Just an itsy bitsy question

[Bill Wallace]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1311782508' post='2765302']
I actually don't think you personally believe that applies here. You've had too many good comments/insights in IC and OOC threads for me to think otherwise.
[/quote]

I think it's accepted in all corners of Planet Bob that by being a member of whichever alliance you belong to, you accept all the good and the bad that comes with that membership. If a member of an alliance spies on someone and their alliance gets rolled for it, so be it. One of your alliance leaders mouths off one too many times and they do it to the wrong guy and your alliance gets squashed, so be it.

If King sin wants to attack members of Valhalla who had no part in the initial raid on his nation, that's a legitimate move in my eyes. From the point of view of King sin, it was Valhalla that raided him. The actual nations who performed the raids are inconsequential because those nations did so with the full backing of Valhalla and it's charter. Therefore [i]in my opinion[/i] any nation that flies the Valhalla flag is a legitimate target for revenge. Does this make King sin a rogue? Well the precedent for what constitutes an alliance around here seems to be fifteen nations. So probably most people are going to say that he is indeed a rogue and that opens him up to sanctions. Personally I think this is debatable, but I respectfully understand that most alliance leaders would disagree with me, but that's because if Planet Bob had 200 King sin's running around independently causing mayhem amongst the lower ranks of various alliances, the natural order of things would quickly go off track and the reality that an alliance can only offer limited protection would erode the power of those in charge. Maybe this is what King sin had in mind all along, but that's only a guess.

Anyways, my intent is not to pick at Valhalla. This topic has garnered my attention because what King sin is doing is similar to some ideas I've been mulling over in regards to how my nation will go out when the time comes.

[size="1"]I really wish I had uranium as one of my resources. Damn it.[/size]

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Bill Wallace' timestamp='1311803090' post='2765564']
I think it's accepted in all corners of Planet Bob that by being a member of whichever alliance you belong to, you accept all the good and the bad that comes with that membership. If a member of an alliance spies on someone and their alliance gets rolled for it, so be it. One of your alliance leaders mouths off one too many times and they do it to the wrong guy and your alliance gets squashed, so be it.

If King sin wants to attack members of Valhalla who had no part in the initial raid on his nation, that's a legitimate move in my eyes. From the point of view of King sin, it was Valhalla that raided him. The actual nations who performed the raids are inconsequential because those nations did so with the full backing of Valhalla and it's charter. Therefore [i]in my opinion[/i] any nation that flies the Valhalla flag is a legitimate target for revenge. Does this make King sin a rogue? Well the precedent for what constitutes an alliance around here seems to be fifteen nations. So probably most people are going to say that he is indeed a rogue and that opens him up to sanctions. Personally I think this is debatable, but I respectfully understand that most alliance leaders would disagree with me, but that's because if Planet Bob had 200 King sin's running around independently causing mayhem amongst the lower ranks of various alliances, the natural order of things would quickly go off track and the reality that an alliance can only offer limited protection would erode the power of those in charge. Maybe this is what King sin had in mind all along, but that's only a guess.

Anyways, my intent is not to pick at Valhalla. This topic has garnered my attention because what King sin is doing is similar to some ideas I've been mulling over in regards to how my nation will go out when the time comes.

[size="1"]I really wish I had uranium as one of my resources. Damn it.[/size]
[/quote]

A more respectable response.

As to whether terrorism (essentially what Sin is engaging in since he seems to detest the idea he's a lone gunman in a bell tower...) would cause governments to crumble is in reality highly unlikely. As with RL, it does alter behaviors and cause governments to adapt to respond to the perception of a threat. I could envision a scenario where even traditional rivals would for a time cooperate to put down those who would randomly sit on the lower mid-range and pop targets.

Not that the time will ever come, but if it does and I decide that my days here are at an end before the servers shut down, I will send out some personal message to those I care about and respect to let them know how they might reach me in the future and go quietly. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. I see no point in trying to spoil the game for others knowing I'm quitting. I've been at this long enough that I've pretty much had my fill of revenge.

[Bob Janova]

Valhalla declared war on him. Any actions he (or anyone else on his AA, if applicable) takes against Valhalla are in the context of a defensive war, not roguery. A war that he'll lose, because Valhalla has declared war on a tiny and defenceless alliance, but sanctions should not be placed when the nation in question was attacked first by the alliance which is complaining. When the only visible wars are offensive though it's an easy mistake to make.

[Bob Sanders]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1311808586' post='2765621']
Valhalla declared war on him. Any actions he (or anyone else on his AA, if applicable) takes against Valhalla are in the context of a defensive war, not roguery. A war that he'll lose, because Valhalla has declared war on a tiny and defenceless alliance, but sanctions should not be placed when the nation in question was attacked first by the alliance which is complaining. When the only visible wars are offensive though it's an easy mistake to make.
[/quote]
A tiny defenseless nation that was sitting at ~120k NS with full wonders, nukes, $3 billion warchest, etc. That certainly sounds tiny and defenseless to me... As a matter of fact at least one of the nations that raided him was smaller than he was when the raid started.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

Personally, I've never been at 120,000 nation strength, so I know nothing of nation building at that tier, but doesn't a nuke at that strength range undo many, many days of raiding? I'm just contemplating why attacking a 120k ns nation was a good idea in the first place. Surely it's not because Valhalla expected a dedicated nation-builder would just leave his nation to the dogs?

[TRON IX]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1311817626' post='2765771']
Personally, I've never been at 120,000 nation strength, so I know nothing of nation building at that tier, but doesn't a nuke at that strength range undo many, many days of raiding? I'm just contemplating why attacking a 120k ns nation was a good idea in the first place. Surely it's not because Valhalla expected a dedicated nation-builder would just leave his nation to the dogs?
[/quote]

To be completely honest.. After a week of (nuke) war with him, I decommissioned and was actually larger than when I started. I know that is hard to believe, but it's true.

But yes in almost ALL cases you are correct. Nukes cancel out tech raids.


A good idea? Probably not. But at my size I didn't really care. I joined in for fun. Sitting on your thumb for months on end is not fun. And if he's been buying nothing and just collecting for "years". He wasn't that much of a "dedicated nation builder".

[Sin]

I think that perceptions of what nation building is different for everyone. For me it is maximum readiness to deal with any threat or attack. It appears to be working.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='King sin' timestamp='1311821096' post='2765844']
I think that perceptions of what nation building is different for everyone. For me it is maximum readiness to deal with any threat or attack. It appears to be working.[/quote]

No, actually I'd classify your style of warfare as this:

[img]http://images.pictureshunt.com/pics/c/cheddar_cheese-9385.jpg[/img]

Enjoy your slow exit.

[notadolfhitler]

King of Sin, you are only making your situation with valhalla worse by continuing to bring this matter into the OWF. Seriously just talk to them in private (Like i mentioned earlier).


Edit: SP? I guess

Edited July 28, 2011 by not adolf hitler

[Dochartaigh]

[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]

Well considering I doubt you would manage to recruit over 5 nations and would not gain protection from anyone, you would be a viable raid target.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1311829087' post='2765951']
Well considering I doubt you would manage to recruit over 5 nations and would not gain protection from anyone, you would be a viable raid target.
[/quote]
All that is needed is someone drawing Pollard's attention to this thread, Sin's alliance would then be protected :v

[Stonewall Jaxon]

Well I look forward to seeing this progressing well into the future. I mean, warring at ZI is the most annoying thing to any alliance, as the brand new tech dealers can be instantly attacked and robbed of the money, continuing to fuel the war effort.

[shahenshah]

Its funny how some say sanctions are wrong in this case but they have no issues with changing of an alliance's charter.

Edited July 28, 2011 by shahenshah

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='Bob Sanders' timestamp='1311815467' post='2765712']
A tiny defenseless nation that was sitting at ~120k NS with full wonders, nukes, $3 billion warchest, etc. That certainly sounds tiny and defenseless to me... As a matter of fact at least one of the nations that raided him was smaller than he was when the raid started.
[/quote]
I don't think you read my post. A tiny and defenceless [b]alliance[/b] ... 120k and no treaties is hardly a match for Valhalla.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1311878235' post='2766301']
I don't think you read my post. A tiny and defenceless [b]alliance[/b] ... 120k and no treaties is hardly a match for Valhalla.
[/quote]

One man does not an alliance make...even when a CoJ mercenary shows up to make him appear to be more than he is.

As for being "defenseless", that explains why he's engaging us in further offensive wars--unless you are implying he's suicidal IC. Stop bawwing for him. He doesn't merit it.

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1311878235' post='2766301']
I don't think you read my post. A tiny and defenceless [b]alliance[/b] ... 120k and no treaties is hardly a match for Valhalla.
[/quote]
So are you trying to say that every AA including None(far more on none then on Sin's 1 man AA) are alliances? Just anything with an AA other none regardless of numbers? Does this mean that anytime a rogue hits GRE they will post DoW or RoW's on the OWF to recognize 'official' alliance warfare since your saying they are all 'real' alliances? I suppose if you do that then all PF can get some of the 'war' since defense is mandatory in that treaty iirc. Please enlighten me Bob...

Edited July 28, 2011 by chefjoe

[Timmmehhh]

Lol another annoying raidtarget, I remember I was planning to raid him but I didn't had enough time. Valhalla, well done on bringing this guy down

[Bob Janova]

We wouldn't need to post a RoH for such a tiny operation and nor would we require PF assistance, but yes, theoretically, if an alliance failed enough that it couldn't handle a rogue, its MDPs could be called upon to assist. (Haven't we seen that from some alliance in the past?)

The point is that the same principles for defining the aggressors and defenders apply even if one side is only one nation, and in this case you clearly attacked first so the single nation is the defender and therefore not a rogue.

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1312111067' post='2768179']
We wouldn't need to post a RoH for such a tiny operation and nor would we require PF assistance, but yes, theoretically, if an alliance failed enough that it couldn't handle a rogue, its MDPs could be called upon to assist. (Haven't we seen that from some alliance in the past?)

The point is that the same principles for defining the aggressors and defenders apply even if one side is only one nation, and in this case you clearly attacked first so the single nation is the defender and therefore not a rogue.
[/quote]

You failed to answer the question regarding "none" AA Bob, but from your response that you consider a single nation an alliance then "none" with its several hundred nations on it certainly qualifies right?


I think I will continue to Disagree with your point of view Bob, but thanks for it

[Bob Janova]

None is different to all the other AAs, obviously. (I mean, you don't consider it an alliance, whereas any 2600 nation AA clearly would be.) Setting your AA to none is saying that you're independent, and therefore your 'alliance' is one member (like setting a one member AA except easier to find). But yes, if someone on None is 'raided' (i.e. attacked) by an alliance and he chooses to keep that state of war open, he doesn't stop being on the defensive or become a rogue by doing so. (He will, of course, lose and hit ZI if he doesn't surrender, just as a losing alliance would when so greatly overpowered. So it's a dumb thing to do. But sanctioning him is still wrong.)

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1311882729' post='2766341']
One man does not an alliance make...[b]even when a CoJ mercenary shows up to make him appear to be more than he is.[/b]

As for being "defenseless", that explains why he's engaging us in further offensive wars--unless you are implying he's suicidal IC. Stop bawwing for him. He doesn't merit it.
[/quote]
Good sir I resent that. Mercenaries get paid whereas I did it for free.

[Kittenland]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1312145394' post='2768479']
None is different to all the other AAs, obviously. (I mean, you don't consider it an alliance, whereas any 2600 nation AA clearly would be.) Setting your AA to none is saying that you're independent, and therefore your 'alliance' is one member (like setting a one member AA except easier to find). But yes, if someone on None is 'raided' (i.e. attacked) by an alliance and he chooses to keep that state of war open, he doesn't stop being on the defensive or become a rogue by doing so. (He will, of course, lose and hit ZI if he doesn't surrender, just as a losing alliance would when so greatly overpowered. So it's a dumb thing to do. But sanctioning him is still wrong.)
[/quote]

But your hero stop war...relax for a while... then decide oh no, he will continue. He is aggressive, not defender now.
Nice try.

[philp110]

[quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1311747700' post='2764902']

King Sin, I feel for you on this one. If you'd like a place to bunk down after your war give me a holler, and no we don't allow tech raiding.
[/quote]

How do you "feel" for him on this one? He wanted to get raided and go on this crusade! He AA was "none" and he deliberately was attempting to get raided. There is nothing to feel for him - he is getting what he wanted and is now somehow teaching the alliance that happened to raid him a lesson. Feeling for him would be like if Walford had gone to none, waited to be raided, and then "taught that alliance a lesson" for months on end. Course, Walford was never competent enough to have a warchest anywhere near this large, lol. But you get the point. He was waiting to be attacked in order to go nutso to prove his point.