A Message from TLR

[leongsh]

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1319873412' post='2834335']
[quote name='leongsh' timestamp='1319873064' post='2834331']
Mogar, stop trying to call NG on only waiting to hit SOS after the downgrade when your explanation only shows RIA were eager to downgrade before anyone hit SOS and RIA was mandatorily called on to defend. You've just exposed RIA's cowardice and made Wargarden's senatorial post spot on. [u]Thus, our/TLR apology should not have been made. RIA's whining to INT to influence them to call on TLR for the apology shows what a sham RIA has been in this matter.[/u]
[/quote]
got any logs, or is this just more attempts at spin? You can pretend that SOS was hit completely arbitrarily and had nothing to do with the downgrade 2 days previously if you'd like, but I'm sure the rest of the world can figure out that you can't declare on anyone in SF, so you want one of us to make the first move, but hey, at least I find your attempts to hide your own cowardice cute.[/quote]

I do not need to spin anything. My assessment came for your post. And in your response, you've as good as already admitted the part of my post which you did not underline.

As for the part you underlined, I'll leave it to INT members to read and assess on their accord to make their own decisions regarding RIA. While I'm not part of TLR government, it is the general policy that TLR will try to avoid hitting allies of its direct MDoAP allies, what more, that of a CnG alliance. If you wish to test whether TLR are cowards, RIA could drop their treaty with INT enitrely so that there's no hiding behind INT's CnG MADP membership.

Edited October 29, 2011 by leongsh

[Locke]

[quote name='leongsh' timestamp='1319875764' post='2834355']
RIA could drop their treaty with INT enitrely so that there's no hiding behind INT's CnG MADP membership.
[/quote]
"If you [i]really[/i] wanna show us what's what, you'll do something we like! That'll show us!"

Given that RIA's treaty long predates INT's C&G membership, "hiding" is not the word I'd choose there. "Hiding" is what you'd use if RIA were intentionally provoking C&G and then using the INT treaty as protection. Pray tell, what has RIA been doing to you? I don't see RIA trying to bait TLR into any wars.

[GemStone]

Roll TLR!!!! or not, I don't care........

Mods, Please delete my account, as I no longer have a Nation and hopefully never will again, I thank you for the enjoyment I used to get out of Cyber Nations.

[Garion]

[quote name='leongsh' timestamp='1319875764' post='2834355']
If you wish to test whether TLR are cowards, RIA could drop their treaty with INT entirely so that there's no hiding behind INT's CnG MADP membership.
[/quote]



[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1319879713' post='2834367']
"If you [i]really[/i] wanna show us what's what, you'll do something we like! That'll show us!"Given that RIA's treaty long predates INT's C&G membership, "hiding" is not the word I'd choose there. "Hiding" is what you'd use if RIA were intentionally provoking C&G and then using the INT treaty as protection. Pray tell, what has RIA been doing to you? I don't see RIA trying to bait TLR into any wars.
[/quote]

^ This

[Lukapaka]

[quote name='leongsh' timestamp='1319875764' post='2834355']
While I'm not part of TLR government, it is the general policy that TLR will try to avoid hitting allies of its direct MDoAP allies, what more, that of a CnG alliance. If you wish to test whether TLR are cowards, RIA could drop their treaty with INT enitrely so that there's no hiding behind INT's CnG MADP membership.
[/quote]

What is this? I don't even.... [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif[/img]

I'm gonna try and break this down:

[quote]While I'm not part of TLR government, it is the general policy that TLR will try to avoid hitting allies of its direct MDoAP allies[/quote]
'TLR will not attack any ally of International: namely RIA, R&R' ---> [b]A major reason why tLR won't hit RIA is because of International's treaty with them.[/b]

[quote] If you wish to test whether TLR are cowards,[/quote]
RIA's not the one posturing, and strutting around like it's some sort of alpha rooster. While I can't speak for them, I really don't get the impression they're out to prove anything to tLR.

[quote]RIA could drop their treaty with INT enitrely so that there's no hiding behind INT's CnG MADP membership.[/quote]
HUH?!?!? [b][u]So to prove tLR is cowardly, RIA should remove the connection you share through Int., just so tLR can justify an attack [i]against them[/i]?[/u][/b] ...... [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/lol1.gif[/img]
Dude,[b] if tLR wants to attack RIA, they should be able to justify it to their ally International.[/b] If they can, International will be accepting of the attack on not intervene. If their reason is stupid and unjustified... then they're not going to appreciate action taken by tLR.

[leongsh]

[quote name='Lukapaka' timestamp='1319882548' post='2834372']
'TLR will not attack any ally of International: namely RIA, R&R' ---> [b]A major reason why tLR won't hit RIA is because of International's treaty with them.[/b][/quote]
Yes, isn't that what I said, i.e."While I'm not part of TLR government, it is the general policy that TLR will try to avoid hitting allies of its direct MDoAP allies, what more, that of a CnG alliance." You have problems reading and understanding what I'm reiterating?

[quote name='Lukapaka' timestamp='1319882548' post='2834372']
RIA's not the one posturing, and strutting around like it's some sort of alpha rooster. While I can't speak for them, I really don't get the impression they're out to prove anything to tLR.[/quote]
What you are ignoring is that my challenge is my response to this:

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1319873412' post='2834335']..., but I'm sure the rest of the world can figure out that you can't declare on anyone in SF, so you want one of us to make the first move, but hey, at least I find your attempts to hide your own cowardice cute.[/quote]
Which is calling TLR out as hiding in cowardice. So, unless you are following the stream of conversation, you should be able to understand who and what I'm responding to when I have even quoted that post in my original post. There is a need to read the post in context but if you're only interested in scoring brownie points by ignoring context and flow of conversation, I can't stop you from getting your jollies from it.

[quote name='Lukapaka' timestamp='1319882548' post='2834372']
HUH?!?!? [b][u]So to prove tLR is cowardly, RIA should remove the connection you share through Int., just so tLR can justify an attack [i]against them[/i]?[/u][/b] ...... [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/lol1.gif[/img]
Dude,[b] if tLR wants to attack RIA, they should be able to justify it to their ally International.[/b] If they can, International will be accepting of the attack on not intervene. If their reason is stupid and unjustified... then they're not going to appreciate action taken by tLR.[/quote]
The person that is acting dumb and ignorant is you. Our general policy is that TLR won't attack an ally of an MDoAP/MADP ally. Hence, as there is still a treaty between RIA and INT while INT still has an MDAP bloc treaty with us, we won't be targeting RIA. INT knows that. We're not going to throw away our MDAP relationship with INT within CnG for the sake of wanting to roll RIA. RIA is not worth it.

[potato]

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1319843117' post='2834071']
Arrnea has basically been asking for this for quite some time, I'm pretty sure MK wouldn't throw themselves under the bus if an optional treaty partner was acting anywhere near Arrnea's level of stupidity.
[/quote]

Optional treaty aside, history is not on your side on this one.
Optional treaty included, it just looks like we're better at picking allies.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1319825229' post='2833748']
Completely different negotiations. Legion insists on surrender for NSO despite them entering the war on the same terms as NsO, IAA and BRA, and yet they refuse to offer the same peace terms. Hypocrisy at its finest.
[/quote]

Do you even know what hypocrisy means?

[Brehon]

People acting right, owning up and being accountable. I love it o/

May this be a long standing trend in CN.

[Lukapaka]

[quote name='leongsh' timestamp='1319889334' post='2834380']
Yes, isn't that what I said, i.e."While I'm not part of TLR government, it is the general policy that TLR will try to avoid hitting allies of its direct MDoAP allies, what more, that of a CnG alliance." You have problems reading and understanding what I'm reiterating?[/quote]

It's exactly what you said. I was rewriting it for emphasis.

[quote name='leongsh' timestamp='1319889334' post='2834380']
The person that is acting dumb and ignorant is you. Our general policy is that TLR won't attack an ally of an MDoAP/MADP ally. Hence, as there is still a treaty between RIA and INT while INT still has an MDAP bloc treaty with us, we won't be targeting RIA. INT knows that. We're not going to throw away our MDAP relationship with INT within CnG for the sake of wanting to roll RIA. RIA is not worth it.
[/quote]
(LOL, ignorant and dumb... right.)
So then you're really not upset that RIA didn't defend SOS, because tLR wouldn't have been able to attack RIA anyway?
Your retort doesn't make your earlier statement make ANY more sense to me though:
[color=#1C2837][/color][quote][color=#1C2837]If you wish to test whether TLR are cowards, [/color][color=#1C2837]RIA could drop their treaty with INT enitrely so that there's no hiding behind INT's CnG MADP membership.[/color][/quote][color=#1C2837][/color]
You've still yet to make any sense of this 'come-at-me-bro' statement.
I don't get you, and I'm done caring about your logic, since you're really just some dude spouting off. Good luck and stuff. [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/lol1.gif[/img]

Edited October 29, 2011 by Lukapaka

[Pearl]

[quote name='Lukapaka' timestamp='1319927950' post='2834726']
It's exactly what you said. I was rewriting it for emphasis.


(LOL, ignorant and dumb... right.)
So then you're really not upset that RIA didn't defend SOS, because tLR wouldn't have been able to attack RIA anyway?
Your retort doesn't make your earlier statement make ANY more sense to me though:

You've still yet to make any sense of this 'come-at-me-bro' statement.
I don't get you, and I'm done caring about your logic, since you're really just some dude spouting off. Good luck and stuff. [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/lol1.gif[/img]
[/quote]
Alright relax. Let's not say things we can't take back, Luka. I know, RIA is our beloved brethren, but relax. Deep breaths son.

That said, luka and others do bring up good points. Where is this down-with-RIA sentiment spawning from, Leongsh? and is it rampant within TLR? Maybe I am missing a big piece of this puzzle, but RIA seems to be minding their own business politically. Maybe I am missing the whole purpose of this discussion, it's not a particularly coherent discussion.

[wickedj]

Mogar. shut the $%&@ up.

In one post you ask why they waited till you downgraded(What does the level of treaty matter? if you're that butthurt go help) and then you turn around and say they deserved it

[leongsh]

[quote name='Pearl' timestamp='1319933871' post='2834763']
Where is this down-with-RIA sentiment spawning from, Leongsh? and is it rampant within TLR? Maybe I am missing a big piece of this puzzle, but RIA seems to be minding their own business politically. Maybe I am missing the whole purpose of this discussion, it's not a particularly coherent discussion.[/quote]

There's no real down-with-RIA sentiment. Just calling out RIA.

RIA talked down NG as cowards for only declaring on SOS after RIA downgraded their MDoAP treaty with SOS to oDoAP. If RIA is concerned about SOS, they could have used their oDoAP treaty with SOS to back up their talk. MEAT (of which TLR is a part of) generally just got tired of this no-action-all-whining by RIA. Someone within TLR took the opportunity to get our Maroon senator to post the message. Cue some back room developments. Result: This apology thread.

A few posts back, Mogar blurted out that RIA were themselves keen to downgrade the MDoAP to oDoAP so that they would not get called to defend SOS via MD. This just plainly showed that RIA were dishonest in calling out NG for attacking after the downgrade. RIA were never keen on defending SOS. Thus, the message by our Maroon senator on calling out RIA for not coming to defend SOS was actually true. Hence, my conclusion of RIA being a sham and the apology was not necessary.

In addition, Mogar called TLR out as cowards. I just responded accordingly. We are not going to disrupt our MADP tie with INT to attack RIA because it is our general policy not to attack allies of our MADP/MDoAP allies. RIA is not worth it. If they do want to test whether TLR are cowards, they could cut off their MDoAP tie with INT. Notwithstanding that RIA's MDoAP with INT predates INT's MADP-bloc treaty with CnG (as brought up by a couple of posters after my post), but when push comes to shove, the CnG MADP would come first and ahead of that MDoAP with RIA.

[magicninja]

I don't see how the downgrade plays into it at all tbh. RIA could have still went in.....so what difference does it make? Just because NG figured you for wussies with a p and got it right doesn't mean much imo. They took a calculated risk and won. Too bad so sad...next time do something other than cry about it I guess.

[Ayatollah Bromeini]

[quote name='VladimirLenin' timestamp='1319834109' post='2833919']
Never change, peanut gallery.
[/quote]

Quoted for truth.


[quote]The person that is acting dumb and ignorant is you. Our general policy is that TLR won't attack an ally of an MDoAP/MADP ally. Hence, as there is still a treaty between RIA and INT while INT still has an MDAP bloc treaty with us, we won't be targeting RIA. INT knows that. We're not going to throw away our MDAP relationship with INT within CnG for the sake of wanting to roll RIA. RIA is not worth it[/quote]


This. I honestly have no idea where this "TLR wants to roll RIA!" stuff is coming from...

[mrwuss]

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1319825229' post='2833748']
Completely different negotiations. Legion insists on surrender for NSO despite them entering the war on the same terms as NsO, IAA and BRA, and yet they refuse to offer the same peace terms. Hypocrisy at its finest.
[/quote]

Well NSO ran at the mouth constantly. Writing a check it had no ability to cash.

It's time for NSO to be the humble party.

Roll Polar.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1319843117' post='2834071']
Arrnea has basically been asking for this for quite some time, I'm pretty sure MK wouldn't throw themselves under the bus if an optional treaty partner was acting anywhere near Arrnea's level of stupidity.
[/quote]

We've got two ODP partners, why don't you ring up your friends and try us?

[flak attack]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1320071883' post='2835667']
We've got two ODP partners, why don't you ring up your friends and try us?
[/quote]
Three: NPO (unless that one expired earlier than I thought), NG and NSO.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1320074098' post='2835676']
Three: NPO (unless that one expired earlier than I thought), NG and NSO.
[/quote]

NPO still exists for another month as of press time, and we have no paper with NSO.

[Mogar]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1320071883' post='2835667']
We've got two ODP partners, why don't you ring up your friends and try us?
[/quote]
because you guys are the ones who want to roll us, we don't really care about you.

[Laslo Kenez]

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1320253546' post='2837078']
because you guys are the ones who want to roll us, we don't really care about you.
[/quote]

In all honesty, you're a terrible representative for an alliance that's clearly in a difficult position currently, and you're doing nobody any good with this.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Laslo Kenez' timestamp='1320254457' post='2837088']
In all honesty, you're a terrible representative for an alliance that's clearly in a difficult position currently, and you're doing nobody any good with this.
[/quote]

Whatever you think of Mogar, he actually provided an accurate statement the sentiment of which is shared by many alliances.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1320253546' post='2837078']
because you guys are the ones who want to roll us, we don't really care about you.
[/quote]

Actually, you're the one who just called out me and my alliance, claiming we wouldn't throw ourselves under a bus for an optional treaty partner. I can only ask that you test that theory.

[Laslo Kenez]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1320255235' post='2837093']
Whatever you think of Mogar, he actually provided an accurate statement the sentiment of which is shared by many alliances.
[/quote]

I don't think anything about him, what he's doing is radicalising people further. Far be it for me to question the logic of knowingly agitating people against you without it being necessary, though!

Edited November 2, 2011 by Laslo Kenez

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Laslo Kenez' timestamp='1320255350' post='2837095']
I don't think anything about him, what he's doing is radicalising people further. Far be it for me to question the logic of knowingly agitating people against you without it being necessary, though!
[/quote]

That implies those he "agitates," aren't already hostile towards him or his alliance. Certainly if it weren't the case I could agree, but I digress.