magicninja Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 [quote name='Greg23' timestamp='1317930456' post='2818796'] Alright big guy. You wanna war so badly declare the war. Hell you guys got that fancy MDAP, may as well use it. oA with IAA on legion and pre-empt polar's entry then bring in CnG. Stop trying to bait em in, you honestly think anyone in NpO cares that it'd make your day if they declared war? It'd make my day to see someone actually do something instead of just baiting people. Declare the war and do it. [/quote] Despite Cyfes eagerness we aren't trying to bait anyone. The circumstances certainly fit to allow us to. I'm sure when Legion looked at Tetris' connections they saw the NsO-IAA-GATO/TLR line. I'm sure their allies saw it as well. If we really wanted to bait someone we would have oA'd on to Legion and laughed. Quite simply that is not what we are here for. We'll help out IAA financially and if Legion takes exception or their allies do that is their right. We aren't doing it expecting a response. We're doing it because we have a treaty that we feel it is important to honor. It wouldn't matter who IAA was up against or what alliances might retaliate. The CB or other reasons really don't play into our choice. IAA is our pal. For better or worse. It seems at this time in their history it is a rough patch but we don't abandon our friends because they are having issues. If anything it makes our aid all the more important. If they feel they need to go to war despite it being a tough time for them then we will help them out as best as we can. If anyone has a problem with that well...too bad I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 It's not like IAA is any better than Legion anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheListener Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 [quote name='James Wilson' timestamp='1317934352' post='2818849'] You left her for dead. Anything you say is tarnished by your cowardly departure and your pathetic attempts to bad mouth her every chance you get. Cry harder about your failed attempt to disband her Greg, your tears are delicious. [/quote] We did indeed leave her for dead, because in our eyes she already was. We knew that IAA's reputation would be tarnished even more than it already was if we were to continue pushing that shell along. We believed it in the best of the community and the Alliance itself to disband, however the community did not. We did not have the effort to continue to push that shell around for the inactive members that continue to use her. To state that what we did was not in the best interests of the IAA is incorrect, the only thought we had in mind was the IAA. What few active members remain are being pulled down by every single inactive. IAA used to be a somewhat respected military alliance, she had a reputation for knowing how to send more than 10 wars in an update blitz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg23 Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) [quote name='James Wilson' timestamp='1317934352' post='2818849'] You left her for dead. Anything you say is tarnished by your cowardly departure and your pathetic attempts to bad mouth her every chance you get. Cry harder about your failed attempt to disband her Greg, your tears are delicious. [/quote] You know I had a very nice long paragraph actually describing what happened. Which you actually have no idea cause you came on IRC awhile after it happened and did the typical JW rage. I wont post it just because theres no need to get into it, especially when you cant refute any of it. However cowardly departure? Do you even know why I left? You werent even there when I left. I had already left (the three of us did, basically kicked out for helping IAA) when you found out about it. Keep up the lies to try to make me look bad, just like with Zeke. Edited October 6, 2011 by Greg23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg23 Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 [quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1317934519' post='2818855'] Despite Cyfes eagerness we aren't trying to bait anyone. The circumstances certainly fit to allow us to. I'm sure when Legion looked at Tetris' connections they saw the NsO-IAA-GATO/TLR line. I'm sure their allies saw it as well. If we really wanted to bait someone we would have oA'd on to Legion and laughed. Quite simply that is not what we are here for. We'll help out IAA financially and if Legion takes exception or their allies do that is their right. We aren't doing it expecting a response. We're doing it because we have a treaty that we feel it is important to honor. It wouldn't matter who IAA was up against or what alliances might retaliate. The CB or other reasons really don't play into our choice. IAA is our pal. For better or worse. It seems at this time in their history it is a rough patch but we don't abandon our friends because they are having issues. If anything it makes our aid all the more important. If they feel they need to go to war despite it being a tough time for them then we will help them out as best as we can. If anyone has a problem with that well...too bad I guess. [/quote] I never said GATO should support or back up IAA. Or come to IAA's side in terms of war. I want you guys to do that. Also never said that GATO as a whole was baiting Legion/allies. I was clearly talking to just cyfe seeing how in 2 or 3 threads he has made a couple posts saying something a long the lines of "your move NpO" or "I wonder what NpO will do now." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jtkode Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) [quote]then you will be happy to know that is was an oA part of a pact that was activated. Either way your argument is not very persuasive.[/quote] Ok, I know it was oA, lol, calm down people I made an error ... again But my stance doesn't change dude, if you guys say you have fought two of your wars offensively with an oA, no matter the circumstances, you are worthless. I would say more but I think I'd get another warn. Ur idiots. Nuff said. (edit) P.S. Next time try honoring real treaties instead of bandwagoning Edited October 6, 2011 by Jtkode Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 [quote name='Greg23' timestamp='1317936275' post='2818895'] I never said GATO should support or back up IAA. Or come to IAA's side in terms of war. I want you guys to do that. Also never said that GATO as a whole was baiting Legion/allies. I was clearly talking to just cyfe seeing how in 2 or 3 threads he has made a couple posts saying something a long the lines of "your move NpO" or "I wonder what NpO will do now." [/quote] Cyfe is entitled to post whatever he likes. apparently he himself wants to beat up on NpO for whatever reason. The post I quoted was you imploring GATO as a whole to do something. If you want to address Cyfe's comments, fine. Don't attribute them to the whole of GATO. You know better than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheListener Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 [quote name='Jtkode' timestamp='1317936559' post='2818902'] Ok, I know it was oA, lol, calm down people I made an error ... again But my stance doesn't change dude, if you guys say you have fought two of your wars offensively with an oA, no matter the circumstances, you are worthless. I would say more but I think I'd get another warn. Ur idiots. Nuff said. (edit) P.S. Next time try honoring real treaties instead of bandwagoning [/quote] Because evening the odds is bandwagoning? I understand calling it bandwagoning when there is absolutely 100% no chance that the side you're hitting will win, but when IAA entered this war their side was at least 2 million NS smaller than Legion, and likely a pretty good amount of nations smaller as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg23 Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 [quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1317936663' post='2818904'] Cyfe is entitled to post whatever he likes. apparently he himself wants to beat up on NpO for whatever reason. The post I quoted was you imploring GATO as a whole to do something. If you want to address Cyfe's comments, fine. Don't attribute them to the whole of GATO. You know better than that. [/quote] I meant that to mean for Cyfe to convince congress to declare war or for he himself to leave GATO and go to war. Apologies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jtkode Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 [quote]Because evening the odds is bandwagoning? I understand calling it bandwagoning when there is absolutely 100% no chance that the side you're hitting will win, but when IAA entered this war their side was at least 2 million NS smaller than Legion, and likely a pretty good amount of nations smaller as well. [/quote] oA's have always in my eyes been purely for bandwagoning, nothing else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironchef Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 Welcome to the fight boys Love you long time IAA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 [quote name='Jtkode' timestamp='1317938107' post='2818930'] oA's have always in my eyes been purely for bandwagoning, nothing else. [/quote] They were actually made basically to get rid of bandwagoning, given originally that term was used for people who jumped in on the winning side with no treaty at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Jaym Il Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 This is a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 [quote name='Kim Jaym Il' timestamp='1317939657' post='2818948'] This is a joke. [/quote] I couldn't agree more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 [i]Never [/i]thought I'd actually believe Legion were right about something. Holy hell, this is just sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Zeke+ Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 [quote name='Rebirth of Gorniar' timestamp='1317913382' post='2818506']Zeke (through posting of screen shots and other business)[/quote] Where? Show me where I posted screen shots even once, or even show a post where it has the edit tag on it. Though I can post one screenshot now if you like. The one of JW admitting he has them of my old forum. At what point do you recognize that JW is simply throwing out at me what he's doing himself as a smokescreen to cover his bad behavior and to illegally blocking my Senate access that all members are due? He spied on my forums and now tried to say I'm posting screenshots of IAA? And yet other than him saying I did there's no proof that it happened. You are falling for his hysterical accusations without actually asking for proof. Of course, I could address these accusations as per my rights in the Senate has JW not locked me out of the forums without proper due process. Reread the Senate members rights that are available for public view to anyone: http://forums.theimperialassault.com/index.php?showtopic=5745 While it may be said I've now begun to violate a bit on point one, it is only after JW most assuredly stomped on my other 4 rights first. JW has simply thrown the charter out of the window to hold onto petty power in a mostly defunct alliance. That you continue to support his recent actions amazes me. You say that you will burn for IAA treaties, regardless of their validity, yet you ignore the alliance's very foundation of rights and charter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzz Lightyear Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 Heres a summary since none of you are getting it: Yes, Legion still sucks and is still WAE. Yes, Tetris sucks too. No, NSO and Tetris dont need help Yes, NSO/Tetris allies just want to get a piece of Legion and thats why they are jumping through hoops to join this war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jtkode Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 [quote]They were actually made basically to get rid of bandwagoning, given originally that term was used for people who jumped in on the winning side with no treaty at all. [/quote] So you have a ODAP with the winning side and an ODAP with the losing side, you say ok we will aggressively attack with the winning side and say the losing side was optional... still looks like bandwagoning to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 [quote name='Jtkode' timestamp='1317946097' post='2819040'] So you have a ODAP with the winning side and an ODAP with the losing side, you say ok we will aggressively attack with the winning side and say the losing side was optional... still looks like bandwagoning to me. [/quote] I think NSO is the only alliance in the game with an ODoAP with every other alliance in the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 [quote name='Buzz Lightyear' timestamp='1317942849' post='2818984'] Heres a summary since none of you are getting it: Yes, Legion still sucks and is still WAE. Yes, Tetris sucks too. No, NSO and Tetris dont need help Yes, NSO/Tetris allies just want to get a piece of Legion and thats why they are jumping through hoops to join this war. [/quote] IAA decided to bandwagon in on an oA clause to attack an alliance when their assistance was not needed and the whole part about their assistance being asked for was just an excuse used to get at Legion, who is already losing but IAA still wants to attack purely for their own amusement. You really expect anyone to believe that? Alliances are treaty chaining in because Tetris and their allies were having a hard time and needed the help, saying otherwise isn't believable at all. If their help wasn't needed, I don't think IAA would bandwagon into a war like this just so they can have fun beating on an alliance who is already losing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1317946294' post='2819045'] IAA decided to bandwagon in on an oA clause to attack an alliance when their assistance was not needed and the whole part about their assistance being asked for was just an excuse used to get at Legion, who is already losing but IAA still wants to attack purely for their own amusement. You really expect anyone to believe that? Alliances are treaty chaining in because Tetris and their allies were having a hard time and needed the help, saying otherwise isn't believable at all. If their help wasn't needed, I don't think IAA would bandwagon into a war like this just so they can have fun beating on an alliance who is already losing. [/quote] Methrage, you have no idea what the stats of this fight are. Legion's already lost the mid-range war, which is the only relevant range thats being fought here. Remember IRON-Gramlins? Yeah, its gonna wind up being like that, only at a far more accelerated pace due to Legions institutionalized lack of warchests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
letub Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 Good luck out there IAA. We're here for you when needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeonidasRexII Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 [quote name='TehChron' timestamp='1317947035' post='2819060'] Methrage, you have no idea what the stats of this fight are. Legion's already lost the mid-range war, which is the only relevant range thats being fought here. Remember IRON-Gramlins? Yeah, its gonna wind up being like that, only at a far more accelerated pace due to Legions institutionalized lack of warchests. [/quote] I resemble that remark! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzz Lightyear Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1317946294' post='2819045'] IAA decided to bandwagon in on an oA clause to attack an alliance when their assistance was not needed and the whole part about their assistance being asked for was just an excuse used to get at Legion, who is already losing but IAA still wants to attack purely for their own amusement. You really expect anyone to believe that? Alliances are treaty chaining in because Tetris and their allies were having a hard time and needed the help, saying otherwise isn't believable at all. If their help wasn't needed, I don't think IAA would bandwagon into a war like this just so they can have fun beating on an alliance who is already losing. [/quote] do you think alliances need to bring in as many allies as they do in curbstomps? no, they dont, but their allies want a shot at who they are fighting, so they hop in. its simple. dont play dumb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 [quote name='Buzz Lightyear' timestamp='1317942849' post='2818984'] Yes, NSO/Tetris allies just want to get a piece of Legion and thats why they are jumping through hoops to join this war. [/quote] Because Tetris didn't request help from them, right? 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.