Jump to content

gunzzz

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    416

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by gunzzz

  1. But your !@#$ is like the police asking us questions, !@#$%*' we don't know !@#$

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted · Edited by Hamilmania

    I remember quite vividly how you entered SHIELD's IRC moments after Riot Society began to raid SHIELD nations and you bragged and laughed about it in the channel. Now you say that your nations were wrong in doing it? I'd suggest you refrain from being two faced while dealing with others as a leader in your alliance.
     
    Now, here's the reason you are being hammered right now. 1), your alliance is known to raid micros, so your "we told them not to" excuse is honestly looked at as BS. 2) If by some remote chance what you are saying is true, you and Franz and whoever is leading your pirate ship are completely incompetent due to the fact that you can't set a simple policy "do not raid alliances" and 3) You pissed off DT while negotiating for YOUR ass. Why would anyone be bad mannered to the person they are begging mercy from? GG Riot Society, AZTEC is coming for you.

    I went on the irc Chan, typed in ,"lol" (at the time, i saw only my alliance war screen and saw a person on SHIELD declare on RIOT Society.) Keep in mind, while I disagree with RIOT Society members in acting w/o gov approval, I would like to make clear that their attacks were meant for defense and were not raids. Anyway, there wasn't any SHIELD gov on their irc chan at the time. So after that I said, "well I can't do anything here anyway so...." And I left the chan. There was no bragging my time there.

  2. But your !@#$ is like the police asking us questions, !@#$%*' we don't know !@#$

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

     
    The one constant thing on Planet Bob... when you piss away any and all good will with so many incidents that are 100% the fault of you (and LT since you absorbed them, then put the guy who led them in charge)... you create a profile of your alliance. When your very next action a) accentuates that profile... b) slaps the strongest bloc in the game in the face.... and c) proves that nobody in RS has any semblence of control over their members.... THEN you say you only paid reps because of nukes....not because your guys should never have attacked in the 1st place (further accentuating you profile)... you have consequences and repercussions. This is them. Clean up  your alliance or get used to this.


    Taking all this as given (for the sake of argument) we still paid reps, regardless of reason. These reps were obviously satisfactory enough for SHIELD to say we are now on "good terms." Meaning this is resolved. DT taking offense to a resolved incident, like I said, is just stupid

    It's ironic that you use the "if you took 2 seconds" argument now. You should teach your members that.... Just sayin...

    I don't disagree, though luckily when things like this happens, we resolve the issue using diplomacy. Well at least we resolved the issue to the AA that were directly affected by our error.

  5. But your !@#$ is like the police asking us questions, !@#$%*' we don't know !@#$

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    Consider it an aggressive raid against an alliance they did not know to be non-raidable. And further, consider them to have a no reps policy. It works alot for you guys.

    well I don't know their raiding policy but I doubt its valid in their policy to raid AAs with connected relations. And if this was the case, an aggressive raid, and not some retaliation to a resolved SHIELD/RIOT Society issue, then I was right, they just want to fight. Like I said, RIOT Society is fine with that

  6. But your !@#$ is like the police asking us questions, !@#$%*' we don't know !@#$

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    I dont have a horse in the race, but lets be honest, maybe if you guys would stop the repeated raiding of connected alliances , they would not feel that you had used up all your lenient , good-will chances.

    First off, thanks for the advice about not raiding connected alliances. Second, this does not stem off a raid incident. A person ghosting the SHIELD AA attacked RIOT, RIOT nations attacked the attacking nation and other SHIELD nations in defense, w/o government approval. We agreed to help destroy the ghost and to have reps paid for the other attacks. We resolved the issue with SHIELD.

  7. But your !@#$ is like the police asking us questions, !@#$%*' we don't know !@#$

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    You panicked that we were going to attack you in defense of SHIELD and rushed to pay reps, which you were not willing to pay previously.  The commitment to protect our protectorate was followed through on.
     
    We have no desire to war ankle biters.  It isn't very fun.  Hopefully people give you the chance to learn from this.

    You seriously are thick skulled. Even if that was the case. Even if we were just putting our tails between our legs in fear of DT, we resolved this issue already.

    DT can't just bring up a resolved issue and just use that as a justification to your war. That's just stupid.

    You can talk about how not fun warring ankle biters are, and how sad of a view is that DT just wants to war a micro but that's really where the evidence points . Either that or you are using a resolved issue as a reason to war RIOT, which is just stupid.

  8. But your !@#$ is like the police asking us questions, !@#$%*' we don't know !@#$

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    $%&@ yes DT wants a war.
     
    $%&@ no do we want a war in the 30k and lower level.
     
    We wouldn't be attacking ankle biters if you hadn't bitten first.



    We resolved everything with SHIELD, led to believe the case was closed. This is fact. We resolved our attack on SHIELD diplomatically. DT can't use our previous attacks on SHIELD as a reason to your war. You seriously just want to war ankle biters. Sad but true bobby

  22. DoE: Orpheus

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted · Edited by Hamilmania

    What do you mean by "low profile"? I have kept my ways from posting on the pages for a few days, and i have failed to find any alliance that i agree within terms of politics. And in response to the triumvirate, i was planning on having three leaders, but i am reconsidering.

    Frankly, I don't think you know enough of politics to be judging alliances based on that. Guinness did give you that opportunity but :/.


     
    You should reconsider your path. It's all well and good listening to valid advice, even from critics, but you seem to have let it go to your head and now your ambitions are causing you to get carried away. It'd be in your best interests to temper them and settle down in a well-structured, strong alliance that can help you learn the ropes properly, for a good few months at least. Take it from someone who tried to create and lead an alliance successfully and $%&@ed it up, someone who had a damn slight more experience then than you do at present.

    DC would have been great but oh well. I didn't know you came back... Ill have to find you on irc sometime (or Skype) or vise versa.
×
×
  • Create New...