Jesse End

After we, the NPO, contact the attackers alliance, if any, to work out a diplomatic solution (heh who woulda thunk it), all other nations who attack our members are reported to Karma. They also do routinely get a list of our ghosts to prevent confusion of surrender terms compliance. Although, even though we hadn't directly asked, I do remember seeing a response along the lines of "you want us to attack your ghosts? go $%&@ yourself".

It appears you have overlooked my question to you. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=2067258

I've never heard of that before. You would think that when creating the display of your alliance for public view (your wiki), you'd want it to be as accurate as possible. Although, I still believe that my quote of your description of your alliance tech raid on KofN is accurate from your point of view: a victory because Athens got away with only apologizing and didn't get rolled. I guess if you, as Athens government, state that the official public displays of Athens are sarcastic, Planet Bob can be assured that your public statements and announcements aren't entirely truthful either. Who would've guessed?

Oh, my bad, I must have misunderstood your no-CB tech raid on the alliance Knights of Ni as a curbstomp. I'm sure you can understand my confusion, it's even listed on your wiki as "VICTORY, Athens apologizes to KoFN, doest get rolled :3" - http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Athens

I'm still trying to figure out if Athens is instigating yet another curbstomp, or if they're attempting to provoke a global war.

If 'Karma' ceased to exist when the war ended (in your own words), then why do even you still use the name long after the war ended? An Announcement from Karma by TheNeverender, Oct 4 2009 - http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=70596

Looks like not everybody got the memo to call it a tech raid

You'll have to take that up with your overlords, as they are the ones who dictate where reps are sent

We were told thats exactly what would happen for us if we accepted the surrender terms, so I do appreciate that you've proven to us that you can't be trusted to follow through with that.

The first one was right at update, and the game date shows 5/30/2009, so that third ground attack should not have happened. Also, I didn't remove the time from the first message, the in game message does not show it.

I never asked for aid nor did I accept any. You sure did a lot of tech deals with Pacificans (and a bunch of free aid), along with protecting yourself under our AA.

ALL leadership in peace mode? Go take a look at my nation.

o/ Invicta, you are true allies.

o/ IDC and having honor

So what you're saying is that I'm taking the same stance as you and Vox do with all announcements or discussions that have even a slight possible distant connection with Pacifica, even when there's no mention of us. At least I'm responding to the same subject as the original announcement here. You must have missed this original announcement where Vox 'government' was announcing a 'treaty' for their members to follow, where any members not following the guidelines/rules of the treaty have "acted without the consent of their alliance", meaning they are not free to express themselves as a member of the alliance.

Awww, its so cute how you see yourselves to be advancing. I remember when Vox was all 'we have no government, we dont speak for each other, our members are free to express themselves with no guidelines'

It sounds like you're talking about Vox there

Wrong again (I think you're falling into a pattern here). My role and thought process is for the betterment of Pacifica, her members, our allies, and all of Planet Bob. Lucky for me that Pacifica and our allies goals and actions are also for the betterment of Planet Bob.

Yes, you did post the screen shot of my full post. It clears up your wrongful interpretation of my partial quote in your original 'announcement', so I thank you for that. I am confused on how to feel about your reply here though. First there is what appears to be an OOC attack on my ability to think, but in the next paragraph, you imply that I am worth your energy expenditure to respond to. Please clear this up for me.

Another illiterate Pacifican . . . I already played this game with Bilrow There are no elipses (sic) included before and after the quote of me in your first post, it looks like you were trying to make it seem like I said that his opinion wasn't welcome (which it is). You also didn't include the fact that I was replying to an individual comrade, not to a group. It appears that you are trying to imply that suggestions and feedback are not welcome from any or all members, which is dead wrong (like the usual from Vox). You very obviously don't have the slightest idea what my meaning was, so don't put words in my mouth. You should read your screen shot again, in the second line I clearly said "You are always allowed to question and/or not agree, but you will get a much better response if you do it respectfully. " Well said, Vox couldn't even come up with a response. Also, thank you for the compliments.

I appreciate the quoting of me, but I am disappointed that I didn't get my own screenshot. I can see why you couldn't do it though, its a lot easier to take quotes out of context when you don't show the whole post.

I had this same problem, I did battle support, blockade, 2 ground attacks, then had to do another battle support so that I could deploy extra aircraft. It appears that the battle support did not work for the ground attacks, but the second one did work for both aircraft attacks. This message gives me the impression that a battle support operation is in effect for all attacks to that one nation for that day.