An Ordo Paradoxia Announcemente

[Awesome Dog]

[quote name='Mikeyrox' timestamp='1311319843' post='2761172']
No you don't need a reason. What you also do not need is to contradict yourselves and then repeat the same exact phrase in every rebut to people who point out said contradiction

And to anyone who thinks we are butthurt, I assure we are not. At least I know I am not. I have never cared about why someone attacks, nor do I care when I get attacked, unless of course I am away for the duration of the fight, in which case I feel left out But if I come off as complaining I apologize; its just that arguing with Thomas harks me back a bit to my old debate days, and its just too much fun
[/quote]
^^
I like this guy!

No sarcasm.

[zephyrmaten]

[quote name='Awesome Dog' timestamp='1311320321' post='2761179']
^^
I like this guy!

No sarcasm.
[/quote]
wish we could have said that about some of you guys...

[zephyrmaten]

[quote name='ADude' timestamp='1311320279' post='2761178']
Damnit the last thing we need is Confusion also spewing crap in this thread with OP
[/quote]
[img]http://i53.tinypic.com/vmvfqq.jpg[/img]

Edited July 22, 2011 by zephyrmaten

[Mikeyrox]

[quote name='Awesome Dog' timestamp='1311320321' post='2761179']
^^
I like this guy!

No sarcasm.
[/quote]

Me too We have something in common

That said, I do have to take a step back and at this thread. It reminds me that I am a bum with too much time on my hands Oh well back to nuking.

Also dear god we turned into trolls real fast. This is why I try and shy away from the OWF. I come back for one thread and this happens

Edited July 22, 2011 by Mikeyrox

[Stelios]

Actually I talked to Hal and when i said Fark war he told me it was a FARK episode and that it wasnt a war

Save it for the battlefield everyone

[ADude]

Just letting you guys know that after the war and even if he is still on the OP AA we will be hitting King Kong, just warning you guys and all.

[Owney OSullivan]

^^^Haha, I love it when people you hit switch to your AA and then try to convince you "We're on the same side bro, why you be attacking me?"^^ It never works, dunno why people think they can trick everyone.

[the wompus]

A few things to clarify, as this issue isn't nearly as complex as it is being spun to be.

For me, a DoW is meant as a fun way to get rolling into war. Mine aren't intended to be dissected by the lawyers of the OWF for legal content, intent or other mumbo jumbo. I do apologize if I insulted any 'weight-challenged' players by using the fat roman guy image. It was meant for fun.

As the leader of OP for LONG TIME now, I can assure you that a few comments alone on the OWF wouldn't prompt us to go to war.

Adude, sorry man, but you're giving yourself WAY too much credit. One member of any AA couldn't steer us toward or away from anything that wasn't going to happen anyway. Your OWF stuff may have been a very small contributing factor, but was HARDLY the driving force for the war.

(LOL on the roadsign image by the way whoever did it - well done, even if misguided!)

The bottom line is that we were due for a war (overdue actually due to bad timing on some potential targets getting taken 'off the board')

RE's upper tier [i][u]had[/u] [/i]plenty of size and plenty of nukes and it was and is still a good solid updeclare when all factors are considered.

I don't really feel the need to further defend our actions in any way.

We'll be out there dishing out a whooping, so if you need anything, meet us on the battlefield.

[ADude]

[quote name='the wompus' timestamp='1311366189' post='2761454']
A few things to clarify, as this issue isn't nearly as complex as it is being spun to be.

For me, a DoW is meant as a fun way to get rolling into war. Mine aren't intended to be dissected by the lawyers of the OWF for legal content, intent or other mumbo jumbo. I do apologize if I insulted any 'weight-challenged' players by using the fat roman guy image. It was meant for fun.

As the leader of OP for LONG TIME now, I can assure you that a few comments alone on the OWF wouldn't prompt us to go to war.

Adude, sorry man, but you're giving yourself WAY too much credit. One member of any AA couldn't steer us toward or away from anything that wasn't going to happen anyway. Your OWF stuff may have been a very small contributing factor, but was HARDLY the driving force for the war.

(LOL on the roadsign image by the way whoever did it - well done, even if misguided!)

The bottom line is that we were due for a war (overdue actually due to bad timing on some potential targets getting taken 'off the board')



We'll be out there dishing out a whooping, so if you need anything, meet us on the battlefield.
[/quote]

We have no issue with the DoW itself or the reason for the war, what the last few pages were about is Thomas trying to change an already established story.

[quote]RE's upper tier [i][u]had[/u] [/i]plenty of size and plenty of nukes and it was and is still a good solid updeclare when all factors are considered.
[/quote]

Looking at the stat file that was available at 6PM on the 21st OP had twice as many nations over 15K as RE did, their nukes also went twice what RE had.

*EDIT

[color="#0000FF"]I downloaded the stat a few minutes before OP blitzed, I labeled it 21 because I am in EST, in EST it was the 21st, but the stat file is from the 20th at 6PM game time.[/color]

15 - 10K was fairly even both in nukes and overall nations but thats about where it stops, you guys still had 30 days to prepare your nations, this means that OP warchest and spy counts have to be at least twice what RE was at, the only place where we had any type of advantage was the lower to middle tier and they just came out of a war with IRON less then 2 days before you guys declared, personally I was still under the [u]effects[/u] of nuke anarchy when you guys declared, also it doesn't help our chances any that our middle to lower tier have been hugely down declared on (look at the charts), saying this war was an up declare is a joke, like I said the [u]only[/u] thing we had was overall members (most of which could hardly touch OP nations before you declared) and overall NS (mostly propped up by said little nations) hell you guys even had a 5K advantage in average NS as well as the blitz and we all know that is what wins wars.

Edited July 22, 2011 by ADude

[Confusion]

[quote name='ADude' timestamp='1311368708' post='2761485']
We have no issue with the DoW itself or the reason for the war, what the last few pages were about is Thomas trying to change an already established story.



Looking at the stat file that was available at 6PM on the 21st OP had twice as many nations over 15K as RE did, their nukes also went twice what RE had.

15 - 10K was fairly even both in nukes and overall nations but thats about where it stops, you guys still had 30 days to prepare your nations, this means that OP warchest and spy counts have to be at least twice what RE was at, the only place where we had any type of advantage was the lower to middle tier and they just came out of a war with IRON less then 2 days before you guys declared, personally I was still under the [u]effects[/u] of nuke anarchy when you guys declared, also it doesn't help our chances any that our middle to lower tier have been hugely down declared on (look at the charts), saying this war was an up declare is a joke, like I said the [u]only[/u] thing we had was overall members (most of which could hardly touch OP nations before you declared) and overall NS (mostly propped up by said little nations) hell you guys even had a 5K advantage in average NS as well as the blitz and we all know that is what wins wars.
[/quote]


Well, I guess that explains why you declared on DF earlier this round.



Confusion.

[Mikeyrox]

[quote name='the wompus' timestamp='1311366189' post='2761454']
I do apologize if I insulted any 'weight-challenged' players by using the fat roman guy image. It was meant for fun.

[/quote]

Haha no worries, I was joking, but I guess I came of a tad too serious I assure you, we have no weight-challenged member name Fat Dino to take umbrage with your DoW

Edited July 22, 2011 by Mikeyrox

[ADude]

[quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1311371790' post='2761520']
Well, I guess that explains why you declared on DF earlier this round.



Confusion.
[/quote]

What is that even supposed to mean? are you saying that both this and the DF war were down declares?

[Thomasj_tx]

[quote name='ADude' timestamp='1311368708' post='2761485']
We have no issue with the DoW itself or the reason for the war, what the last few pages were about is Thomas trying to change an already established story. - [color="#0000FF"]I was not changing an already established [i]"story"[/i]. I was correcting your nitpicking and feckless sniping.[/color]


Looking at the stat file that was available at 6PM on the 21st OP had twice as many nations over 15K as RE did, their nukes also went twice what RE had. - [color="#0000FF"]6pm on the 21st was over 18 houes after our DoW. What you are citing is the result of a very successful blitz. Ask someone what one looks like. You may learn something.

So let me see if I can sum up all of this nitpicking....

You first whined about us not waring and then when we attacked the largest alliance in the game, you whined about that. Seems to sum up your posts quite well.[/color][/quote]

Edited July 22, 2011 by Thomasj_tx

[Confusion]

[quote name='ADude' timestamp='1311374904' post='2761552']
What is that even supposed to mean? are you saying that both this and the DF war were down declares?
[/quote]

Not Exactly, it basically states that there are huge errors in the way you come up with what classifies a war as an up declare or a down declare. Going off of what you said, all of RE's wars have also been down declares.


Confusion.

[ADude]

Yea, i labeled that wrong, fixing.

[ADude]

[quote]I was not changing an already established "story". I was correcting your nitpicking and feckless sniping.


6pm on the 21st was over 18 houes after our DoW. What you are citing is the result of a very successful blitz. Ask someone what one looks like. You may learn something.

So let me see if I can sum up all of this nitpicking....

You first whined about us not waring and then when we attacked the largest alliance in the game, you whined about that. Seems to sum up your posts quite well.[/quote]

Fixed my post about that stat file with an explanation.

[quote]I was correcting your nitpicking and feckless sniping.[/quote]

I was not nitpicking about anything, I was showing you that Paul, Mark and Wompus have all said my comments where involved with the DoW while you were the only one to disagree.

My stat is from the 20th, I labeled it wrong and i apologize for the confusion, if you want to see it I will Email you a copy. (although I'm sure you have it)

I was whining that you weren't warring sure, I am not whining about this war, give me something as an example of me "whining" that I don't want this war, you will find that I am only pointing out some of the facts.

[ADude]

[quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1311376932' post='2761563']
Not Exactly, it basically states that there are huge errors in the way you come up with what classifies a war as an up declare or a down declare. Going off of what you said, all of RE's wars have also been down declares.


Confusion.
[/quote]

Classify an up declare and a down declare for me. Just give me a pretend war set up that would classify as a down and up declare.

Edited July 22, 2011 by ADude

[Thomasj_tx]

[quote name='ADude' timestamp='1311378032' post='2761571']
Classify an up declare and a down declare for me. Just give me a pretend war set up that would classify as a down and up declare.
[/quote]

Based on your posts in this thread and others, you would have deemed any war that OP would have entered to be a down declare. Even though it was against the number one alliance in the game. You can "harvest" any portional stat, while ignoring all the rest, to try to make your meaningless point.

And based on what appears to be your meaning of a down declare, OP may as well just leave TE, since in your mind, we would never be able to war without you calling it a down declare. But trust me, OP is not going anywhere.

So the same question back at'cha....

[i]Classify an up declare and a down declare for me. Just give me a pretend war set up that would classify as a down and up declare.[/i]

Edited July 23, 2011 by Thomasj_tx

[Awesome Dog]

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1311385003' post='2761658']
Based on your posts in this thread and others, you would have deemed any war that OP would have entered to be a down declare. Even though it was against the number one alliance in the game. You can "harvest" any portional stat, while ignoring all the rest, to try to make your meaningless point.

And based on what appears to be your meaning of a down declare, OP may as well just leave TE, since in your mind, we would never be able to war without you calling it a down declare. But trust me, OP is not going anywhere.

So the same question back at'cha....

[i]Classify an up declare and a down declare for me. Just give me a pretend war set up that would classify as a down and up declare.[/i]
[/quote]
/me waits for the inevitable...
[quote]Our war on DF was an updeclare, your war on us is a downdeclare.[/quote]

[jraenar]

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1311385003' post='2761658']
[i]Classify an up declare and a down declare for me. Just give me a pretend war set up that would classify as a down and up declare.[/i]
[/quote]

I'll bite.

It's an up declare if the defending alliance(s) have a better than even chance of winning the fight post-blitz. It's a down declare if the defending alliance(s) have little chance of winning the fight post-blitz. It's a curbstomp if the defending alliance(s) have zero chance of winning, and little chance of even fighting back.

I've only seen a few up declares in TE. Most wars in TE are in the grey area between up/down declare. This one is pretty firmly in curbstomp territory. You [i]might[/i] have had a case for up declare if this war happened before IRON's attacks. But calling "kicking 'em while they're down" an up declare is so delusional it's funny.

[Thomasj_tx]

[quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1311389109' post='2761747']
I'll bite.

It's an up declare if the defending alliance(s) have a better than even chance of winning the fight post-blitz. It's a down declare if the defending alliance(s) have little chance of winning the fight post-blitz. It's a curbstomp if the defending alliance(s) have zero chance of winning, and little chance of even fighting back.

I've only seen a few up declares in TE. Most wars in TE are in the grey area between up/down declare. This one is pretty firmly in curbstomp territory. You [i]might[/i] have had a case for up declare if this war happened before IRON's attacks. But calling "kicking 'em while they're down" an up declare is so delusional it's funny.
[/quote]

So you use opinion and not data to define an up declare/down declare.

I see.

Do you feel that RE had/has no [i]chance of winning[/i] against a 5th or 6th ranked AA?

And trust me, I appreciate your honest response.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Thomasj_tx

[paul711]

[quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1311389109' post='2761747']
I'll bite.

It's an up declare if the defending alliance(s) have a better than even chance of winning the fight post-blitz. It's a down declare if the defending alliance(s) have little chance of winning the fight post-blitz. It's a curbstomp if the defending alliance(s) have zero chance of winning, and little chance of even fighting back.

I've only seen a few up declares in TE. Most wars in TE are in the grey area between up/down declare. This one is pretty firmly in curbstomp territory. You [i]might[/i] have had a case for up declare if this war happened before IRON's attacks. But calling "kicking 'em while they're down" an up declare is so delusional it's funny.
[/quote]
Funny how only the RE side is saying this. *facepalms* Only OP can declare on an AA 2.5 times its size in numbers, similar nukes, and more toatl NS and its still called a curbstomp. I suggest you guys concentrate on fighting and less on this thread.

[Mikeyrox]

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1311389919' post='2761757']
Funny how only the RE side is saying this. *facepalms* Only OP can declare on an AA 2.5 times its size in numbers, similar nukes, and more toatl NS and its still called a curbstomp. I suggest you guys concentrate on fighting and less on this thread.
[/quote]

Why u ruinin' TE ebil Paul

[jraenar]

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1311389518' post='2761754']
So you use opinion and not data to define an up declare/down declare.

I see.

Do you feel that RE had/has no [i]chance of winning[/i] against a 5th or 6th ranked AA?

And trust me, I appreciate your honest response.
[/quote]
You say "opinion and not data," as if it's one or the other. There is always going to be some opinion in interpreting relative strengths. The data shows that sure, RE has more members and NS. But the data also shows that the OP nations individually had higher strength, the advantage of a (extremely well executed) blitz, and had 30 days of largely conflict-free existence.

So yes, RE has no chance of winning (as evidenced by losing 25% of our strength in two days, compared to 10% for OP). Had you attacked last week, it would have been a good fight. As it is now, I would guess more than half of RE is turtling and just launching CMs and nukes. I would call that "not winning."

I'm still nuking as many of you as I can, though.

[ADude]

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1311385003' post='2761658']
Based on your posts in this thread and others, you would have deemed any war that OP would have entered to be a down declare. Even though it was against the number one alliance in the game. You can "harvest" any portional stat, while ignoring all the rest, to try to make your meaningless point.

And based on what appears to be your meaning of a down declare, OP may as well just leave TE, since in your mind, we would never be able to war without you calling it a down declare. But trust me, OP is not going anywhere.

So the same question back at'cha....

[i]Classify an up declare and a down declare for me. Just give me a pretend war set up that would classify as a down and up declare.[/i]
[/quote]

No, I told Paul that there is no way for OP to not look like the bad guy, nothing about down declares.I have the logs to prove it if you like.

Also that question wasn't directed at you, I was trying to get confusion to clarify something.


Before I start this, overall alliance score means [u]NOTHING[/u], OP has said it in the past and I have said it in the past, don't try to say that the #1 AA will always an up declare.

When I look at a war I look at the stats and I look at the AA's involved and what they have done during the round with wars, if the stats aren't that far off then fine but that doesn't always mean it is a fair war, take this war for example (although you guys had the average by alot) OP is much more active and coordinated then RE, there is almost no one that will argue with that also when you add in the simple fact that you guys had more time to prepare your nations for a war because you didn't get hit and you didn't attack anyone before day 30, this is an [u]obvious [/u] advantage, when you take things like that with a stat like the average NS of the alliance it isn't much of a wild claim that this isn't a fair war.

But back to your question (mine really) I look at the AA and the stats and like I said I take into consideration what the AA is capable of and what they have done in the round.