Veneke

[quote name='Jens of the desert' timestamp='1297464487' post='2629701'] I think you and I must have different definitions for hold off. And don't think you were the only ones fighting PC out there, because that would be just spitting on the fact that they have been vastly outnumbered in this war but still come out on top. [/quote] I think so. Whatever yours is though, its wrong. Here: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=hold%20off : hold off (resist and fight to a standoff) http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hold_off : To delay someone or something temporarily; to keep at bay. http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/hold_off.htm : resist and fight to a standoff http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hold%20off 13 nations held off/resisted/kept at bay both Athens and Poison Clan for three week and a day. I am rather concerned that you think the context alters facts. Context informs facts, it does not alter them.

[quote name='Falloutboy' timestamp='1297391884' post='2628709'] So I'm guessing the ZI of that twenty day nation strategy didn't work out so well. [/quote] Pretty sure he was still ZI'd, and so was that other 100+ day nation. /me looks at screenshots again Yep, reckon those ZI's still happened.

Not bad for 13 nations to hold off two big alliances like these two for so long. Impressive fight from Poison Clan too.

[quote name='Lamuella' timestamp='1296953411' post='2621150'] Lam's post... [/quote] I chuckled. Would read again.

[quote name='bobo t baggins' timestamp='1296945974' post='2621037'] completely missing the point guy completely misses the point. it herps. then it derps. my war screen... is full of win. [/quote] Actually, no. Just wholly and utterly no. But hey, you want a long ass debate where neither of us agree on anything, take it to pms, I'll get 'round to answering your inane dribble eventually. In spite of your continuous attempts, amongst others, to drag this here into the realm of "srs bsns" as the phrase goes, I'm trying to keep this light-hearted. Quite frankly, I no longer have the patience for folk like yourself. I tell you what though, you want to keep harpin' on here be my guest. I know of a magic button that will make you disappear... how cool is that?!

[quote name='bobo t baggins' timestamp='1296933414' post='2620765'] and that is fine if youre that pathetic a group. whats funny about it is running around patting yourselves on the backs about it like its an accomplishment and then trying to defend it like theres a point in doing so aside from utterly embarrassing yourselves in public. if that was your goal, then double win for you. [/quote] You're just jealous you haven't ZI'd anyone yet. Don't worry though, your secret is safe with me.

[quote name='bobo t baggins' timestamp='1296891203' post='2620243'] yes. you had the same idea to deflect from the point. come on kids, you guys dont even know how the war screen works. those little dates are when the war was DECLARED, not when it ended. and the charts screen does not account for what was lost and replaced, thus the draining of the economy of the nation you are looking at, which is what actually makes a difference in war, which was done before you declared, is not shown. [/quote] So, your argument is that the 57th took advantage of the poor strategic situation PANADOL put himself in and subsequently ZI'd him? Call me crazy, but I'm still chalking that up as a win for our side. [quote name='King Xander the Only' timestamp='1296891649' post='2620257'] If I don't get my own thread when I get ZI'd in a few days, I will be very, [i]very[/i] disappointed. [/quote] Pretty sure you will, if ES has anything to say about it. I did overhear something about fireworks earlier on in the day. Speaking of which, hard luck on those ground attacks this morning. I don't suppose I could trouble you to spy my DefCon back to 1 though could I?

[quote name='Mitch12120' timestamp='1296890758' post='2620229'] http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display_charts.asp?Nation_ID=440666 Those 3 evidently didn't do much. [/quote] Dude, I called it first...

[quote name='bobo t baggins' timestamp='1296890480' post='2620223'] no they did not. learn to read the war screen. [/quote] Learn to read the charts page. Thanks for playing though! http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display_charts.asp?Nation_ID=440666

[quote name='Timmehhh' timestamp='1296850822' post='2619472'] Yeah FOK is afraid for the mighty 57th Overlanders [/quote] Yeah, pretty much what LP said. I'm looking at the log of it right now. I'm basically telling ArneS to peace out or declare war, and Fok chooses the former. I was cool with it, he was cool with it. Nobody was happy about it, but everybody was in agreement. You must have missed the memo. Its alright, it happens.

[quote name='Hydro' timestamp='1296623028' post='2615647'] grats on attacking a 13 man aa? moving on to relevancy and out of this thread... [/quote] Try and keep up mate, attacking small AA's is Athens' battle strategy here. So its definitely congratulations, they're sticking to the plan. Can't fault 'em for that. Relevancy... well, that's relative.

[quote name='Timmehhh' timestamp='1296571742' post='2614650'] Good to see PC and Athens fighting together We also helped PC a bit against these people who conveniently jumped them while they were fighting Ragnarok and Polar. Also the big talk from 2000 NS 57th overlanders nations is quite amusing [/quote] I see you have yet to conquer the concept of time. Allow me to give you the short version of it. Ragnarok and the 57th declared war against Poison Clan, stay with me now, [i]at the same time[/i]. This means that they moved together, as a unit to declare war on Poison Clan. When that happened, it was only Rok and 57th hitting PC. So to claim that the 57th "jumped them" while Rok and Polar were fighting PC is just plain ridiculous. In fact, it boggles the mind. Ah yes, the day long war Fok had by declaring on a single member of the 57th... Want to know what's really amusing? The backpedaling that your alliance did when we talked about it.

[quote name='evilsquirrel' timestamp='1296522302' post='2613654'] [img]http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/884/57thchallengeaccepted3.png[/img] [/quote] lol Funny every time I look at it!

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1296422504' post='2611482'] You are really suggesting that us dogpiling an alliance just because they are bigger, would somehow make us more honorable and less cowardly? The whole sentiment is rather silly. I will point out for the 3rd time now, that in every one of our DOWs, there was someone, nearly our size, and unengaged, and allied to someone we are hitting , who just ignored us. [b]Dont blame us because peoples' allies dont counter.[/b] [/quote] I'm glad you agree with this part of my argument, "In short, you're picking on a bunch of small alliances in an attempt to play the MDP web and everybody can see it. All of us. Hell, I reckon even ye can see it. Its a reasonable strategy for an alliance to take after they've already hit at least one large alliance." Not sure where this notion that I disagree with the logic of the move is coming from though. But we appear in agreement, so I'll leave it slide.

[quote name='janax' timestamp='1296422289' post='2611477'] Easiest way to fix it? Don't be a small alliance playing big boy politics if you can't stand the heat. Either way, put your big boy pants on and quit whining, or surrender. War is not fair. This isn't an honor duel, this is a war. You don't box one handed just because you outskill your opponent. You don't fight on your knees because you are bigger than your opposition. You win, and you win by hitting harder and faster than your opponent can. Deal with it. [/quote] You're not the smartest one going here are you? I never said anything about the intelligence of the move, I said it generated bad PR, and it would be terrible if they lost to even one of those alliances. I stand by those comments. The rest of your post seems oddly inapplicable, so I won't respond to it.

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' timestamp='1296419633' post='2611421'] Remember when we were hated by people who actually knew how to make words into sentences that made sense? also, HI UBER! [/quote] I think the point he's trying to make is that you still have the NS advantage, plus the advantage of internal cohesion. Your enemies are spread out amongst different boards and communication is, I would imagine, less than what Athens possesses due to the aforementioned. In short, you're picking on a bunch of small alliances in an attempt to play the MDP web and everybody can see it. All of us. Hell, I reckon even ye can see it. Its a reasonable strategy for an alliance to take after they've already hit at least one large alliance. Its a bit pathetic to have one alliance basically go around and try and mop up a bunch of little guys. As I've said before though, for your sake I hope ye pull it off. Failure to do so would be... embarrassing to say the least.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1296414652' post='2611329'] You are, correct, in that we cannot interpret whether or not RoK views this DOW as an attack on them, they well could, I hope they understand that it is just the nature of the game. I would like to point out though, that it is interesting that one of you pointed out the clause in the Ragnablok treaty that said an attack on signatory is an attack on Ragnarok, while conveniently ignoring that the same treaty says that a signatory will give RoK 48 hours notice before declaring an offensive war. Interesting in that you declared an offensive war literally MINUTES after signing the treaty and literally minutes after existence. So much for respect of the document. This war is a cluster**** and we all do what we must. That it the point, and all the butthurt in the world, will not change anything. Edit: To those who want to complain about the targets we have taken, we took them with full intent of being countered, therefore, I suggest you point out the cowardice of the larger allies not presently engaged in this conflict, who sit there idle while their treaty partners get dogpiled. Maybe that is the way some people do things, its not the way we do them. Enjoy the wars, and lets end it swiftly, we have no desire to beat on defenseless alliances for an extended period of time. [/quote] Actually, Rok knew of our existence well before the war and agreed to the exception. So... yeah. Not sure where you see us as looking butthurt, but then again, I'm finding it very difficult to follow a logical pattern of Athens argument here (pretty sure I saw ye arguing with your own members on the OWF somewhere?) so I dunno... Well, whenever you feel like surrendering, you let us know and we'll end this as swiftly as we can organize it.

[quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1296380137' post='2610925'] The entire point of this argument is, Athens has not [i]directly[/i] attacked any nation of Ragnarok, as of this post. You can wag on all you like about Ragnarok and the 57th being one in the same according to Ragnablok. It doesn't matter. We never signed it. Ragnarok is Ragnarok. The 57th Overlanders are the 57th Overlanders. We have only attacked the 57th Overlanders. If Ragnarok feels their treaty obligations require them to enter, then that is their decision to make, not ours. As far as I know, Athens and Ragnarok are not at war. [/quote] Anyone who disagrees with this has quite clearly a different view of treaties to me, and it would appear jraenar. Also, what HollowEyes was saying, before you got all pissy on us for bringing it up, was that Ragnarok considers an attack on the 57th an attack on itself. Whether you consider to have attacked Rok or not is irrelevant, as according to Rok's own understandings and obligations you have attacked it. You can no more declare that an element of the treaty of Ragnablok is void any more than I can declare an element of your treaty with PC is void. [quote name='Vespassianus' timestamp='1296385142' post='2610997'] Honoring an MDP is uncool, but forming an alliance like 2 minutes before DoW and bandwagon is cool? Your logic makes sense 57th... [/quote] The 57th was the second alliance to declare war on Poison Clan, Ragnarok being the first. That isn't bandwagonning, you moron. [quote name='Fyfe XIV' timestamp='1296413171' post='2611299'] Let me break it down: UINE has 70 members, tLW has 40, TCU has 80, FAR has 20, DRAGON has 30 and 57th has 13. Athens has 123. If you'd do some research (and math) maybe next time you won't look like a complete idiot when you come in here and spout off your nonsense. Edit: I'm done here, the masses of un-informed mouth-breathers are just to resilient to logic and I'm afraid it wont be long before someone starts throwing "u mad" around [/quote] TCU are no longer involved in the combat. In addition, trying to define the front like that in any serious way is so immensely flawed that I struggle to grapple with the kind of mind that could assert something like that. You should probably include alliances the 57th is also at war with, like PC. As well as other alliances involved. I was poking fun, doing research and coming up with numbers like this is just sad.

[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1296374017' post='2610807'] A lot of people say a lot of really stupid !@#$ around here but this.... good sir, you are the Mona Lisa of idiocy's da Vinci. All public treaties signed by alliances apply to [i]everyone[/i]. If 2 alliances state that an attack on one is an attack on the other, then Athens, by taking the role of the attacker which that clause is referring to, is now implicitly part of their agreement. I mean sure, you can cover your ears and yell "lalalalalala" as loud as possible, but you're still gonna get it in the pooper. [/quote] I dunno, I never thought of the party "activating" the treaty as being party to it. On the other hand, I've always maintained that treaties are acted upon, rather than having been activated so I suppose the realities are somewhat different from where I'm standing. X moves on Y, Z acts on its treaty with Y. X being the cause for the treaty to be acted upon, but not inherently part of it. What I am trying to figure out, is how Athens ever thought that Ragnablok applied to them. I'm not one for telling folk what treaties they have, but I think I can speak with some authority when I state that Athens is not part of Ragnablok. They're not bound by the terms of the treaty, they can harp on for all they like that they haven't gone to war with Ragnarok, but the agreement between the 57th and Ragnarok in Ragnablok states that Ragnarok will treat an attack on the 57th as an attack on itself. Athens doesn't get to pick which treaties Rok signs and is bound by at all. To be honest, I reckon we're all saying the same thing. Athens hit the 57th. Ragnablok states that an attack on the 57th is an attack on Ragnarok. I don't see any clause in there saying "unless the people attacking the protectorate say that they don't want to fight Ragnarok" in there. Nor do I see how Athens has any say in an agreement between the 57th and Ragnarok. I will admit though that this is a rather curious turn of events. All of a sudden we appear to be being told by our attackers that our one and only treaty is void because... they said so? The terms don't apply to Athens, but that doesn't mean that the consequences of those terms between the parties that it does apply to, don't.

[quote name='UberSpion' timestamp='1296371970' post='2610742'] [color="#800080"][font="Comic Sans MS"]So in this situation, would Athens be the CN version of Reavers? Or would rsox be a cn version of River losing mental stability?[/font][/color] [/quote] I dunno, Reavers usually attack you. Not just say that they're gonna do that and then not do that... Truth be told, they sound like purple bellied Alliance folk to me.

[quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1296371579' post='2610736'] No. We're arguing that the terms of a treaty between Rok and the 57th don't apply [b]to Athens[/b]. [/quote] /me scratches head I think I've just said that, several times.

I dunno... maybe. Sure, we'll play it by ear and see what happens. Fun times though, and make no mistake.

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1296369865' post='2610667'] o/ 57th! ....I feel dirty. [/quote] You take that back right now! Also, ...?

[quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1296369553' post='2610659'] E-lawyering is such a pain. Athens declared upon 57th because Poison Clan asked us to, as per the MUTUAL DEFENSE clause of the treaty between Athens and PC. Athens is not a signatory to Ragnablok, and thus are not bound by the clause stating that 57th and Rok are one in the same where attacks are involved. We attacked 57th, not Rok. Also, as Athens is at war with 57th, I'm sure it's perfectly acceptable for you to, you know... counter attack. Lots of defensive slots open. [/quote] Ain't nobody wondering why you attacked us. Pretty sure we can all see the why's, even the ones you won't mention. So we're cool there. Athens isn't part of Ragnablok, the agreement never concerned you and your presence or absence from it is irrelevant. In essence, the terms of Ragnablok, as they apply to Ragnarok, the 57th or other constituent elements of Ragnablok, apply only to those who signed it and none other. You attacked the 57th. Ragnablok allows for no such distinction between an attack on members of Ragnablok and an attack on Rok. Its like a MDP treaty, come to think of it. Whether you make a distinction or not is irrelevant as the agreement doesn't concern you. You're trying to argue that the terms of a treaty between Rok and the 57th don't apply because you only attacked the 57th. That's like saying the terms of the treaty between you and PC don't apply because we only attacked PC. I'm sure it is, but its usual when declaring war on someone to accompany that with, you know, attacks. I'm merely noting their general absence.

[quote name='Fyfe XIV' timestamp='1296368818' post='2610635'] In regards to those pointing out how few wars Athens has declared, A large number of Athens nations are in anarchy because they've been *surprise* nuked a few times. Seeing as it's quite difficult to declare wars when in anarchy (impossible), it makes it hard to declare wars. The nature of this particular front of the war that we're fighting doesn't require intricately timed blitzes and seeing as we're still at war with 3 other alliances (small as they may be) many of our offensive slots are tied up. I'm sure in the coming days [s]Athens will slip entirely into peace mode[/s] you'll be seeing more declarations. Our defensive slots on the other hand... As for the wording of the Ragnablok treaty, as Jraener said, we didn't sign Ragnablok. You may consider our attack on 57th etc. an attack on Ragnarok but we are not attacking any members of the Ragnarok AA, nor are we directly attacking Ragnarok. Now please, nobody likes e-lawyering and you just made me go there Edit: apparently half of Athens decided to say the same thing as me while I was typing this up [/quote] Yeah, I know. I'm mostly just poking fun at Athens more than anything else. As for the defensive slots... if we wanted to take those, we'd have declared on Athens ourselves. Unless this DoW was more an invitation to attack? Which would make it.. well, damn odd to say the least. Also, Ragnablok doesn't concern you. You don't need to sign it. Ragnablok is between the 57th and Ragnarok and a few other very fine people, who are all bound by that treaty. Ragnablok says that an attack on the 57th is an attack on Rok, an agreement to which both the 57th and Rok signed, which is what HE has been saying. I'm confused as to where Athens comes into this other than their DoW which is really an invitation to attack them.