Sin Posted July 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 [quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1311712588' post='2764392'] No [b]sanctions are used on rogue actions[/b] of non alliance nations....like you. Valhalla has fought in a majority of wars here on Bob and have never used a sanction in alliance v alliance combat. So you're statement is factually incorrect. [/quote] But that is not what you said before... You stated I would "...be fought using all tools and means at the alliances disposal" and also said that it did not matter if I was a rogue or not stating it as "...meaningLESS" So which is it? Sanctions are for rogues only or are they for everyone you wish to pseudo define as a rogue? And I suppose you believe I do not have rights given that I am one person and not a group. You know all I am getting from people when they state these ridiculous claims is that I need to do some recruiting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jgoods45 Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 [quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1311707613' post='2764341'] The same could have been said about EZI at some point. I say we "deal with" tech raiding the same way. [/quote] No. And any attempts to "deal with" tech raiding the same way EZI was dealt with would be resisted. They are not the same thing and tech raids only last a few days in most normal cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 Just fight dude, you are using the weapons at your disposal and they are using theirs. Less bawwing more glowing. kk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaGneT Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Ejayrazz' timestamp='1311707935' post='2764345'] People are little !@#$%*es. #IgnorantCauseIDontKnowFullStoryButStillYouAllSuckForSanctioning [/quote] [b]DO NOT[/b] bring hashtags to CN. PLEASE. Edited July 26, 2011 by MaGneT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicknight Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1311609345' post='2763430'] Joking aside, Oh for christssakes, it's a tech raid target turned nuclear rogue, get over it. The fact of the matter is that unaligned are not sovereign, individual nations are not (typically) sovereign. They are not even so much as permitted to keep their tech. It is only by forming and alliances that we gain sovereignty. The individual nation is essentially nothing. Consequentially, the unaligned have no rights, and any action against them by an aligned party is justified. Valhalla, though not my favorite alliance, have done nothing wrong. They used the tools at their disposal to deal with an unaligned nonperson who was asking for trouble. [/quote] Thread in a nutshell. Time to drink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RePePe Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 [quote name='King sin' timestamp='1311715274' post='2764411'] But that is not what you said before... You stated I would "...be fought using all tools and means at the alliances disposal" and also said that it did not matter if I was a rogue or not stating it as "...meaningLESS" So which is it? Sanctions are for rogues only or are they for everyone you wish to pseudo define as a rogue? And I suppose you believe I do not have rights given that I am one person and not a group. You know all I am getting from people when they state these ridiculous claims is that I need to do some recruiting... [/quote] You're not hurting us significantly, you're not giving us bad PR, and you're starting to look more and more pathetic. You're just not doin' it right. Sad, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefjoe Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 [quote name='King sin' timestamp='1311715274' post='2764411'] But that is not what you said before... You stated I would "...be fought using all tools and means at the alliances disposal" and also said that it did not matter if I was a rogue or not stating it as "...meaningLESS" So which is it? Sanctions are for rogues only or are they for everyone you wish to pseudo define as a rogue?[/quote] Or maybe meaningLESS rogue actions? Now try to define yourself in that context [quote] And I suppose you believe I do not have rights given that I am one person and not a group. You know all I am getting from people when they state these ridiculous claims is that I need to do some [b]recruiting[/b]... [/quote] You certainly can do that, just keep in mind that anyone recruited will be in an immediate state of war with Valhalla until this is over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 Please recruit people. I am bored and would like to war someone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sin Posted July 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1311727041' post='2764519'] Please recruit people. I am bored and would like to war someone... [/quote] Haha I actually laughed. So The Dark Templar is going to bandwagon if I recruit? hahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Greenberg Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 This is stupid. King Sin, shut up and stay unsanctioned on the red team or whatever team you're on. Valhalla, deal with it and just fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RePePe Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 [quote name='King sin' timestamp='1311730824' post='2764588'] Haha I actually laughed. So The Dark Templar is going to bandwagon if I recruit? hahaha [/quote] Really, stop posting. If you're going to crusade against Valhalla and try to pull off that tough guy act: stop letting your mouth try to compensate for what your limited ability isn't capable of doing. Act like a man, fight like you want to, and stop flapping your gums. The world doesn't need more twelve-year-old pre-pubescent boys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperbad Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 [quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1311724306' post='2764495'] You certainly can do that, just keep in mind that anyone recruited will be in an immediate state of war with Valhalla until this is over. [/quote] So if I swap over to his AA Valhalla will attack me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefjoe Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 [quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1311731955' post='2764602'] So if I swap over to his AA Valhalla will attack me? [/quote] Welp since it is a 1 man AA that has decided to declare nuclear war on my alliance(not just the people that raided him) it puts Valhalla in a deFacto state of war with whomever is on that AA. So if you would like to wear that AA after being informed of that fact then you will be formally choosing to also be in that same state of war. tl;dr- Yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 [quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1311718380' post='2764435'] No. And any attempts to "deal with" tech raiding the same way EZI was dealt with would be resisted. They are not the same thing and tech raids only last a few days in most normal cases. [/quote] I was simply making the point that defending tech raiding because it is commonly accepted is ridiculous and ignores the real point. Same goes for calling a nation a "nuclear rogue" after attacking him. So what if he was waiting for a tech raider so he could go ballistic in defense; the alliance still isn't a victim here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefjoe Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1311732772' post='2764616'] I was simply making the point that defending tech raiding because it is commonly accepted is ridiculous and ignores the real point. Same goes for calling a nation a "nuclear rogue" after attacking him. So what if he was waiting for a tech raider so he could go ballistic in defense; the alliance still isn't a victim here. [/quote] Id agree with you, up until the point we learn the 'victim' had this plan all along. Entrapment is a crime, especially when done with the foreplanning of bodily harm and injury. Thats called 1st degree murder at the worst, aggravated planned assault at the least... Sin is far far from a 'victim' in this. Edited July 27, 2011 by chefjoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperbad Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) [quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1311732361' post='2764608'] Welp since it is a 1 man AA that has decided to declare nuclear war on my alliance(not just the people that raided him) it puts Valhalla in a deFacto state of war with whomever is on that AA. So if you would like to wear that AA after being informed of that fact then you will be formally choosing to also be in that same state of war. tl;dr- Yes [/quote] If this is a war with another alliance/AA -- read because of your specifying AA there as opposed to his individual nation and your willingness to expand it to others who might merely reside on the AA -- why did you earlier justify your sanction against this man by saying "...sanctions are used on rogue actions of non alliance nations....like you. Valhalla has fought in a majority of wars here on Bob and have never used a sanction in alliance v alliance combat?" The two positions appear contradictory. [quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1311733092' post='2764621'] Id agree with you, up until the point we learn the 'victim' had this plan all along. Entrapment is a crime, especially when done with the foreplanning of bodily harm and injury. Thats called 1st degree murder at the worst, aggravated planned assault at the least... Sin is far far from a 'victim' in this. [/quote] Entrapment is a crime because that's the term used for police blackmailing people into committing crimes. If standing up for yourself against a group you feel has committed an act of war against you is "entrapment" and to be punished then every alliance in the game should receive a punishment. Edited July 27, 2011 by Hyperbad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1311733233' post='2764624'] If this is a war with another alliance/AA -- read because of your specifying AA there as opposed to his individual nation and your willingness to expand it to others who might merely reside on the AA -- why did you earlier justify your sanction against this man by saying "...sanctions are used on rogue actions of non alliance nations....like you. Valhalla has fought in a majority of wars here on Bob and have never used a sanction in alliance v alliance combat?" The two positions appear contradictory. [/quote] I think you are pushing it a bit in terms of the hypotheticals. You are different from a casual person being recruited to a rogue's cause, because you know better and have been warned. AA's can go rogue as well..see the AA GOONS is currently attacking for a prime example. Edited July 27, 2011 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefjoe Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1311733233' post='2764624'] If this is a war with another alliance/AA -- read because of your specifying AA there as opposed to his individual nation and your willingness to expand it to others who might merely reside on the AA -- why did you earlier justify your sanction against this man by saying "...sanctions are used on rogue actions of non alliance nations....like you. Valhalla has fought in a majority of wars here on Bob and have never used a sanction in alliance v alliance combat?" The two positions appear contradictory. [/quote] His AA is not an alliance. When he gets above the 10 person minimum(I could be wrong on the number in our charter, might be 15, and im too lazy to look right now), his AA will become an alliance and be treated as such. Very simple really. Edited July 27, 2011 by chefjoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperbad Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1311733341' post='2764626'] I think you are pushing it a bit in terms of the hypotheticals. You are different from a casual person being recruited to a rogue's cause, because you know better and have been warned.[/quote] Do I? [quote]AA's can go rogue as well..see the AA GOONS is currently attacking for a prime example. [/quote] That AA's can go rogue as well is not indispute. What has been disputed by myself is their claiming he's a rogue non-alliance nation and that's why they sanctioned him. They then go on to try and treat his AA as an alliance. Either he's a rogue non-alliance nation or he's a rogue alliance nation. It doesn't matter to me either way what he is considered, just make the arguments follow each other and not clash. [quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1311733498' post='2764629'] His AA is not an alliance. When he gets above the 10 person minimum(I could be wrong on the number in our charter, might be 15, and im too lazy to look right now), his AA will become an alliance and be treated as such. Very simple really. [/quote] Yet you're treating the AA as an alliance - a group of nations with a common purpose. Edited July 27, 2011 by Hyperbad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefjoe Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 [quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1311733233' post='2764624'] Entrapment is a crime because that's the term used for police blackmailing people into committing crimes. If standing up for yourself against a group you feel has committed an act of war against you is "entrapment" and to be punished then every alliance in the game should receive a punishment. [/quote] You keep forgetting the fact Sin purposely and knowing went to no AA in order to lure people in. He knows how raiding in CN works, he is an old nation. So he baited his trap and layed in wait for someone to come by so he could get revenge. It would be like if pick pocketing someone who has fallen asleep at the bus station with their wallet out is acceptable in society and then when Sin lays down on the bench with his wallet hanging out and it happens, he then takes out the machette and not only wants to hack up the pickpocket but their entire family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 [quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1311733740' post='2764631'] Do I?[/quote] I would hope so..I rather like CoJ and a move of that much stupidity from a member of theirs would be disheartening. Yawoo <3 [quote] That AA's can go rogue as well is not indispute. What has been disputed by myself is their claiming he's a rogue non-alliance nation and that's why they sanctioned him. They then go on to try and treat his AA as an alliance. Either he's a rogue non-alliance nation or he's a rogue alliance nation. It doesn't matter to me either way what he is considered, just make the arguments follow each other and not clash. [/quote] Same outcome either way, sanctions are acceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefjoe Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1311733740' post='2764631'] rhetoric[/quote] You are right, it is odd for us to not persecute the whole alliance(if when they reach that point) and not flatly declare anyone and everyone involved at that point a rogue. Guess im getting soft in my old age.....but there ya have it. Decency. Edited July 27, 2011 by chefjoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sin Posted July 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1311733900' post='2764635'] I would hope so..I rather like CoJ and a move of that much stupidity from a member of theirs would be disheartening. Yawoo <3[/quote] These kind of statements suggest to me that people all too quickly group personal opinions with that of their alliances. It is very interesting that ones words can be grouped with their alliance but it appears their actions cannot as is the case we are discussing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) [quote name='King sin' timestamp='1311734182' post='2764640'] These kind of statements suggest to me that people all too quickly group personal opinions with that of their alliances. It is very interesting that ones words can be grouped with their alliance but it appears their actions cannot as is the case we are discussing. [/quote] How far are you stretching that? Also, Hyperbad, glad to see you are a true bleeding heart. Edited July 27, 2011 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperbad Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 [quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1311733886' post='2764634'] You keep forgetting the fact Sin purposely and knowing went to no AA in order to lure people in. He knows how raiding in CN works, he is an old nation. So he baited his trap and layed in wait for someone to come by so he could get revenge. It would be like if pick pocketing someone who has fallen asleep at the bus station with their wallet out is acceptable in society and then when Sin lays down on the bench with his wallet hanging out and it happens, he then takes out the machette and not only wants to hack up the pickpocket but their entire family. [/quote] It doesn't matter why he went to his chosen AA. What I'm disputing is your considering him a nuclear rogue with no alliance and then elsewhere considering his AA to effectively be an alliance through action - assuming they will all take part in Sin's actions together. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth as convenient. [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1311733900' post='2764635'] I would hope so..I rather like CoJ and a move of that much stupidity from a member of theirs would be disheartening. Yawoo <3[/quote] Sleep deprivation for several days can make one do marvelously stupid things. What CoJ wishes to do about my making a point is up to them. I'll be extraordinarily pissed though if they try to diffuse a situation which needs none. I'm just sitting on the AA quietly which a "non-alliance nuclear rogue" also happens to be on. We'll see what happens. [quote]Same outcome either way, sanctions are acceptable. [/quote] That's not the topic in dispute with me. I'm also a personal proponent of sanctions being used in alliance wars. It doesn't phase me the list bit way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.