Grimm Reaper

[quote name='Tromp' date='16 June 2010 - 12:09 PM' timestamp='1276704541' post='2339528'] Offtopic: Invicta declared war on our LEO partner, so we retaliated since you technically declared war on us. [/quote] Which is exactly the same as the current situ... [quote]Which is, if I have followed correctly, the same thing that DAWN did when IRON was attacked. DAWN and IRON have a treaty, and therefore GRE technically attacked DAWN by the same logic. I don't think that post was a shot at FOK as much as at the people who are screaming bloody murder now, yet didn't make a sound when it happened with FOK/Invicta[/quote] Oh. You know, you're really killing my buzz right now.

The Battle of the Purple? Fabulous Friendly? BAPping it UP 'N' stuff? These are the day's questions.

Hi, there! Face here! I just wanted to wish [b]YOU[/b] CONGRATULATIONS on your new government! Coming up next is Blue's Clues, here on Nick Jr.! DOOT DOOT DOOOOO!

Not done in haiku, but still hailworthy. Hail is a form of precipitation. Rain is a form of precipitation. As it was said on the IRC, TORN makes it rain. BILLIONS. Looks like surrender terms... *sunglasses* just got torn.

[quote name='Dementual' date='03 June 2010 - 01:29 AM' timestamp='1275542968' post='2321787'] My windowless white van was very persuasive. [/quote] Please. With your left hand you would use Gondor as a shield against the Neutral Menace, and with your right you would seek to supplant them.

[quote name='Penkala' date='03 June 2010 - 10:56 PM' timestamp='1275620159' post='2322994'] This is completely hilarious. What an idiot! He must have no skill! [/quote] Well, hang on, I think that's a bit overrea... Wait a minute, you're being sarcastic, aren't you? My one-liner has been countered by your one-liner. Drat. Now we're going to need to debate him on his substantiative merits. I begrudgingly congratulate you on boxing me into a corner like this.

[img]http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s277/pancreaslol/thetimestheyareastayinthesame.jpg?t=1275614436[/img] Finally, an allegory less subtle than Avatar.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='03 June 2010 - 11:21 AM' timestamp='1275578460' post='2322121'] Indeed, in fact I had the Gramlins situation in mind when I created the example. Would not members of all variety of alliances who suggested that people leave Gramlins rather than be part of Ramius' last stand be guilty of poaching by the Vilien's definition? That's why I say poaching is a much more specific act. By me saying, "your alliance stinks, you should join another one", I'm merely expressing an opinion, not necessarily committing an overt act to recruit someone.[/quote] Essentially, the greater the recruitment threat is perceived, the greater the likelihood it will be considered a valid CB and/or induce a reaction from the alliance whose members are being recruited. Recruiting other alliances' members during wartime is a way to undermine an alliance's strength and fairly widely accepted as a legitimate strategy. Wet, raincoat, etc. Doing it during peacetime is also a way to undermine an alliance's strength, and can be a valid CB based on how serious the intent to undermine is. If it's a recruitment letter to your own alliance via CN PM during peacetime, it's probably poaching, as CN PM isn't usually a medium for light chit-chat and jokes (outside of war). Higher likelihood that the recruiter is serious. Saying the same thing via IRC and/or the OWF, however, is much less likely to be interpreted as a threat to an alliance, as they are considered less serious environments... perhaps not by OWF users, but by those smart enough to stay away from it. Yes, I'm aware I'm incriminating myself, but let's face it: very rarely does something substantial ever come from public channels, making it more acceptable. This is an entirely different matter from creating propaganda. Announcing that \m/ sucks and that all people should abdicate it always and forever is just another day on the forums, and short of Shark Week, no repercussions will come of it. This is *probably* because members that can be swayed by OWF propaganda are usually not members worth keeping. And then we're going to Washington D.C. to take back the White House.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='03 June 2010 - 10:03 AM' timestamp='1275573791' post='2322052']By your definition, everyone that ever sent out PMs to encourage people to surrender (thus leave their alliance's AA) during war time would be guilty of poaching. [/quote] Well, at that point, it's a matter of 'why wear a raincoat if you're already wet?' So it would be a valid CB were they not already *at* war.

[quote name='Baldr' date='02 June 2010 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1275523406' post='2321238'] That would have been funnier if Cortath had said it. [/quote] With this, I would much prefer Carl Sagan over Cortath. Or Morgan Freeman.

Give me a few months to ponder it. I hope the ministry spots don't get taken while I'm thinking.

[quote name='Baldr' date='01 June 2010 - 02:48 AM' timestamp='1275374881' post='2318862']I think IRON would be better off to pay the reps at some point. They are still at war, and not required to pay those reps until the war ends, but they are under terms until they pay the reps. [b]If it were me, I wouldn't want to be under terms for any longer than necessary.[/b] The majority of IRON's membership doesn't have to worry much about Gramlins, being below range of the high-end Gramlins. The low end and mid-level Gramlins are pretty much in nuclear anarchy constantly, and therefore can't declare on anyone. So IRON could start moving reps, if they really wanted to.[/quote] I think there's some confusion here. The only terms of our surrender were to admit defeat and pay reparations. That's it. No inhibitions on foreign policy, no decommed military like the Karma War or, well, every war before that. They're really quite generous, given the circumstances. So it's not as if these terms are imposing a gigantic onus on us. Moreover, the risks of starting the timer too early and being unable to pay far outweigh the benefits of being out of surrender terms. Just cost/benefit analysis. EDIT: This is not to say, however, that we don't want to get reps out of the way. Not speaking for IRON Government, but I do want to get these reps out of the way so that we can actually rebuild. Also EDIT: While I imagine that CnG would show leniency if the terms were offered, relying on leniency is something I don't even want to think about. Not only is it bad form diplomatically, it could also come back to bite you if you expected it and did not receive it. That's a position I simply to not want to be put into. Still not speaking for IRON Government, by the way.

Face cannot publicly comment on this announcement, as his position with 'Nick Jr. from 1996' Inc. forbids him from publicly speaking about liquor. But, on a personal level, he probably approves of your devil juice.

This is sexy. I'm impressed by RnR's growth. Looks like clicking on those ads worked

[quote name='amad123' date='31 May 2010 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1275334803' post='2318045'] You wouldn't by chance have logs of that conversation would you? I'm sure everyone would learn a lot by reading them if you were able to publish them. If they are not confidential I urge you to post them so that all can see who and what we are dealing with. [/quote] I do hope Chris Hansen reads them aloud.