Ch33kY

Welcome back banned member. Edit: I didn't realise the name was automatically editied by mod bots.

Who cares? It's been done. Deal with it.

I'm glad there are other voices of reason trying to cut through the atmosphere of hysteria. And thanks for voluntering to be stats keeper Bilrow.

This isn't the Karma War and the opposition is no longer in a position of hegemony. This is a war between everyone who hates TPF versus TPF and everyone who is unfortunate enough to be tied to TPF.

Finally some good news this week. Congratulations MHA. No one deserves the No. 1 spot more. Keep up the good work.

All treaties would be exactly the same if they meant the same. But they're not, which is why they have different wording. One of the great things in CN is the semi-legal technicalities of treaties and documents. It inspires the best - and worst - of our fellow players skills. This is the same for alliance charters and documents. There are treaties in the current political conflict that have specific clauses stating that if spying and espionage is committed then the aliance is not obliged to defend them. It would be hypocritical to ignore these specific clauses because what you believe a treaty to be does not add up with its wording. Ejay, I respect your arguement, but we would be denying an important part (for better or worse) of that game that attracts some of the finest skills people have to offer if we said all treaties and documents mean the same thing. I do thoroughly agree about the abundance of treaties out there. I think they tend to devalue the more meaningful treaties.

And yet you're in an alliance with more than two. Doesn't that say something about the necessity of practicle defensive measures and the need for larger-sized alliances.

Short and to the point. If only more treaties were like this. I take it this is the Viridian Entente's entry ticket into the war. I won't accuse the VE of bandwagoning because they already have allies in the war, so it was inevitable they would enter at some stage, but why the hastily signed document trying legitimise something that was already legitimate? And does this, along with \m/'s entry following an MDoAP signed just a few days ago, raise a new series of questions about can a treaty during or just before a war be activated for an offense committed before the treaty was signed?

Voted all because I could. My contribution is meaningful. The only thing more annoying about the obvious abundance of polls are the stupid reflective threads and polls about it. They weigh the forums down with over-analysis and create a sense of self-importance.

I would generally say around 10-15. But it's not so much a question of membership numbers that make them a target alliance for tech-raiding, but what are their connections. Opethian's PPF proved that even the smallest of alliances without treaties have big friends in high places and shouldn't be messed with. Generally, a tech-raider should ask is the profit worth the risk.

I just declared war on the Queen of England in a PM. It's a trustworthy medium.

Friendly bump.

Isn't that the flag template used for the OE/VE?

Wait? Wha-- So STA is not disbanding? I didn't see this coming.

Good timing, given recent events. Nice flag.

It's all Greek to me.

Merry Birthday Umbrella.

Classic. The OP goes to proove my point that all the discussions on how to respond to an alliance raiding your nation go unread by those who should read them the most.

A good war name would be The Boxing Day Test, but I fear only cricket fans would get it.

Interesting point. Would there be certain guidelines to the war, such only the membership at the time the war begins can fight? Are nukes allowed? At what point will it end? Is there going to be a referee (alliance) to enforce these rules? Etc. etc. have fun!

The alliance just wouldn't be the same, so why try give it the same name? If there are former NAACers out there willing to form an alliance then what's wrong with starting anew under a different banner? - it might actually increase their recruitment prospects.

2009 has been a very good year for the IAA. Congrats. All the best for 2010.

147 users are reading this topic. That's a lot. I wonder how many the DoW will get?

It's a shame things didn't work out for The Family. Much credit to MHA for offering to house the homeless Family.

Although this topic is called How Not to Get Raided, I didn't see much about how not to get raided. Most of the content deals with what to do when you already have been raided. For example, in the topic of How Not to Get Raided it states: Maybe it should be called How Not to Get Raided Again, or How to Respond to a Raider. I think it's quite a good guide in the case of how to respond to a raider and how to recover following being raided. The biggest problem is that the newbies being raided don't use the forums until they have been raided. In many cases it takes a few days for the diplomatic side of things to be done and by that time most of that damage has been done. That's if you're lucky enough they even want to do diplomacy. The big question is what do you do if they keep on attacking, regardless of your diplomatic attempts to seek peace? A lot of alliances will not accept nations at war, and even if they ask the raider's alliance to stop, what is stopping the raider? The raided nation is not at that time in an alliance and is generally considered 'fair game'.