: You've got to be kidding if you think we'd peace out war with [b]any[/b] nation regardless of the situation just to avoid you.

[quote name='Methrage' date='13 April 2010 - 12:25 AM' timestamp='1271143518' post='2258484'] How do you define talking trash, because I think I might disagree somehow in how you're using the phrase. I don't consider what I was pointing out to be talking trash, but as to what the current state of affairs are that exist between GOONS and the Citadel. Currently it seems to be a state of war, but I'll need to clear an offensive slot to engage you guys myself even though you are hitting an alliance mate. [/quote] I am talking about the fact that you called a message from one of our members funny when there is nothing obviously funny about it. And the fact that by some freakish logic you're trying to twist the current state of affairs into a "tech raid", supposedly in order to gain knee-jerk support from those pesky moralists and anti-tech raiders. I consider petty attacks like this "trash talk", especially when you don't even try to back them up. Frankly (if I can call you Frankly), GOONS doesn't give two hoots if you declare a war on us. We haven't deemed you nearly interesting enough to bother dedicating an offensive slot to, but if you'd like to use one of yours be our guest.

[quote name='Methrage' date='13 April 2010 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1271142215' post='2258464'] I lost interest in this thread long ago, until I started getting a bunch of PMs from GOONS today trying to get me and my alliance mates to surrender when you guys won't even attack me. If you guys want my attention so badly I don't mind diverting it from Gremlins once my offensive slots clear up. [/quote] Good job hitting reply on my post, and continuing to talk about anything but something that addresses my post. I'm glad you are capable of talking trash and not backing it up while trying to call us out for talking trash and not backing it up.

[quote name='Methrage' date='12 April 2010 - 11:33 PM' timestamp='1271140377' post='2258455'] I found this one funniest. (still waiting to see if they launch the attacks, but if they do war it will be) This tech raid will not be profitable for your alliiance should you attack anyone flying The Citadel AA, your choice GOONS. [/quote] Are you really still talking? This makes even less sense than everything you've said to this point, and that takes some doing. It's kind of hard to appreciate the humor in the quote when you provide absolutely zero context. It looks like like... a reasonable response to some question you asked? Ha ha GOONS acting normally? And in what universe could any action that GOONS has taken towards either CSA or The Citadel be construed as a tech raid?

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='11 April 2010 - 11:02 AM' timestamp='1271008951' post='2256440'] [color="#0000FF"]So you made them give up and quit. Woo hoo. Go celebrate. It'll probably one of the few accomplishments in your sad, sorry, pathetic existence. Unlike GOONS, I do not have bully the weak in order to feel important. I am content with my own superiority, and it is for that reason I have been able to rise above you all and become the hero I am today, admired by all.[/color] [/quote] I don't think anyone quit - just either switched AA or removed from Bob by the almighty Admin, his wisdom be divine. Also welcome to the thread RV, I was wondering when you were going to show up.

[quote name='Methrage' date='10 April 2010 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1270928433' post='2255720'] Doesn't really matter to me, what you guys showed here is you can't back up the most simple threats. It seems when you guys tell someone not to call your bluff its because you can't back them anyways. [/quote] GOONS has a very refined and sophisticated metric that we utilize to calculate whether or not any sort of action will procure a suitable amount of entertainment for the amount of effort involved in executing said action. Not only do you not pass the metric, you are being incredibly entertaining without us even lifting a finger.

How many more members need to leave before we can get our first tally on the "Alliances Disbanded" scorecard?

Good thing I caught this - I just about raided your new AA.

[quote name='travia' date='08 April 2010 - 07:21 PM' timestamp='1270779690' post='2253756'] I am quite aware of most of the issues that most of you guys bring up. I'd like to thank you all for the concerns you presented me. Anywho, thanks all Oh, do the moralist and anti-moralist have stances on cake and pie? [/quote] I am a dirty scummy tech raider, and I love both cake and pie. My two cents for a newbie: Trust your gut and make your own opinions. Just be prepared to defend them, because boy do people here like to argue.

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='09 April 2010 - 10:31 AM' timestamp='1270834293' post='2254425'] Well, you believing in telling them y will happen is baseless; it is still a rational choice. I can imagine you being one of those categorized under the bystander effect. People do things BECAUSE they feel 'y' wont happen. Every being has basic rights and it is them who help form and regulate these rights as a society; i.e, the consensus perspective. Deterrence only goes so far; to answer your question: someone shouldn't do something just because they feel they can, or even because they can 'get away with it.' You are a leader of your nation, say if your innocent wife is brutally attacked and, well you know what happens, it certainly is acceptable for what they did, correct? We start of with simple analogies with mugging and someone's right to do as he or she pleases, then we up the stakes; do you feel the same? One might say yes and try arguing out of their $@!, any rational person possessing any traits of decency and common sense will readily say, "no." Most People need regulations to stay in line, and too a certain extent, we need to mildly watch others'. [/quote] You're right - I won't say that a brutal attacking is acceptable to me. My whole point though, is that I believe above all else in the causal chain. Pay attention to the causes of things that you find undesirable and you can find the solution to preventing them. Pay attention to the effects of your actions and understand what lies ahead. Someone brutally attacking my wife is not acceptable, and I will respond accordingly, and hopefully in a way that can deter similar actions in the future. edit: spelling

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='09 April 2010 - 07:01 AM' timestamp='1270821693' post='2254259'] [color="#0000FF"]Well then, I suppose if you're mugged you have no right to that property, or safety even. You did fail to defend your rights, no? Well, of course that's all nice an fine, but I prefer living in a civilized society.[/color] [/quote] I don't believe that any being has a definite set of rights - other than those that can be defended and/or enforced. In a civilized society there are incentive systems in place to deter muggings, as well as deal with muggings that do happen. If a person sees the incentives involved and still wishes to take another's property, why should he not? I do not believe in dictating to others what actions they are and are not allowed to do. I do believe in telling others "If you do X then Y will happen" and letting them make the choice for themselves.

[quote name='Nobody Expects' date='09 April 2010 - 09:25 AM' timestamp='1270830320' post='2254366'] 1/10 - Announcement promises so much, and on further investigation delivers soo little [/quote] Terribly sorry, next time we'll try to have a more interesting alliance aid the rogues attacking us.

Get a better flag

[quote name='Baldr' date='08 April 2010 - 08:27 PM' timestamp='1270783631' post='2253875'] lol. He had the guy he's been attacking with delete the old war history so that it looks like he attacked on his own. I'm not surprised - he's a tech raider and a coward, so I didn't expect him to be honest. [/quote] Way to go, accusing someone of something that's completely unverifiable, so that it's your word agains-- Wait a sec. Lets do an experiment. Anyone is welcome to try! -Download the war statistics file here: http://www.cybernations.net/stats_downloads.asp - It's currently accurate up to April 8, 5:25 (Not sure if it's AM or PM, either way it's before your post) -Load into your spreadsheet program of choice. -Sort by: Declaring Alliance, Receiving Nation. -Look for my name under Declaring Ruler. I'm sure you can take it from there. (PS: In case the file gets updated before you can check it, here's a copy I've hosted myself: http://itotallyforgot.com/CyberNations_SE_War_Stats_48201052500.zip )

[quote name='Vilien' date='08 April 2010 - 05:24 PM' timestamp='1270772627' post='2253602'] Your experience here is pretty shallow if you exist solely for the purpose of raiding. [/quote] Sir, that is not what I said. --- [quote name='Baldr' date='08 April 2010 - 05:31 PM' timestamp='1270773080' post='2253611'] No, I don't think I can explain to a child who believes that he should be able to do anything he wants why he's a scumbag. I've tried, and you're still arguing that you should be able to attack anyone you want, for no reason, and that nobody should help them. [/quote] Sorry, that's not what I asked. But I'll respond to your incorrect statement anyways: -I cannot attack anyone I want, I am bound by the charter of my alliance which dictates valid raid targets. -I have a reason: I wish to accumulate tech. -Anyone can help them if they'd like, but depending on their form of help I will react in a certain manner. [quote] If all you want is war, why not attack someone who can actually fight back? Why pick on people much smaller than you? [/quote] I'll be honest, I want tech. A fight is secondary. When weighing my options I'm not going to raid a target that will assure a net loss. Why would I? I may be a scumbag, but I'm not a stupid scumbag. [quote] I can already see it. You're going to claim that you don't do that. So lets look. You : 3,911.67 infra, 514.37 tech, 17,311 NS. Your opponents showing on your war screen. #1 : 3,280 infra, 378 tech http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=7381 #2 : 2,482 infra, 133 tech http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=211868 #3 : 1,838 infra, 158 tech. http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=160841 #4 : 2,000 infra, 0 tech. http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=259630 #5 : 240 infra, 0 tech. http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=253695 Not only are you picking people who are a lot smaller than you, you always have a partner. The problem is, you are a bully. You like mugging little old ladies, and you cry if someone tries to stop you. You don't have the courage to fight a fair fight. You want a friend to help you, your alliance to back you up in case of retaliation, an opponent who is smaller than you, and the ability to hit the target just before update, no warning, and again right after the update. That way, he's already in anarchy before he even knows he's at war. [/quote] I already said that I'm not going to deny attacking smaller targets (Although I might debate the qualifier "a lot" smaller), but I will still point out the parts where you're exaggerating or lying: #1: No partner, attacked 2 hours before update #2: No partner, attacked 23 minutes after update #3: Attacked 5 hours before update, "partners" joined of their own volition #4: No partner, attacked 8 hours before update #5: Attacked 11 hours before update These raids date back to 2/23, when I was at about 1.5k infra. The stats you have quoted have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the "fairness" of those raids when they happened. No-one has ever tried to stop me from raiding - other than the targets themselves. In that case, I gave them a fight. There was no crying on my part. I have never once asked for assistance in any raid whatsoever, and as you can see, I don't raid at update. I even send my troops in cautious attacks which have a lower chance of sending the target into anarchy. [quote] You should try raiding me. I'm in your range. But you won't, because I'm not an easy target who will just roll over. [/quote] You're not in my range. I am sorry but it is painfully obvious that you have nothing of worth to debate. All you do is throw around the same emotionally charged phrases over and over, and resort to insults when someone tries to discuss. You use a single raider archetype to argue against all raiders, even when it clearly does not apply. I am entirely willing to have an intelligent conversation on the pros and cons of tech raiding, but you have not shown a single sign that I will find one with you. --- [quote name='TypoNinja' date='08 April 2010 - 05:56 PM' timestamp='1270774561' post='2253634'] I find it interesting that you label the underlined comments as inflammatory rubbish, but did nothing to address their factual accuracy. As near as I can see he did not speak anything that was not accurate. [/quote] I did not want to qualify his derogatory stereotyping with a more thought out response, but as you can see I have since changed my mind. [quote] Apply your own position the same way from the other perspective, Why are these people you are victimizing worth less than you, why should they suffer to meet your wants? A mans rights extend only so far as they do not infringe anothers. Your right to swing your fist where you please ends at the other mans nose. I recognize that it is an imperfect world, so the strong will prey on the weak regardless of morality, but please, don't act like the raider is the wronged party every time someone suggests that its a bad thing. [/quote] I do not feel any leader is worth more or less than another - all are equal in my eyes. It is my belief that a leader's freedoms extend as far as he is willing to bear the consequences. I would not begrudge a raider were I in the shoes of a raid target. I also do not begrudge targets that fight back or get assistance. But their freedom to do so carries with it whatever consequences are a result. I never feel that a raider is a wronged party - but that all that wish to take actions against raiders must, as I just said, bear the consequences of their actions.

[quote name='Baldr' date='08 April 2010 - 03:52 PM' timestamp='1270767141' post='2253481'] I am not a peace lover who thinks nobody should ever declare war. I enjoy war just as much as the next guy. I simply want a legitimate reason for the war. Your reason is "[u]I'm bigger than him[/u], I can steal his tech, [u]he can't stop me, and I can hide behind my alliance[/u]". Your reason has nothing to do with the guy you are raiding - he didn't do anything to you, he simply exists and you see him as a target. [u]By the rules the tech raiders have given us, any nation can attack any nation, no reason is needed[/u]. But by your own rules, that means that I also have the option of attacking whoever I want. And my my own feelings, attacking someone because in order to teach them a lesson about raiding gives me a reason. Note that I don't actually do that. I believe it's fine and fair, and that raiders shouldn't complain when your own argument is "You don't need a reason to declare war". However, I've never attacked a tech raider. I've fought back when I was attacked. I've never been in an alliance which would have allowed me to attack tech raiders, either, and my current alliance isn't a part of the FOS pact. I'm just speaking my mind. It's all hypothetical to me, because unlike you, I'm not out [u]declaring war on everyone I find who appears weaker than me[/u]. The difference between raiding in order to make a profit, like tech raiders do, and attacking in order to bloody them, like I argue is acceptable, is that if I attack you for raiding, it's a direct result of your actions. You choose to go to war, else you wouldn't have caught my attention, wouldn't have attracted my ire. [u]The people you attack are being attacked not for something they did, but for simply existing[/u]. The other difference is the end result that we wish for. You wish for a quick profitable raid. I wish not to make a profit, but to do as much damage as I can so it will kill the profit you would have made from a lot of raids. If the profit goes away, most (not all) of the tech raids will go away. I'm certainly not expecting to make a profit if I attack, because I don't [u]expect to do a couple of ground attacks, then get peace with no repercussions. Unlike you, when I press the big red "Go To War" button, I expect to go to war[/u]. [/quote] You would sounds so much more sincere if nearly every single post you made did not contain the sort of inflamatory rubbish I have underlined. I have made several attempts to try and correct some of these malformed opinions, but it seems that you've got too much agenda stuck in your ears to hear me. [quote name='Baldr' date='08 April 2010 - 03:52 PM' timestamp='1270767141' post='2253481'] If I was forced to choose between driving one guy away, or leaving him alone so he can drive a lot of nations away, yes. Luckily, there is another option. He can play without attacking random people, and the whole problem ends. The people he's attacking don't have that option. They didn't declare war on him - he's the one picking on them. If you don't act like a bully, you won't have to worry about getting treated as one. [/quote] There are some nations leaders who would not wish to lead if they could not exercise their ability to tech raid. For them there is no option - either tech raid, or exit the world's stage. I am one of those leaders. Can you objectively explain how my worth on planet Bob is any less than that of the nations that I have raided? To add something closer to the topic of this thread, I would like to say that I support the [i]spirit[/i] of this treaty as explained by Guffey, even though as I have expressed, the wording doesn't entirely rub me the right way. I support it because it is easy to avoid being tech raided, but not many small nations will immediately know of all of their options. I am always in support of providing useful information to those who need it, and I would never fault a nation for failing to be a raid target by leading intelligently. edit: clarity

[quote name='Guffey' date='07 April 2010 - 10:13 PM' timestamp='1270703588' post='2252785'] For instance, here at Avalon, the only people we will try and militarily stop raiding is unaligned raiders within range of our smaller nations. [/quote] So you'd rather have the raider driven from the game, as opposed to the target?