Joe Stupid Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1327974767' post='2911124'] Actualy I stayed through the entire thing, so mabye edit that out. Now you are just trying to distract from your own mistakes. You knew that RoK would not support your actions and those that stayed didnt even support you. I tried to have faith in you and bob until you spoke of things that no RoKer would ever think of, you know what I am speaking of. Just give it up, you may think your the boss, but not one RoKer wants you to be so you arent. Just move on, every alliance with this recent drama would continue to lose NS for a little while. [/quote] How could I forget the all important Isaac. What is it you do again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Joe Stupid' timestamp='1327974921' post='2911127'] How could I forget the all important Isaac. What is it you do again? [/quote] Well I made PM lists stats before and after PMed the alliance and got a lot of things in motion. When did you log on 15 hours after? and did nothing when you did? Edited January 31, 2012 by Isaac MatthewII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Joe Stupid' timestamp='1327974921' post='2911127'] How could I forget the all important Isaac. What is it you do again? [/quote] He's not a slurper at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1327975075' post='2911130'] He's not a slurper at least. [/quote] I would have been disappointed if you had said anything else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Stuart Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 If the biodad kingdom is an affilIate then would it be fair to say that MK attacked first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChesterStevensDevonn Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 vault is best roker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='green muffins' timestamp='1327976372' post='2911154'] vault is best roker [/quote] Oh I see how it is GM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChesterStevensDevonn Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 hes over 18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemfailure Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1327976291' post='2911153'] If the biodad kingdom is an affilIate then would it be fair to say that MK attacked first? [/quote] i think this entire topic is moot atm, whether Biodad was Mk or not dosent really matter that attacks on a nation whos ruler had just recovered from a bad experience is nothing short then opportunistic and frankly quite shameful, one would think MK would raid someone whos a bit more deserving...like GPA or the Grey Council, either way in the end Bob gave them permission to go forward the blame lies with him and i hope TOP rejects his application and collectively we all grind him into dust, players like him shouldn't be tolerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='green muffins' timestamp='1327976479' post='2911156'] hes over 18 [/quote] Im almost 18 Back on topic, basically all of this was an alliance with no business in the internal situations of another alliance poking its nose in and getting mad when there is a reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1327976622' post='2911159'] Im almost 18 Back on topic, basically all of this was an alliance with no business in the internal situations of another alliance poking its nose in and getting mad when there is a reaction. [/quote] Indeed - RoK shouldn't be telling MK what AA's they can associate and condone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1327971751' post='2911073'] It's obvious that Ragnarok is in a supine position and that MK's members are at war with one of RoK's members. Ghost or not, what is RoK going to be able to do about it? Yes, it can support its members caught in raids, but aside from NATO, who else is going to step up to defend RoK from aggression? RoK's membership at present is a free-fire zone waiting to happen. MK's members adopt clever AAs. We all know this. I see Blacky and Sandwich Controversy at war with a nation under the Ragnarok AA: it matters not if the person is ghosting if the Ragnarok government itself does not move to halt the raid militarily or diplomatically. If MK demands reparations, it would only be because of Ragnarok's poor negotiating stance. MK's members aren't idiots. It's not like they accidentally attacked TOP, Umbrella, or Nordreich. They hit an AA that was in confusion and figured they could get something out of it. The question now isn't "how did this happen?" but, "why isn't more of this happening?" My supposition is that, so long as MK doesn't interfere with other alliances that want to take a whack at Ragnarok, those alliances won't dispute the legitimacy of MK's actions against the nation of Kastay. Should Ragnarok's government suddenly produce a treaty with VE, TOP, IRON, Umbrella, and Non Grata, I suppose some re-thinking of the diplomatic calculus would be in order. I think the smart money, though, is on RoK getting rolled hard, with MK's actions against Kastay being the opening act. [/quote] It's more funny to taunt people about acting like dicks than state the reality of the situation z3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzptm Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1327976291' post='2911153'] If the biodad kingdom is an affilIate then would it be fair to say that MK attacked first? [/quote] Does it matter if MK attacked first? I mean... *really*? Either Kastay is a ghost nation with no standing in RoK, or it's a member of RoK government in the middle of a war. Given that RoK has only the OAODP with NATO, NATO's involvement is optional, either way. If RoK or NATO expands the conflict, MK could call in a range of allies to defend itself, so my guess is that, given how RoK has many nations in peace mode, Operation Fungicide won't happen anytime soon. And if one finds MK's behavior despicable in this case, one likely already found MK's behavior despicable. If one finds MK's moves to be justified, then one is likely already a supporter of MK, so we don't have any new precedent there. MK can demand reps because it is stronger. RoK is not in a position to dictate to MK how it should run its affairs. Frankly, no alliance is in such a position. MK will behave as it chooses until something more than words gives it pause. So it is with any sovereign alliance, even the neutrals. [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1327976803' post='2911162'] It's more funny to taunt people about acting like dicks than state the reality of the situation z3 [/quote] Sorry, Myth... I'm in CoJ, now, so I have to be an impartial buzzkill. It's in our charter or something. Edited January 31, 2012 by zzzptm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Rayvon' timestamp='1327976718' post='2911160'] Indeed - RoK shouldn't be telling MK what AA's they can associate and condone. [/quote] Totally because that makes sense, spines are nice though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowdog07 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 I'd bet if the govt. of Rok didn't consider Kait a member, we wouldn't say anything about her fighting back. A tech raid is a tech raid and would be treated as such. But when you accept Kait as part of Rok with support from the alliance, it becomes a sanctioned action to attack MK as a member of Rok. Whereas MK was only attacking someone not affiliated with an alliance. So really its pretty easy to understand the options are to either continue considering her a ghost at her own peril, or talk to our gov the necessary actions for us to grant her peace. It's odd that this took 15 pages to convey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Crowdog' timestamp='1327977723' post='2911180'] I'd bet if the govt. of Rok didn't consider Kait a member, we wouldn't say anything about her fighting back. A tech raid is a tech raid and would be treated as such. But when you accept Kait as part of Rok with support from the alliance, it becomes a sanctioned action to attack MK as a member of Rok. Whereas MK was only attacking someone not affiliated with an alliance. So really its pretty easy to understand the options are to either continue considering her a ghost at her own peril, or talk to our gov the necessary actions for us to grant her peace. It's odd that this took 15 pages to convey. [/quote] This all pretty confusing for the uninvolved. Do I understand this right that MK attacked Kait and are now unhappy that she fought back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity111 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1327977947' post='2911184'] This all pretty confusing for the uninvolved. Do I understand this right that MK attacked Kait and are now unhappy that she fought back. [/quote] "Unhappy" is a very poor descriptor. I think "elated" is better. But for a more clear explanation... Bob and Joe, the leaders of RoK at the time, allowed Kait to be attacked. Thus, there are no problems with their initiating those wars. However, afterwards, Bob and Joe were expelled from RoK, and the new RoK gov seems to be saying that Kait is once again a member of RoK. The problem is that... if Kait is a member of RoK, then a member of RoK has just nuked a member of MK. If the new gov had not declared Kait a member again, then there would be no problem; it would just be a raid gone bad, and there's nothing to complain about when a raid goes bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Velocity111' timestamp='1327978243' post='2911188'] "Unhappy" is a very poor descriptor. I think "elated" is better. But for a more clear explanation... Bob and Joe, the leaders of RoK at the time, allowed Kait to be attacked. Thus, there are no problems with their initiating those wars. However, afterwards, Bob and Joe were expelled from RoK, and the new RoK gov seems to be saying that Kait is once again a member of RoK. The problem is that... if Kait is a member of RoK, then a member of RoK has just nuked a member of MK. If the new gov had not declared Kait a member again, then there would be no problem; it would just be a raid gone bad, and there's nothing to complain about when a raid goes bad. [/quote] Right, and that means that MK is attacking a legitimate member of Ragnarok as well. Correct? Edited January 31, 2012 by Gibsonator21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzptm Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1327978673' post='2911194'] Right, and that means that MK is attacking a legitimate member of Ragnarok as well. Correct? [/quote] Maybe. Depends on who one recognizes as the legitimate head of Ragnarok, if anyone. If Joe Stupid is still legitimate, then no, MK is not attacking a legitimate member of RoK. If Adel is legitimate, then there's the question of there being an extraordinary circumstance in re-admitting a member in an ongoing war. If neither are legitimate, then somebody call NEW quick, because there's hardly anyone protecting that AA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1327979028' post='2911197'] Maybe. Depends on who one recognizes as the legitimate head of Ragnarok, if anyone. If Joe Stupid is still legitimate, then no, MK is not attacking a legitimate member of RoK. If Adel is legitimate, then there's the question of there being an extraordinary circumstance in re-admitting a member in an ongoing war. If neither are legitimate, then somebody call NEW quick, because there's hardly anyone protecting that AA. [/quote] I thought Omni was legit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1327979028' post='2911197'] Maybe. Depends on who one recognizes as the legitimate head of Ragnarok, if anyone. If Joe Stupid is still legitimate, then no, MK is not attacking a legitimate member of RoK. If Adel is legitimate, then there's the question of there being an extraordinary circumstance in re-admitting a member in an ongoing war. If neither are legitimate, then somebody call NEW quick, because there's hardly anyone protecting that AA. [/quote] Did you forget she never resigned or... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 I don't think you can really blame MK though. They were told Kait was a legitimate raid target. Of course FOK told DT someone was a legit raid target and then demanded reps later. I don't think RoK has the leverage to pull that one off though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1327979200' post='2911203'] I thought Omni was legit? [/quote] I am. I am allowing Adel and the government chosen by her to operate in my stead. I am too busy destroying the slurpers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1327979329' post='2911205'] I don't think you can really blame MK though. They were told Kait was a legitimate raid target. Of course FOK told DT someone was a legit raid target and then demanded reps later. I don't think RoK has the leverage to pull that one off though. [/quote] You're right. I think MK is justified to finish this round of wars, but asking for reps (for being hit back) or having another nation attack would not be justified, in my opinion at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzptm Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1327979329' post='2911205'] I don't think you can really blame MK though. They were told Kait was a legitimate raid target. Of course FOK told DT someone was a legit raid target and then demanded reps later. I don't think RoK has the leverage to pull that one off though. [/quote] The FOK-DT situtation had a few more wrinkles in it... and nobody was questioning who was in charge at FOK at the time. But, yes, RoK isn't going to be able to get reparations. They're a banana and MK is an 800-pound gorilla. That's my analogy, and I'm sticking to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts