TBRaiders

[quote name='Wabooz' date='26 March 2010 - 10:32 AM' timestamp='1269617560' post='2237368'] Not an hour after announcing their dealings, a corporation member calls them "a bunch of whiny little girls". Justify it anyway you want, but a statement like that is going to get some flak...rightly deserved in my opinion. [/quote] I read the OP. Clicked on the four nations attacking and viewed all their wars, looked at the strength of ADI as an alliance, and my initial thoughts were it is a weak alliance that cannot deal with rogues on their own. Still, I held my thoughts and read through the rest of the thread. Unsurprisingly, my thoughts were already expressed by others. I don't think I care one way or another about rogues. For three years I've seen people say, "Do something about it" and when somebody clicks on the declare war button to "do something about it" the bawwing begins. To all involved, may you collect many casualties.

Yep...been this way for a long time, though.

Leadership is the art of influencing others to accomplish a mission, goal, or task by providing purpose, direction, and motivation.

I went with Haflinger, but really could have been any of the first three.

Loads and loads of free tech, mate. When it's just being fed to you and you don't have to do standard tech deals, much easier to build up that quickly.

I know you always toe the party line with your side of the web, but that is just retarded. This was not an offensive war for GRE. This means they refuse to pay reps for defending themselves or their allies. It also means if they offensively attack someone, they will not ask for reps. These terms are not humiliating or crippling. You will have to ask GRE if they would accept these terms. I personally don't think you would ever see GRE try to manipulate so many alliances to start an offensive war, but for arguments sake we can pretend they did. I'm guessing they would have shelved the pride already and rather than try to let so many "friends and allies" continue to burn for their ego and mistakes, would have sought peace and been okay with paying 12K tech in reps, especially when the terms don't say they cannot fund it through other alliances. GRE would have it paid in minimal time.

C&G could not have won this war without so many friends coming in to help. Many large nations lost a big chunk of tech and these terms aren't breaking the bank for anyone. I have no problem with anyone on a defensive side of a war asking for reps.

Can't NSO get peace right now by agreeing to do a beer review and not re-enter the conflict? Hasn't that offer been on the table for weeks? If not, my bad. Just something I thought I read somewhere. I ask because I see a lot of people deflecting blame for NSO still fighting, but it sounds to me like it's due to choice and not because any allies are holding a gun to your head. We've seen a dozen or so alliances leave this war with similar terms. I personally think NSO's involvement, with ties to both IRON and NpO, as one of the things keeping this war escalated.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 February 2010 - 06:28 PM' timestamp='1266971529' post='2200101'] I thought it went without saying that you didn't jump on your friends. As I said there, 'if you enter a coalition war you can enter at any point on the opposing side' – i.e. there were a [i]lot[/i] of ways for FOK to enter without having to hit TOP. Sure ... except they have the class not to do so (and their allies the class not to force them to). [/quote] I noticed you ignored the rest of your words. But anyway, you are the one who suggested hitting FOK would have been a smarter avenue of approach and I am only quoting you. I think you give them too much credit calling it class. The truth probably lies closer to the fact that it wasn't the most advantageous move. [quote] Now that is a deep question. In order to 'win', you must first define 'victory'. [/quote] Getting them to surrender and agree to terms that make both sides feel like the terms are acceptable. That's my definition. [quote] Since the primary dispute behind this war is over, there really is no point any more. What is 'winning' when NpO and \m/ have come to a resolution? [/quote] Seriously, quit spinning this in every thread. There are literally dozens of replies in dozens of threads talking about how they said we were a threat, now we see them as a threat, yada yada. Do you really have to continue to post this same line of argument in every thread even though it's been refuted over and over again?

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 February 2010 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1266970010' post='2200041'] Hal, it's a big black mark to be explicitly asked by an MDP partner to assist and say no. You can't really fault FOK – or NpO – for the side they chose to betray when MK put them in a position where they had to choose one. TBR, sending financial aid and declaring war are a whole different level. TOP would never have declared war on FOK or any of their other recent ex-allies, and are justifiably upset that FOK have done so, particularly considering the support (political and financial) that's been given throughout FOK's existence. Should TOP have sent aid to nations fighting against FOK (this happened from the posts in this thread)? No, probably not. But that's not on the same level as declaring war on them. [/quote] Why do you get to continue to define what is allowed and not allowed or what is right and not right? They can send monetary aid to nations and enable the nukes to keep flying, but can't send the nukes themselves? It's okay for TOP to hit FOK's treaty partners, but not okay for FOK to honor their treaty to defend those partners? Isn't the point of war to win? Didn't TOP enter this war as part of a greater coalition on the opposite side of FOK? Had TOP won all their fronts, where would that leave FOK today as alliances on that front were allowed to focus on FOK? What ever happened to this post Bob?: [quote name='Bob Janova' date='29 January 2010 - 06:58 AM' timestamp='1264769896' post='2141086'] I have to say that I'm generally a fan of the coalition v coalition approach to war – i.e. if you enter a coalition war you can enter at any point on the opposing side. However, unless I'm missing something, C&G was not a part of the war, and in fact had strong ties to both sides making its entrance less than inevitable. If you'd jumped on a combatant, say FOK or even Superfriends as a bloc, then this would be justified. However, it seems to me like you hve effectively done a GATO in GW2 and brought in a whole group of alliances which were not previously engaged. It's unfortunate that you've been shafted by Polar's peace declaration (I bet you wish you'd delayed this another hour or two now!) but you've brought a lot of the trouble upon yourselves. Enjoy the war, as I'm sure you will, and I hope to see you come intact out of the other end soon enough! [/quote] It would have been okay for TOP to enter against FOK according to what you posted just weeks ago.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 February 2010 - 04:48 PM' timestamp='1266965523' post='2199870'] Re the aiding issue: in my opinion, aiding coalition allies once you're all in the war is fair game. In Karma, we had aid sent all over the coalition, across fronts etc. FOK and MHA both chose to enter the war on the side that they did, and had to expect coalition aid to reach their targets. [/quote] I am going to have a little fun with this Bob, and I agree. TOP chose to aggressively enter into the opposite coalition as FOK. FOK is now just aiding their coalition mates, amirite? [quote name='renegade4box' date='23 February 2010 - 03:34 PM' timestamp='1266960852' post='2199642'] Yea, FOK scum. Who taught you that defended unjustly attacked allies is honorable? I much prefer the TOP version: aggressive attacks without a treaty, even if the target is a close ally of many of your best friends. [/quote] ...and don't forget that best friend happens to be fighting on the "other side" of the conflict where you are planning to kill those standing by them (or who you assume will come to defend them) during that same war. TOP chose to agressively enter this war on opposite sides of FOK. To anyone who thinks it okay to kill the guy standing in the trenches with me, who is covering my flank and allow the enemy to hit me harder because you removed a threat to them, you either have no clue on tactics or just a twisted view of what friendship really is. /FOK

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='21 February 2010 - 03:31 PM' timestamp='1266787894' post='2195472'] false. they said that they threw that out there to get a counter-offer from CnG. [/quote] I didn't see that, so good to know. I do think rather than starting at zero and working this out like used car salesmen they could come with a surrender offer that isn't a slap in the face.

[quote name='HHAYD' date='21 February 2010 - 01:58 PM' timestamp='1266782326' post='2195357'] Here ya go!: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80162 And if you are too lazy to click on the link: [/quote] Just curious if you realize that conversation was after the fact? I'm guessing about an hour before that thread was posted. I'm not saying that Polar wasn't coordinated with prior to the attack. Just like TOP going to MHA and asking who could hit their ally Fark without a counter. Nothing like trying to manipulate alliance behind closed doors to find the safest or at least the most opportunistic avenue into a war. Next time, just try honoring treaties or defending friends and see where the chips fall out instead of trying to manipulate the situation to favor you.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='21 February 2010 - 02:34 PM' timestamp='1266784452' post='2195404'] No, I'm not. If all the VE posters were taking the same angle, though, that would reflect on us, whether it was 'official' or not. I have no hate for MK, by the way. I am saddened that two great alliances are shooting bits out of each other over, basically, nothing (over a dispute which was already solved). [/quote] I just want to know who's fault it would be if TOP and company had declared on VE as their pre-emptive attack and this war was still going on. Or are you telling me that every front would have been white peaced already? NSO won't leave without IRON who won't leave without TOP who won't leave without everyone else and no terms other than white peace...

[quote name='Nizzle' date='21 February 2010 - 03:17 PM' timestamp='1266787023' post='2195447'] It's just a shame C&G doesn't love peace and wanted to slug it out with TOP. [/quote] It's a shame you cannot be consistant on your opinion of this war being fought. I do think if TOP wants to surrender and offer reps for their aggressive attack our leaders would be willing to negotiate. Don't act like C&G is the only ones holding up world peace. [quote name='Nizzle' date='28 January 2010 - 10:58 PM' timestamp='1264741114' post='2138851'] This makes me happy in my pants. Good job TOP. Marching into the void. Now look at them all bawwing. I thought this is what you wanted? (Exception to most of MK, who are welcoming this.) [/quote] [quote name='Nizzle' date='28 January 2010 - 11:10 PM' timestamp='1264741820' post='2139017'] Oh, the difference from the TPF war. Now no one wants TOP to play? You know, had they declared on one member of CnG, they would have had effectively declared on all of them anyway. Right? [/quote]

All my opponents have been in TOP. TailsK of Kitsunia - By far the most effective person I have fought all war and we've gone at it twice so far. You do a great job coordinating with your wingmen and are a pleasure to fight. Vladimir Stukov II and Tushar Dhoot of G.W.B - Both of you worked with TailsK most days and were pleasureable opponents. Simon De Montfort & tekken of 75235 - You guys are catching me at the bottom of my infra, but you are coordinating well and I appreciate that. Here's to hoping I can repay the favor for a round two with both of you 6 days after our current war ends. MrCyber of Cyberland - One of the nicest guys and hardest workers I've been in an alliance with. I hated blowing your stuff up at first, but somebody had it to do and at least we could have friendly chats while we did it. Bodvar Jarl of Bodvaria, synagence of Spoontonia, and TonytheTiger of Sommervillian Empire - Just a hello for you guys. We didn't talk much or at all, but I'm sure you loved blowing my stuff up almost as much as I enjoyed blowing yours up.

First round of war, our side just didn't have enough nations not in anarchy to stagger all the large TOP nations. And sure, a few were just blunders. I personally just tracked the top 40 pre-war nations and only a handful made peace. I am pretty confident you won't see many missed staggers on the larger nations from this point forward. As far as wanting to see any alliance destroyed or beat down to insignificance, why would anyone want that? Makes the world a boring place. I dislike TOP and their scheming and opportunistic ways, but it's always good to have alliances you don't like. While I have never cared much for the NPO, I can admit that them becoming a powerful alliance again will be good for the world drama meter.

I think we read yours alright, it's \m/ or NpO that surprised us. Still, no problem. We didn't sign up for a war with CnG just to go off into the woods when the going gets tough. These ones from Bob Janova I missed initially (was busy times). No idea who ticked him off and made him do the 180 on his initial position or decided it was all C&G's fault for not warning TOP that the other war was about to peace so please don't surprise pre-emptive attack us....lol Sup Nizzle. First C&G were crying because of war (which they weren't, but you don't seem to let facts get in the way of many of your recent posts) and now they are tyrants because they won't let your buddies walk away. Tsk tsk. I mean, this war was all good when you thought TOP was gonna win, amirite? This is very funny and I have no idea how it didn't get sigged a bit more: lol

You sure about that?

I just wanted to save a few of these. Always fun to look back on things said pre-war compared to post war. Yes. And I'm speaking for all of TOP. Not that we will need it.

Ejay, I agree with everything in your last post except this part: [quote name='Ejayrazz' date='18 February 2010 - 08:13 AM' timestamp='1266502402' post='2189620'] Good to see MK apparently turning into exactly what it was built to eliminate. [/quote] C'mon bro, you are taking the posts from one member to label the entire alliance? Might never makes right, it just makes someone a bully. Maybe TOP and IRON aren't bullies anymore, but I've always thought they were. WUT, Continuum, and now attacking my alliance and allies. I've seen their spin in every single thread, but their DoW reeks of their might makes them right and those are the exact kind of people I love to send my nukes at. Back to the topic at hand. We requested nations sending tech to our enemies to cease and desist. 95% of the folks we've communicated with have resolved any issues in back channels. We can dance around the reality all day, but the truth is if non-participants continue to send aid to our enemies who are trying to kill us and are doing damage to us daily, there is a very good likelyhood we will take steps to remove their ability to send aid. [b]For those complaining about us interfering in business transactions, I will tell you to quit interfering in our war. [/b] You are enabling the enemy if you are sending any kind of aid offer. This has been stated multiple times and I can't comprehend anyone who doesn't understand this basic principle. I do think the same holds true for us as well and anyone at war. Why put tech sellers at risk? I also didn't agree with NPO paying reps to nations at war, or GPA paying reps to nations at war, or GPA having to pay reps in a defensive war, and I can keep going on and on about decisions other people have made that I had no control over. What I initally read from Penlugue Solaris is him saying TOP can take the same steps we are and contact our tech sellers and send the same message. He was just being honest when he said TOP can't do much about them if they choose to not stop because they are over-extended and most of TOP won't ever be down into tech supplier range. That isn't might make right, that's just practical truth.

[quote name='Methrage' date='17 February 2010 - 09:04 PM' timestamp='1266462294' post='2188692'] And that was a horrible CB that generated a lot of bad will towards NPO, as well as them dragging the war out with FAN. Just because NPO did it and it turned the world against them in the Karma War with that attitude doesn't mean MK can do it as well and not face similar problems. Good luck with this though, although I don't see how NPO can be expected to pay anyone reps during this war if you guys are going to throw a fit over this alliance fulfilling their tech deals. It will be your own downfall by not learning from NPO's mistakes, but following them instead. Edit: I said NPO, but considering how much that war has been cited in regards to IRON as well, I think it seems to of generated bad will towards them as well by many. [/quote] Look cherry picker, quote the rest of my post. [quote name='TBRaiders' date='17 February 2010 - 03:59 PM' timestamp='1266443963' post='2188051'] I keep begging my alliance to get three nations on the guy in citadel trading company who is sending cash, soldiers, and tech to TOP nations. That is blatant war aid. I personally don't care about regular tech deals being completed, but have always notified all my sellers that our deal will be on hold until after the war so they are not put into harms way. To each their own. [/quote] As you can see, I said I personally had no problem with tech deals being completed. I have never accepted tech from my sellers when I am at war or if they have gone to war. I can't remember a time where I didn't just tell them to move on and our deal was clear, keep the change. Not only is it because I use my slots to aid my allies, but it's because it's always been a valid CB to declare on nations and alliances who aid the enemy and I wouldn't want to put my sellers in that position. I added that last part about IRON because yet again we seem the crying from the other side when they are merely being hypocrites. If C&G was the new hegemony, we would have just started hammering their nations. FWIW, I really am getting tired of all New Hegemony comments. How the side with TOP and IRON, two pillars of the old Hegemony, can constantly call our side the new Hegemony with a straight face is beyond me. Where are the viceroys MK has installed or supported our allies installing? What pre-emptive wars has MK declared with a CB of we don't like you or we want to bloody you up? When has MK rolled a neutral alliance? None of those questions really need to be answered. Can't you guys just start your own blogs and fill them up with your posturing and crying like the astronaut guy has done? Also, hello Ejay.

I keep begging my alliance to get three nations on the guy in citadel trading company who is sending cash, aid, and tech to TOP nations. That is blatant war aid. I personally don't care about regular tech deals being completed, but have always notified all my sellers that our deal will be on hold until after the war so they are not put into harms way. To each their own. IIRC, IRON's CB against GPA was that ONE nation sent an aid deal to a GOON nation (who was in peace mode and not wearing the AA and who never came out of peace mode before the nation was deleted for inactivity). Just saying.