paul711 Posted December 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 The guy that hit me according to stats was a member of SUN as of yesturday. I will not ask others to join in at this juncture because wevwill deal with him. This does however tend to put suspicous eyes SUNs way. Watch your members please killercruiser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul711 Posted December 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 [quote name='ADude' timestamp='1324942088' post='2886822'] You sure? Seems as though some of the signatories didn't even know that you couldn't raid if you signed up, glad I brought it to their attentions though. I don't feel its a waste of my time. [/quote] It is not your problem as laz and I spoke. Thank you for your concern once again in others problems however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADude Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 [quote name='paul711' timestamp='1324944769' post='2886846'] The guy that hit me according to stats was a member of SUN as of yesturday. I will not ask others to join in at this juncture because wevwill deal with him. This does however tend to put suspicous eyes SUNs way. Watch your members please killercruiser. [/quote] Yes Paul, it is all a plot. The non-nuclear rogue was sent by SUN gov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clash Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 [quote name='lazaraus45' timestamp='1324930258' post='2886709'] can't we just have it so that signatories can raid tech raiders? otherwise this truce has been somewhat useless :/ EDIT: Are raids allowed or not? O.o[/quote] Many of our nations needed to do troop dumps after our war, and I would not at all be surprised in many DR nations did too. After all, even though we were at war with each other, we are still able to join this and can still benefit from it. Heck, I'd let SUN and RE join if they changed their minds and wanted to. Or, if they are so against the ceasefire, maybe SUN and RE should fight each other. That would show us, darn it! Anyways, I messaged our nations and told them no more wars after update. I'm sure there will still be someone or a n00b or whatever who still raids. Meh, whatever. As it comes up. Yeah, I also noticed that people who did not sign it are the ones complaining, and the ones that who did seem to be happy with it. Wow, sounds like it's working perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owney OSullivan Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 If you're not participating in the truce, maybe you should just mind your own business and tend to you own affairs. I know some of you seem to be infatuated with us and what we're doing, but don't worry, we have it under control. I know we're very handsome and and interesting and you us, but we're just not interested in your advances at this time. Hit us up after the truce if you wanna go out on a date. Don't make us call the police for stalking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therm Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 [quote name='Clash' timestamp='1324948799' post='2886876'] Many of our nations needed to do troop dumps after our war, and I would not at all be surprised in many DR nations did too [/quote] theres also this thing called waiting another day and just decoming your soldiers. in other news, i call organizing the holiday ceasefire next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clash Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 [quote name='Therm' timestamp='1324950155' post='2886898'] theres also this thing called waiting another day and just decoming your soldiers. in other news, i call organizing the holiday ceasefire next year. [/quote] Apparently some guys really needed to collect, one of your guys raided too lol Sureeee tho, as long as someone does it. It really is a worthy thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomasj_tx Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 Just so everyone that is "concerned" knows, I have been sending out PM's to the leaders of any Signatory allaince who has a nation in violation and have been doing so from the very start of the Truce. So Adude, take a break and find something else to focus your ample available time on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therm Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 yes. terms for nextyear will be as follows: rule 1: absolutely no military action at all. three exceptions. 2: aa leaders must agree to expel any nation that conducts military action. 3: any nation that is participating in the ceasefire who engage in military action is free to be hit by anyone participating in the ceasefire (first exception to rule 1) 4: exception 2 - if participating AAs are hit by non-participants, participants are free to roll them (exception 2) 5: space reserved for exception 3 6: no !@#$%*ing about ceasefire in ceasefire thread SOUND GOOD? ANY LOOPHOLES? LIST THEM NOW SO THEY CAN BE FIXED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomasj_tx Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 [quote name='Therm' timestamp='1324951008' post='2886908'] yes. terms for nextyear will be as follows: rule 1: absolutely no military action at all. three exceptions. 2: aa leaders must agree to expel any nation that conducts military action. 3: any nation that is participating in the ceasefire who engage in military action is free to be hit by anyone participating in the ceasefire (first exception to rule 1) 4: exception 2 - if participating AAs are hit by non-participants, participants are free to roll them (exception 2) 5: space reserved for exception 3 6: no !@#$%*ing about ceasefire in ceasefire thread SOUND GOOD? ANY LOOPHOLES? LIST THEM NOW SO THEY CAN BE FIXED [/quote] Could we hold this for about 350 days? I don't want to clog up this thread with something that might cause [i]confusion[/i]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jraenar Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 There is a reason for non-signatories to be concerned with all this. There is a huge potential for RE, SUN, or any other non-signatory to get screwed over by the holes we are pointing out here. Every war that occurs turns this little agreement into more of a giant MDP bloc, and less of the NAP bloc it pretends to be. So far I see nothing preventing "isolated" cases of a few members from every signatory declaring war on RE members as a "troop dump," or "tech raid." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusion Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 Requesting permission to attack 'The Landlord' on behalf of Seraph, since they don't have the numbers to deal with it. Would this be acceptable, paul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomasj_tx Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 [quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1324951348' post='2886914'] There is a reason for non-signatories to be concerned with all this. There is a huge potential for RE, SUN, or any other non-signatory to get screwed over by the holes we are pointing out here. Every war that occurs turns this little agreement into more of a giant MDP bloc, and less of the NAP bloc it pretends to be. So far I see nothing preventing "isolated" cases of a few members from every signatory declaring war on RE members as a "troop dump," or "tech raid." [/quote] What holes, specifically? And if you were "concerned", why did you refuse to sign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul711 Posted December 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 [quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1324951654' post='2886916'] Requesting permission to attack 'The Landlord' on behalf of Seraph, since they don't have the numbers to deal with it. Would this be acceptable, paul? [/quote] Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomasj_tx Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1324951654' post='2886916'] Requesting permission to attack 'The Landlord' on behalf of Seraph, since they don't have the numbers to deal with it. Would this be acceptable, paul? [/quote] Never mind. Edited December 27, 2011 by Thomasj_tx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusion Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 [quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1324952005' post='2886919'] Never mind. [/quote] yes, sweety? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomasj_tx Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 [quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1324952114' post='2886920'] yes, sweety? [/quote] How are you going to be able to attack him, given you are in Anarchy and he is about 10 times your NS, honey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusion Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 [quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1324952506' post='2886922'] How are you going to be able to attack him, given you are in Anarchy and he is about 10 times your NS, honey? [/quote] Who says [b][i]I[/i][/b] will be the one to attack him, pumpkin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomasj_tx Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 [quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1324952761' post='2886925'] Who says [b][i]I[/i][/b] will be the one to attack him, pumpkin? [/quote] That was your question that Paul responded to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusion Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 [quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1324953126' post='2886927'] That was your question that Paul responded to. [/quote] 'Requesting permission to attack 'The Landlord' on behalf of Seraph, since they don't have the numbers to deal with it. Would this be acceptable, paul?' Yes, I'm totally not speaking for Duckroll here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swatch0 Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 [quote name='paul711' timestamp='1324942043' post='2886820'] I was hit by a lone nation and will deal with it OP style, also whatever AA he was in should be concerned. [/quote] Come at me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul711 Posted December 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 Given SUN's objections to this truce and the fact that a member of their AA for the whole round, at least the 3 downloads we have on file (12/9, 12/14 and 12/26), I would like to know what SUN's official stance on this is? You have just conducted a spy operation against the nation of Imperial City. In the attack your spy efforts were successful as your spies were able to gather the following information about the nation: Desired Religion: Jainism Desired Government: Monarchy Threat Level: Severe Tax Rate: 28% Number of Spies: 110 Last Nuke Purchase: None Last Wonder Purchase: 12/19/2011 Total Money: $2,865,861 Technology: 109.60 Levels Last Bill Payment: 12/26/2011 11:38:26 AM Trade Partners: North Empire, Mardakonia, Feldora, DL52M, Aurora Borealis Total Aircraft: 50 Aircraft Fighter Strength: 114 Aircraft Bomber Strength: 36 Navy Purchases Today: 0 Navy Vessels: Corvettes: 0 Landing Ships: 0 Battleships: 0 Cruisers: 0 Frigates: 0 Destroyers: 0 Submarines: 0 Aircraft Carriers: 0 Your spies returned home unharmed and unidentified. Notice also that all of his trade partners are SUN as well, one of which is KillerCruiser who is in SUN gov. I am not saying it is a conspiracy but some sort of SUN explanation is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jraenar Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 [quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1324951701' post='2886917'] What holes, specifically?And if you were "concerned", why did you refuse to sign? [/quote] The holes where several nations belonging to AAs that signed the agreement are clearly violating the first rule, no attacks on any nation of Planet Steve between Midnight Server Time December 22/23 and Midnight Server Time January 2/3. Yourself and Paul are claiming the "common sense" clause takes precedence, but then "common sense" could allow all sorts of things that violate the spirit of the agreement. Say three nations from an AA signed to the cease fire "raid" RE tomorrow. RE has used multiple raids like that as justification for rolling an entire AA before, as we see it as an act of war. Now we would have to tip-toe around the issue, or else have half of TE declare war on us for declaring war on the raiding AA. That's the holes I'm speaking of. Either signatory AAs expel violating nations immediately upon notice, or signatory nations are expelled from protection of the agreement. Without that, "common sense" will allow anyone to use the signatory alliances in a way they did not sign up for. As for the second part, I have absolutely zero say in official RE policy. That comes down to Stelios, who sometimes delegates to ADude and mikeyrox. So: [quote name='ADude' timestamp='1323136202' post='2864725'] No just no, this is against EVERYTHING that TE is, I understand that some people can't be here for it but thats life, we shouldn't sign !@#$@#$ ceasefires in [u]TE[/u] because of it. [/quote] [quote name='Stelios' timestamp='1323147343' post='2865130'] Get out of here with your peace loving ways! Holidays fights are the best [/quote] That's why RE refused to sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clash Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 (edited) There's always going to be something nobody thought of before, this is weird and unique thing attempted here. It can always be improved and adjusted during the learning period and will probably have to be. There are going to be kinks in the planning to be worked out. Thus! Question posed: Ghostbusting. Surely intra-alliance wars are exempt from being sniveled about? Such wars do not violate the spirit of the agreement. Mainly: I'll be damned if any random buttscratcher will be telling us what to do on our own internal alliance matters. I'm not saying we have some people who might need some killin', we may or may not. That will be up to us to decide and execute if we do. I'm just sayin' that the answer to any objections on the matter, by any outside parties whomever they may be, will earn them a hearty and well-deserved "screw you" for an answer. That is honestly the exact right answer to such questioning. We give any other alliance the right to do wtf they want in internal matters. We will definitely take the same for ourselves. Edited December 27, 2011 by Clash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcticllama Posted December 27, 2011 Report Share Posted December 27, 2011 [quote name='KillerCruiser' timestamp='1324620503' post='2884647'] So there are only two alliance in the top 12 who are not apart of the ceasefire... RE and SUN and out of the top 20 there is, Roman Empire State of Unified Nations Destructor Fleets Rodentia Dominatus Fark New League of Nations [/quote] just reading through and saw this.. but RD isn't starting any alliance wars during the ceasefire session.. we are keeping to raids to recover and grow.. heck, I got nuked three times by week 2:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts