auto98

My girlfriend who i now live with used to have a CN nation, but doesn't now (hasn't for a few months) so will I be OK to log into my nation from home? Me and her both used to have a nation, both of us stopped playing around the same time, and now i have restarted after my sabbatical - still log on from work, where i know i am OK, just wondering about home.

Wow I'm sure the last thread i read before my hiatus was a "should we restart" thread. Obviously the answer is no, it would make the past 4 years pointless. Especially so when the majority of the game occurs off-site, since we would essentially have the same people in the same alliances in an arms race, which would almost certainly be won by the alliances with the largest membership.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='11 March 2010 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1268320003' post='2222132'] yes, you are right. maybe if PC picked apart every word instead of salivating over the word disband, they would not have raided. since the two words in front of disband seem to make it questionable instead of a sure thing. if it is questionable that SBA disbanded, then seeking out a [b]current[/b] member of SBA would have been the smart thing to do or even seeking out Echelon who was their last known ally and friend. but instead, a wiki- which since anyone can edit including some rank and file members who may not know any better and a former member who did not know the current state of things within SBA were the sole two sources, yeah, PC was just wanting to hit SBA again. They did just enough research to confirm they could hit and left it at that. the single 2 [b]best[/b] sources were not even contacted. regardless of wiki, why contact a former member. the moment you saw Peregrine flying the TOP AA, PC should have gone "Gee guys, this guy is not an SBAer, but there are guys flying the SBA AA that have 1k days seniority. maybe we should ask one of them..." so yeah, stating PC did any actual research is ignorant. they did barely any research and neglected the two best sources of info on SBA, that being current members and Echelon. cuz i would think, Echelon would know if another alliance merged into them... i honestly think PC did not ask either of those two alliances simply because they wanted to raid and get away with it. as is evidenced by the pathetic argument they brought to justify their raid. [/quote] While I agree in principle, I'm not sure the best course of action for a tech raiding alliance is to warn the people they are going to raid. That said, once they discover that a mistake has been made, they should rectify that mistake, as per their charter. If PC were to be attacked by echelon over this, I wonder which way it would be seen - would PC be the aggressors, or echelon? The reality of course would be that PC are the aggressors, but I wonder if this obvious fact would get through the skulls of some of the people in this thread.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='11 March 2010 - 09:55 AM' timestamp='1268301670' post='2222017'] I was not away that interpretation of PCs charter rested with you. I would argue that since PCs knowledge was that SBA was a disbanded alliance, hence it can be treated the same as NONE. There was no violation of the charter for raiding the same alliance because once an alliance disbands, it ceases to be an alliance. But thanks for your totally unbiased input. [/quote] That would be correct if not for the fact that the charter says that if a mistake is made then reps are payable. Nice try. edit: or are you claiming that no mistake was made, that PC attacked knowing there was a protectorate treaty in place?

I don't understand what the controversy is - whether PC knew or not at the time of the raid is irrelevant - they know now, they know that it was against their charter, the charter even makes provision for an attack made without knowing that it was against a protectorate, what is the hold up on reps?

As far as i can see, PCs charter does not say "we can't attack someone with a protectorate if we know they are a protectorate" - it says that they cannot raid someone who is a protectorate. In fact, their charter even specifies "In the event that a person raids a protected or treatied alliance by mistake, they will lose their raid privileges for the next thirty (30) days, and will pay reparations to compensate for the damage done." So, the only way that part of their charter can be gotten round is if they were attacking that alliance [b]knowing that it was not a mistake[/b]. So, if you did not know they were protected, your charter says you must pay reps.

[quote name='steodonn' date='19 February 2010 - 03:58 PM' timestamp='1266595100' post='2192071'] Yes it is surrender as one side usually isn't allowed return to the conflict Example CSN just declared white peace with several alliances. We are still in this war the other alliances are not [/quote] Then that isn't white peace. The problem with the OP is that it is mixing two different things up - white peace means that both side agree to stop fighting, no terms etc If there are terms, such as one side not being allowed to reenter the war, then it is no white peace

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='18 February 2010 - 01:11 AM' timestamp='1266455503' post='2188462'] No, its true. NPO has been barely meeting the bare minimum. However, your statement that they would not be eager to pay reparations is not accurate. They get off terms faster if reparations get paid faster. [/quote] So they have been meeting their terms then (not "barely"). Whereas telling them that they will not be protected against rogues during the war is breaking the terms. So which side has done wrong again?

This is not white peace. Not sure why this can't be understood, but if you impose terms, it is not white peace...

[quote name='Alastair Tau' date='12 February 2010 - 10:33 AM' timestamp='1265970829' post='2177380'] Seriously guys, when did a statement like "I understand that" become an agreement to terms?!? It's absolutely ridiculous to believe that Hubb accepted the white peace with this statment. There is NOT A SINGLE WORD that indicates that he is doing more than CONSIDERING the agreement. This whole thing is obviously a ploy by sparta and her allies to besmirch the good reputation of The Legion by making us look like term-breakers. [/quote] And as i note in the other thread, if it were acceptance, it is acceptance of WHITE peace - but the posted declaration of surrender had terms so does not apply to that log quote.

Well, even if it true that Legion did accept white peace, the actual surrender declaration contained terms, so it wasn't white peace anyway, and so was invalid. Not that i believe that, it is clear that the gun, it was jumped.

I would like to propose an amendment to the TPF charter: TPF will never treaty with the BiPolar Order

[quote name='Baals' date='09 February 2010 - 05:42 AM' timestamp='1265694163' post='2170014'] I will take your advice under consideration. And then do the exact opposite. Thanks for the help. [/quote] So um.. if you do not announce that you are surrendering, then we can assume that you want to surrender, and if you do surrender we can assume that you do not want to?

I vote 77 Oh......

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='07 February 2010 - 02:03 AM' timestamp='1265508194' post='2165701'] If Polaris is bandwagoned on, then expect us. If we didn't come in, I'd be disappointed in our government. (Bandwagoning = declaring without a treaty) [/quote] So you have no problem with alliances declaring on NpO if they are treatied to one of the current people attacking NpO?

[quote name='HHAYD' date='08 February 2010 - 12:25 AM' timestamp='1265588702' post='2167688'] When you see another side (NpO) appearing in the war, turning it into a three sided war. [/quote] Hang on, that sounds like the perfect situation for a 3-way break-off flank attack

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' date='06 February 2010 - 07:54 AM' timestamp='1265442848' post='2163969'] They sure do, then they don a facade of believing that some things are honorable and some thing are not and, surprise! What's honorable happens to be whatever's best for them, and if the same thing is done to the other guy, not dishonorable. It's magic. [/quote] So just to make sure that I am not misunderstanding - as far as NpO goes, lying in order to make people turn round so that they can be stabbed in the back more easily is fine? It's very nice of you to care so much about other alliances that you do not wish them to appear dishonourable, but as far as I am concerned flat out lying to someone is one of the more dishonourable acts. Whereas believing someones word and then being stabbed in the back does not appear to me to be very dishonourable. So before talking the nonsense that you spouted above, maybe a little examination closer to home might give you pause to think about exactly who has been dishonourable here.

So you are declaring war on both the alliances at war with FAIL, and the alliances that FAIL is defending. Doesn't that put you at war with both sides? Now that is true bravery

I will expect you to reciprocate if the positions become reversed

Indeed it is not about raiding, it is about what is essentially an undeclared war - glad you agree. edit: deleted some of the original because Israfeel got there first

So if polar had just hit those nations who declared war were tech raiding, would the rest of /m\ have come to their members aid? One would assume so, which gave polar no option but to hit the entire alliance. Can't respond to the rest of the OP, because the sound of hypocrisy is driving me up the wall. I mean, "we raided an entire alliance, with multiple raiders on the defenders, but then we got attacked and that just isn't right!" is absurd in the true meaning of the word.

Never thought i would be saying this, but o/ STA

Really? So you now you know how it feels I guess.

Except for your members currently running for peace mode, of course.