WarriorConcept

Amazing image. Good recruiting tool imo

Sad to hear but I wish you and your alliance mates luck in their new homes

There is no space in my name >

It's obvious both alliances just have different views on how to do things here, so this seems for the best. Good luck to both in the future.

Does MK and TOP realize your avatar already makes the world tremble?

[quote name='SyndicatedINC' timestamp='1294468073' post='2568332'] First I have to say I am surprised by just how often I am agreeing with wickedj lately. First it was GA, now wicked, did Bob's rotational axis shift dramatically or something.... Anyway secondly, while I agree with wicked that it is not exactly a punishing term, and while WC and CB are compatriots, I can completely respect a refusal to accept terms other than plain simple peace all around. It may not be the wisest tactical or strategic move, but it is certainly a legitimate position one may take, on philosophical grounds. . Thirdly however I would point out that this is not the same as PZI or EZI, since those would require that they are holding you at war forever. Further it implies that they are either refusing to offer you peace or are holding peace hostage to some degree of intentionally unacceptable (by their own or generally accepted community standards) terms. Given that these terms are not exactly draconian by anyone's standards but your own, they are not exactly holding you at war intentionally with no offer of relief. [/quote] Completely agree with this post, even the second part. I've always believed people should stand up for what they believe in. If he believes he doesn't want anything but white peace, then I respect that. I may still consider it dumb, but it's his choice.

[quote]<WarriorConcept> I'm sure he'll either come back with a counter offer <Cornelius> he might be waiting for us to get bored and let him off so he can do tech deals with people he likes <WarriorConcept> Or post on the OWF <WarriorConcept> Haha he'll get bored before we do <Cornelius> probably <Cornelius> and the OWF will find him little sympathy if the terms are tech deals <WarriorConcept> Indeed, especially since it's just 4 tech deals <WarriorConcept> http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=96812 <WarriorConcept> Lol <WarriorConcept> I win <WarriorConcept> <Cornelius> ... <Cornelius> I overestimated Dam <WarriorConcept> You did <Cornelius> I shouldn't do that <WarriorConcept> We should've bet <WarriorConcept> [/quote] Like I mentioned, when you're ready to accept the terms that will ultimately help you rebuild come back to me.

Shrug I did.

Congratulations on this treaty to 2 very good alliances.

He was a traitor in-game, but a cool person OOC.

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1293836909' post='2559607'] WarriorConcept is not now, nor has he been for a very long time, a "secret". [/quote] I'm just a random unknown stop this nonsense Happy new year regardless bro, been around here a few years with you. Let's have some fun again like the old days.

Cool story.

[quote name='General Scipio' timestamp='1293835112' post='2559570'] was it really needed to post a recognition of hostility between you and a 1 man alliance? [/quote] Maybe not, but then again was your post needed?

[center][img]http://i50.tinypic.com/op2oly.png[/img] Brotherhood of Steel have declared war on us for what they believe in. We respect that. Let's have some fun and happy new years to all. Signed, WarriorConcept [/center]

Like I've been telling everyone, if you want to have fun go do something. Thanks for actually standing up for what you believe in Damsky. Let's have some fun and let the rest continue complaining about boredom.

Well done.

Glad to see this episode over.

[quote name='Näktergal' timestamp='1293635670' post='2557323'] Ehh, it's kind of unrealistic (if not opportunistic) to view it that way. Honestly, I'd say it's more a case of when you engage in something that is generally seen as being pretty dishonorable in wartime by a majority of the rest of the world, you kind of forfeit the right to complain when your enemy turns around and does the exact same thing back to you in retaliation. Balancing the pans isn't even remotely as bad as skewing them in the first place. (In a way, it's almost like two alliances agreeing in advance not to nuke each other, then one alliance nukes first, and whines when the other guy nukes back. You don't GET to complain at that point - and the first guy IS still in the wrong. The reaction does not invalidate the initial fault, though the initial fault does tend to justify the reaction.) I'd also say that this isn't a sign of things to come or precedent for future crapiness, because the e-lawyers of the Cyberverse are clearly going out of their way to establish that doing it should be seen as a very big no-no, closing that particular door to future use. Expect future DoWs to include clauses that anyone joining a war after the start of hostilities can be treated as rogues - it's pretty much inevitable at this point. But fair and just law doesn't work by retroactively punishing people who did something before it was made an official offense in the first place. Which is why the nations that joined NEW aren't currently being forced to negotiate separate peace agreements or being ZIed for roguery (which is absolutely what would have happened to them if they WERE treated like rogues in this war). They're currently being treated as honest (if defeated) combatants, which is probably more than any AA-jumpers can expect in the future. Much like how all truly effective systems work, a questionable issue arose, it was dealt with improvisationally on the fly, and steps will be taken to create procedure for dealing with (or preventing) it in the future. Far from a failure of politics or yet another example of "the guy with the biggest stick makes the rules", I'd actually say this is probably going to be one of the fairer outcomes in any CN dispute. [/quote] I missed your posts.

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1293557778' post='2556277'] THE CHEAPEST DAMN STUFF AVAILABLE FTW. seriously, the wal-mart brand gallon of OJ is... not great, but I will drink it. Besides, I usually mask the flavor of the orange juice with the flavor of vodka, so the taste of the orange juice itself is not all that important. Also, nice review R3. [/quote] Yeah, I'm not a fan of the wal-mart brand. But it is cheaper

[quote name='Balder' timestamp='1293597402' post='2556915'] I can remember countless occasions when raiders (and raiding alliances alike) did things to the cries and bawws from your section of the world (See: CNARF). The only difference between your obnoxious bawwing back then, and the obnoxious bawwing you see now is who has the power. Sure, raiders are still relatively numerous in today's Bob, but lets be realistic; the policies and precedents in place in Cybernations are now firmly set against them. [/quote] Yes raiders were totally cool for doing mass raids. That definitely made them very "cool". You should really not forget we're in the OOC section here as well. OOC I could care less since this is a game, IC I'm playing the game the way I want to play it and you know what, it's helping me enjoy CN instead of !@#$%*ing about it like most people do here every single day. And truth be told, on a personal level I do really dislike tech raiders who only talk crap from being able to smack down a smaller nation by teaming up with 2 others and don't have the balls to actually challenge a similar nation to a 1v1 match. If I can help some people out then I will try to, it's not for PR or anything but because I actually do enjoying helping people when I can. I know people will twist try to twist that to make it seem like posturing or going for even more PR, but whatever, that's just my position.

[quote name='christian trojans' timestamp='1293603510' post='2557072'] Beat down? Even though it was 450 (Fark, TPE and Int) vs 170 (NEW) 4 of the top 5 nations who took the most damage were Farkers. Lets remember that ay [/quote] I must give credit to NEW then if that's the case. New people joining on both sides certainly threw everything off, but overall NEW had high morale despite very low odds. For that I commend them. And props to the FARK nations for taking those hits as well, good allies.

But you didn't lie...or did you

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1293575530' post='2556559'] Actually, that was STA protesting \m/'s protection of GGA. [/quote] Protection or their claiming "raiding" rights on them? Regardless, Kain covered our position here well. If people wish to complain, so be it. That's all most people do here anyway.

Congratulations on peace. While I completely disagreed with the reason for the war starting, I still have respect for NEW as they can walk the walk and don't complain about getting beat down.

I can't believe how pissed off people can get OOC. It's pretty humorous. I believe I already stated all I needed to say, and Typoninja clearly understands my position on the matter and clarifies that VE knows what this alliance is about. It's also hilarious people think this is a PR attempt when it is obviously going to piss tons of people off. Well whoop-dee. This part of his post covers it very well [quote]I find it hilarious that the raiding crowd will cry bloody murder about their rights being trampled on if somebody tries to stop them from raiding, and never acknowledge that the reverse works just as well, they have to trample someone elses rights to raid. I've accepted long ago that that's just how CN is, but it doesn't stop my point and laugh reflex from kicking in whenever the raiders start crying. [/quote]