Just an itsy bitsy question

[nutkase]

You must of done something really wrong when you get me agreeing with Goldie!

Edited July 25, 2011 by nutkase

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Again, where do you people get this absurd idea that the attackers get to decide how long a war lasts, and even whether or not to call it war?

Call it war, call it a 'tech raid' call it macaroni salad for all I care. He was attacked by Valhalla and he is now fighting Valhalla, he is no rogue, and the resort to sanctions is shameful.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1311605595' post='2763409']
Again, where do you people get this absurd idea that the attackers get to decide how long a war lasts, and even whether or not to call it war?

Call it war, call it a 'tech raid' call it macaroni salad for all I care. He was attacked by Valhalla and he is now fighting Valhalla, he is no rogue, and the resort to sanctions is shameful.
[/quote]

Wait, I'm not sure I understand your argument. If the attackers don't get to decide how long a war last, or whether or not to call it a war, then who does? The peanut gallery?

And why is it shameful?

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1311603399' post='2763388']
I've read the entire thread. I know you guys have been and are still offering peace, but he is well within his right to ask for terms considering he's the one who was attacked first. Of course valhalla has more connections and firepower than he does, and they can easily turn him into a PZI target. Regardless of that he's still fighting, so good on him. I'm sure you guys will enjoy the casualties as well.[/quote]

We do enjoy causalities...otherwise that would just be weird. Actually, that raises another point--not only is he pretty much wasting his time trying to knock us down a peg, I was sorta being serious about him actually helping us with our war prep and training.

Still, it's just a bit sad to see someone go full moonbat/Walford like this, even if he has annoyed me personally to the point that I no longer care what happens to his nation.

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1311605595' post='2763409']
Again, where do you people get this absurd idea that the attackers get to decide how long a war lasts, and even whether or not to call it war?

Call it war, call it a 'tech raid' call it macaroni salad for all I care. He was attacked by Valhalla and he is now fighting Valhalla, he is no rogue, and the resort to sanctions is shameful.[/quote]

You had the good sense to make your point with us and move on. I never agreed with the reasons you left NoR, though I did respect that you were bound by a sense of honor. This one...has no good sense, nor honor, whatever he wants to pretend otherwise. He sat *hoping* to be raided by someone he considered worthy of attacking methodically, deliberately loitering in the lower mid-NS range where he could hit targets until he got bored or whatever. He's not fighting a war or even a guerrilla action. He's sitting in a bell tower trying to pick off people. What then does that make him? It certainly doesn't make someone who is worthy of all the rights to free, unfettered access to trade partners that nations traditionally expect to receive, whether you think he's a rogue or not.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1311604271' post='2763394']
Okay, I don't get this mentality? If those who are opposed to tech-raiding think that a war was declared, thus allowing the raid victim the capability of declaring war several times over the course of a couple months, how is it a mere tech-raid when Valhalla responds to said attacks? That has got to be some of the most twisted thinking I have seen. Either the raid was always a raid, in which case the raid victim is a nuclear rogue. Or the raid was actually a full on declaration of War in which case, Valhalla is more than free to receive support from allies in pursuit of war. [/quote]

It is a war, it was always a war, and yes they are free to receive support from allies. Needing to call on allies to deal with a single nation they attacked themselves doesnt look good, and lying to those allies about the context of the war (claiming the target is a rogue) would certainly have repercussions if their allies had any self-respect, but no one blames them for fighting the war at this point. The problem is the sanctions. Sanctions are an incredibly destructive tool that not only directly damage the target, but tear the target bodily out of their established trade arrangements, harm innocent third parties, and have a history of driving people out of the game.

This is the OOC forum, and I think in here we can all agree that the community is the most important part to keeping this game alive Sure, IC, we may want our enemies eliminated, but OOC we have to know that isnt how it works. We need to attract and retain players, not run them out of the game.

This is the reason that community standards very quickly arose to say that you dont use sanctions in war. Sanctions are for nuclear rogues only. So now some people dont like being limited like that. Whether they dont understand how important this rule is to the community or they just dont care, it doesnt matter. So they started misusing the word 'rogue', twisting it and stretching it to cover more and more sanctions.

Folks, a rogue is someone that is tired of the game and going out with a bang. It's as simple as that. It makes sense you can sanction them because almost nothing is lost! You cut their trade ties a week early, it wasnt like he wasnt planning to cut them by deleting anyhow. But being an uppity raid target who decides to fight back does not make you a rogue, and neither does having the gall to sit on a micro-aa instead of joining one of the big herds.

Using sanctions as a tool of war has been recognised as wrong as long as I have been here, even against large alliances and even in extremis. Using sanctions as a tool of war against a solitary nation you have comfortably outnumbered by several hundreds to one (since your allies are now helping you as well) is just so pathetic I cant even find the words to describe it.

[quote]Okay, I am sorry, this is actually the stupidest thing you said. PZI target? In this case, Valhalla did not pursue this guy, he pursued them. If he is the one who has continued to attack them, and will obviously do so in the future, how is it that Valhalla is making him a PZI target? Oh because they refuse to change their charter to suit the whims of someone outside their alliance? So, from this, I should take it that you, WC, are perfectly fine with someone outside of VE attempting to force VE to change their charter? Gotcha. Just do not flip flop again. Well actually, I should say inb4WCflipflopsagain.
[/quote]

I agree that Valhalla does not appear to have made him a PZI target and that comment was uncalled for. My objection is to the use of sanctions as a weapon of war, not with their efforts to protect themselves by other means.

[Sardonic]

Joking aside,
[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1311607991' post='2763423']
literally 1000+ words
[/quote]
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.

[Emphix]

"Nuclear rogue", "tech raids", those are terms that are created by the community, the game knows them only as "players" and "wars". There is no CN dictionary that define it, no game rules that enforces it, it is all the community. You may have one perspective, others may differ.

Sigrun, you may believe that being a raid target somehow make a person cannot be a rogue afterwards, or that in order to be a rogue, a person have to decide that he is done with the game. That is your choice. However, please do not expect that everyone must conform to your choice of definition. He may not fall into your definition of rogue, but he definitely fall into ours (and our friends' and allies').

[Grendel]

[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]

Holy Crap, I fully agree with Sardonic on this O_O [except the, "Valhalla, though not my favorite alliance" part]

[TRON IX]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1311607991' post='2763423']

This is the OOC forum, and I think in here we can all agree that the community is the most important part to keeping this game alive Sure, IC, we may want our enemies eliminated, but OOC we have to know that isn't how it works. We need to attract and retain players, not run them out of the game.
[/quote]

Hmm, well the 2nd tiny Valhallan nation that Sin attacked has deleted. unfortunately since this nation deleted he is not showing up in Sins war logs. So are you against actions that cause tiny nations to delete or aren't you? If you read the IRC log from Sin you would see that he vowed to attack and fight Valhalla for "years"

"<Sin> Yea it won't just be you. I intend to pleague your alliance for years"

So if we did this to someone would it NOT be considered PZI? Clearly it would.

So don't sit here and whine about Actions that might cause nations to leave the game when Sin's actions have already caused that and ours here have not.

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1311607991' post='2763423']


Folks, a rogue is someone that is tired of the game and going out with a bang. It's as simple as that
[/quote]

[03:19] <Sin> You know how long I have been sitting around waiting for someone stupid enough to attack me?
[03:19] <Sin> You know the last time I actually bouth something?
[03:19] <Sin> Years ago
[03:20] <Sin> this is going to be a very very long war with a lot of nukes. I can hardly wait!!

Sin - "You obviously do not get it. I DO NOT CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO MY NATION! I have said that from the start."


This does not sound like someone going out with a bang? Are you serious? So even by your definition, Sin is now a rogue. His actions are causing tiny nations to delete and he has sentenced Valhalla to PZI (haha I know, but still).

If Valhalla were to vow the same things against an enemy, droves would be whining about PZI. If ANY alliance attacked someone and did not want peace, did not want reps, all they wanted was to impede on someone's sovereignty by forcing them to change their charter and drag the war on for years until they do.. I'd bet 3 million Dongs you'd be opposed to that. Clearly you have no argument here except for trying to argue against Valhalla, Again. Your arguments contradict the facts.

Sigrun, You are trying to take a moral high-ground here, but unfortunately for you that high-ground is a huge pile of dung..

Edited July 25, 2011 by TRON IX

[kevin32891]

[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]

This is a very wise man.

[2burnt2eat]

[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]

be careful there, starting to sound like vladimir!

[Stonewall Jaxon]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1311609345' post='2763430']
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]

If the individual nation in this game was essentially nothing, then an alliance would not have had to call in the assistance of allies to fight just one nation. Your definition of sovereignty lacks any type of in-depth thought; by your theory sovereignty is gained when two nations make an AA together. Or maybe you think that a wiki determines "sovereignty." I highly doubt you've given even an ounce of thought into what "sovereignty" even means. Every nation has sovereignty because it alone can determine its own actions. A nation decides to join an alliance, and if the alliance goes to war, the individual nation can still turn tail and individually surrender or simply refuse to conduct war. A nation can also declare war and/or peace with as many alliances, nations, or blocs as it damn well chooses; whether it wins is an entirely different matter altogether and does not affect the status of sovereignty. If your definition of "sovereignty" is the ability to defend itself from unwarranted aggressive action from the larger parties because of inferior numbers, then there aren't many alliances besides the ones like yours who flee to the lap of power who are sovereign.

Of course, sovereignty is a two-sided coin, and Valhalla has the sovereign right to call upon its allies and impose sanctions as an act of war. The objectionable part here is that they attacked a target, and then needed help dealing with just one tiny nation. It's dishonorable, cowardly, and sets a horrible precedent for alliance wars as well.

[Hyperbad]

meh, this thread had potential but was lost.

Sin is an idiot for holding a grudge and carrying his cause through in such a manner without having prepared sufficient support for it in the event it would be brought here. The grudge thing I can't say is anything spectacular though as the majority of players and alliances are stupid enough to hold them.

Valhalla are idiots for endorsing/condoning raids which brought them to their present predicament and making a few statements or arguments which could be turned right back around on them.

IRON are idiots for either not being capable of or simply being unwilling to practice independent thought.

We're all idiots for posting IC thoughts of an IG issue in an OOC forum.

Did I miss anyone?


[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1311570589' post='2763221']
Even so, he is no rogue. The sanctions should never have been placed.

Where do people get this idea that the one who starts the war gets to decide when it's over? You attacked him and now you are at war until he is satisfied. Deal with it.
[/quote]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1311571114' post='2763224']
Actually, he is. A tech raid is limited to individual attackers, without support from their alliance most of the time. When you choose to attack an alliance, you have now entered a different realm then if you attack the people attacking you. You have become a rogue. The sanctions are justified if you believe sanctions should be used on a nuclear rogue.

That being said, Valhalla has offered him a way out, and I have offered to help him pursue that way out. I don't see the problem with their actions here.
[/quote]

[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]
He's not a rogue
Yes he is
No he isn't
Yes he is
No he isn't
Is to
Is not
IS TO!
IS NOT!

That's pretty much what your semantics arguments are boiling down to. If you want to end the discussion just skip the use of the overly politicized term 'rogue'. Some call it a rogue, some do not. It doesn't !@#$@#$ matter either way what the label is.


/me slips back into his comatose state

Edited July 25, 2011 by Hyperbad

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1311616319' post='2763496']
The objectionable part here is that they attacked a target, and then needed help dealing with just one tiny nation. It's dishonorable, cowardly, and sets a horrible precedent for alliance wars as well.
[/quote]
Horrible Precedent? Have you been living under a rock for last 5 years? This is pretty much the text book SOP (sanctions) for dealing with nuke rogues or if they're out of range, you get your allies to help. There's nothing new here. He wishes to fight on his terms, It will be stupid for Valhallans not to fight on their own. How is that unfair or dishonorable or cowardly?? Because he's just one nation? That's by his own choice, nobody stopped him from joining an alliance. No, instead, as he said himself, he wanted someone to raid him so he can go on his nuclear frenzy, he couldn't wait for it, now he's gotten what he wanted all along, he doesn't likes it anymore, perhaps its not what he expected and is whining.

He's gotten what he wanted, tho he miscalculated some of the things in his master plan to trap the raiders, thats his fault.

Edited July 25, 2011 by shahenshah

[TRON IX]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1311616319' post='2763496']
Valhalla has the sovereign right to call upon its allies and impose sanctions as an act of war. The objectionable part here is that they attacked a target, and then needed help dealing with just one tiny nation. It's dishonorable, cowardly, and sets a horrible precedent for alliance wars as well.
[/quote]

Thank You.

Jesper and I raided a very large nation(120k range). As a result of Sin choosing war and his retaliation against Valhalla, he became a very tiny nation. One whom we had nobody in range of to mount any defense or attack. IRON did, they agreed to help out. Pretty simple, not cowardly. We would gladly take it all upon us if we were able. Steps to remedy this admitted weakness (no nukes or viable defenses in the 12-17k range) have been addressed and are quickly being remedied.

Valhalla has taken on rogues for its allies many times before. I have personally taken many nukes from rogues of Valhalla's allies. I do not find this even slightly cowardly. We have close bonds with our allies, we consider them brothers and will do anything for them.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1311616319' post='2763496']
Blah blah blah sovereignty
[/quote]
I've given plenty thought to sovereignty, especially how it relates to the moral justifications of tech raiding. One does not gain sovereignty merely by making an AA of two people, but by making a group recognized as an alliance. In our view, such a group is 15+ strong, or one which warrants a treaty or protectorate agreement from somebody who has sovereignty. Beyond that it's a matter of community acceptance. It is accepted by the community that proper alliances, those with sovereignty, are not to be tech raided without provocation. The line is clear.

It is entirely irrelevant what an individual nation can do. It is a rare individual nation who is able to change the course of history while acting alone with no alliance backing. The history of CN is a history of the interactions of Alliances of government members, of the aligned. The unaligned are not party to that.

As to the "precedent" you think this is setting, you need to understand something: sanctions have and will always be used against groups with no sovereignty. Call them rogues, freedom fighters, the unjustly raided, whatever. The fact of the matter is that nobody is going to care, because they are not sovereign. This is no new precedent, it has been going on for years, and it will continue to do so, so long as there is a threat from nuclear rogues or other threats. As to them using their allies? Who cares, it's not shameful or honorable, it's just taking care of business.

[ShouAS]

To all those saying Valhalla should not allow raids in the first place, why don't you get your alliance and allies to go to war with Valhalla about this then? Beat them in a war and make part of the terms that they must change their charter, heck why not even have a member of your own alliance watch over them to make sure they behave themselves.

You could also report them to Admin for breaking the TOS in using sanctions in a war. After all it's an illegal move so either the program making sure that they are only used on people the whole of CN classes as rogues is broke, or Valhalla hacked the game.

There is no program like that? Using sanctions has no guidelines and is entirely up the senators? Oh then Shut Up and stop whining.

If you feel that strongly about it, offer sin military aid. Otherwise go back under your bridge.

[Azaghul]

He went well beyond attacking back against the two tech raiders and started attacking and nuking random Valhalla nations. He chose to put himself into this position and it's fully within Valhalla's right to have him sanctioned.

[Rokula]

Very interesting reading in this thread. It gives a lot of insight into the different views on tech raiding and who/what is a rogue.

IMO King Sin has every right to drop nukes on members of an AA if that AA gave the blessing to the so called tech raiders who attacked him. I am in favor of tech raiding someone ghosting a AA, or a first strike offensive "rogue" but outside of these it is hard to agree with any attacks on a non-aligned. I do not believe that KS is a nuke rogue in any degree but an independent ruler who was without provocation attacked. I wish for a quick and fair solution to all parties involved, but King Sin is not a rogue and I think the sanctions placed on him are sad and pathetic.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='TRON IX' timestamp='1311612059' post='2763457']
Hmm, well the 2nd tiny Valhallan nation that Sin attacked has deleted. unfortunately since this nation deleted he is not showing up in Sins war logs. So are you against actions that cause tiny nations to delete or aren't you? If you read the IRC log from Sin you would see that he vowed to attack and fight Valhalla for "years"[/quote]

And why shouldnt he? You clicked the 'declare war' button not him. If you dont want to deal with this sort of thing in the future then the solution is simple, reign your members in so this doesnt happen again. Don't want to do that? Fine, your choice, but dont go whining to allies and unrelated Senators to bail you out of the fight you started.

[quote]"<Sin> Yea it won't just be you. I intend to pleague your alliance for years"

So if we did this to someone would it NOT be considered PZI? Clearly it would.[/quote]

If they attacked you first? It might or might not qualify as PZI but I wouldnt necessarily have a problem with it anyhow, I have never opposed PZI on principle, only recognised that it was almost always abused.

[quote]So don't sit here and whine about Actions that might cause nations to leave the game when Sin's actions have already caused that and ours here have not.[/quote]

Dont come here and whine about Sin's actions when your people started it. Seriously. No one twisted your arm and forced you to attack him. If you are so bothered by a war with a single nation perhaps you should have thought about that before you attacked? Perhaps you should review and revise the policies that allowed you to get into this mess in the first place?

Nah, that would make too much sense.

[quote]This does not sound like someone going out with a bang? [/quote]

No, it sounds like someone who is having a blast and intends to stick around for a long time doing it. Rogues are people that attack more-or-less random nations on their way out the door. King Sin did not attack, he minded his own business until attacked, and he is only retaliating against the AA that attacked him. There is nothing rogueish about that.

[quote]If Valhalla were to vow the same things against an enemy, droves would be whining about PZI. If ANY alliance attacked someone and did not want peace, did not want reps, all they wanted was to impede on someone's sovereignty by forcing them to change their charter and drag the war on for years until they do.. I'd bet 3 million Dongs you'd be opposed to that. [/quote]

If they were the attacker, sure. But we have already established the attacker in this case is "Valhalla" not King Sin.

If you or anyone else is attacked like that I would not be the person denying your right to continue waging your war until you are satisfied.

[NoFish]

It's been a while since I've had a chance to hate on both sides of a conflict. I kind of missed it. I think the last one was that STA-Valhalla thing that went on in the ratings thread. Anyway...

Valhalla - Big mighty vikings you are, bawwwing about the way he attacked your poor defenseless nations. Do yourselves a favor and shut up about it unless you want people to think that you really can't handle a single nuclear nation. No, posting a bunch about how irrelevant he is doesn't strengthen your position, it makes it look weaker. Also, it's interesting to note that you seem to consider sanctions a legitimate tool of war. Not that I disagree with you, but it's interesting nonetheless.

King of Sin - They sanctioned you. Big deal. Either pull a kingzog and get yourself elected senator via mass-PM campaigns and sanction them right back, or get some secret trades and shut up about it.

[TRON IX]

Well since i'm NOT bawwing by any stretch. Valhalla is not asking for any sympathy from anyone (this is Sins Baww Post) and Sigrun has flip-flopped more than Shamu, I guess this thread is done.

"We" have proven our point and seem to be FAR in the majority here.

Sin, the ball is in your court. You've been offered peace. You have only chosen nations much smaller than you to fight and that's completely well within your right as a coward. Have a good boring war and I'll see you later.

[Sin]

It is true I would not have any problem fighting on with being sanctioned on every team in the game. I believe I am now with the exception of red. But what those that are opposed to what my position seem to still not understand is that it is not about me and my nation. Recognizing that it is acceptable to use sanctions in this flagrant manner will set a precedent. If it is deemed just now it will be deemed just forever.

Valhalla lied to its allies. People talk about facts of our case a lot in this thread and this is one of them. They deceived their allies in a most dishonorable way and they have never denied it, ever.

What Valhalla has done here is decided that I am a nuclear rogue and told several if not all of the senate holding alliances that. Those alliances were never given the opportunity to decide for themselves based on the facts of the situation. There are probably a lot of actual people that deserve sanctions and this kind of interaction between alliances requesting sanctions is most likely common. I do not really follow the sanctions list closely. I think that Valhalla knows this and decided to request the sanctions giving as little information as possible. Perhaps those with team senate seats could be more vigilant in the future.

The biggest reason people join the alliance and the biggest reason alliances say to join them is security. Security from the unlawful barbaric realm of the nonaligned. Valhalla is not providing it for their members. A member of Valhalla has all ready said that these nations of [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=103911&view=findpost&p=2763150"]defenseless[/url] and another has deleted in, what was presumably, an act of frustration. It is getting increasingly hard to recognize a government that is unable to provide the fundamentals for its members. But I still invite them to come forward and address the points I have made here.

I would just like to say this about IRON and the others. IRON had attacked me with a few nations about a month ago and began using Nuclear Weapons almost immediately. I have not retaliated in any way to those attacks. I do not recognize a state of war between myself and IRON. IRON and to a lesser extent the other alliances that have been lied to are the real victims in this case not me. Valhalla has alienated their relationships with all these alliances and their word will never be taken for granted again.

The true impotence and dishonor of this alliance has now been shown for all to see.

[IYIyTh]

this is why we can't have nice things, guys.

[notadolfhitler]

La-de-da

Valhalla did not lie to us, you think they lied to us.

On a side note:

[quote]Session Time: Tue Jun 28 00:00:04 2011
13:58:04 [Sin] Are you around yet?
0114:07:03 (Notadolfhitler[IRON]) NO
0114:07:09 (Notadolfhitler[IRON]) oh hi!
0114:07:13 (Notadolfhitler[IRON]) you are the person we are attacking
0114:07:14 (Notadolfhitler[IRON]) whats up
14:07:16 [Sin] Hey
14:07:17 [Sin] Yea
14:07:30 [Sin] I messaged your president about it and he responded
14:07:42 [Sin] He said when I decided to stop raiding you guys would stop
14:07:54 [Sin] I never raided Valhalla. They raided me...
14:08:11 [Sin] Are you guys seriously assisting them in a tech raid?
0114:08:16 (Notadolfhitler[IRON]) Talk to valhalla
0114:08:19 (Notadolfhitler[IRON]) they asked us to help them out
0114:08:20 (Notadolfhitler[IRON]) therefore
0114:08:28 (Notadolfhitler[IRON]) the conflict can only be resolved with them
14:09:04 [Sin] But you guys were mislead by them it seems
0114:09:27 (Notadolfhitler[IRON]) yaaa
0114:09:32 (Notadolfhitler[IRON]) no
0114:09:34 (Notadolfhitler[IRON]) :V
0114:09:56 (Notadolfhitler[IRON]) resolve your conflict with valhalla
0114:09:58 (Notadolfhitler[IRON]) and then we will stop
14:10:45 [Sin] You're saying I should offer terms for their surrender?
0114:12:38 (Notadolfhitler[IRON]) umm
0114:12:39 (Notadolfhitler[IRON]) im saying
0114:12:42 (Notadolfhitler[IRON]) talk to valhalla
0114:12:48 (Notadolfhitler[IRON]) and maybe they will stop
0114:12:55 (Notadolfhitler[IRON]) #cnvalhalla
14:13:32 [Sin] That's not what I am after
0114:14:54 (Notadolfhitler[IRON]) alright themn
0114:14:57 (Notadolfhitler[IRON]) have fun in war <3
14:18:04 [Sin] Last questions. Does IRON allow tech raiding?
0114:18:34 (Notadolfhitler[IRON]) Nope, but if an ally asks for help we are obligated to help them[/quote]

Edited July 25, 2011 by not adolf hitler