Quick Announcement

[Ameroca]

[quote name='Aeros' timestamp='1350345205' post='3041735']
From where I sit raiding is not the issue. The issue is your assertion that retaliating for being raided constitutes roguery.
[/quote]

I see you are still around. Would you care to answer me?

[quote name='Ameroca' timestamp='1350100381' post='3040940']
Does this mean I can attack someone on the Anarchy Inc AA, and as long as they are currently raiding, then you guys won't do squat about it? Because as a goon I am all for my actions not having consequences.
[/quote]

Thanks in advance.

[quote name='Nintenderek' timestamp='1350347691' post='3041743']
He didn't go rouge.
[/quote]

He was specifically talking about Stonewall Jaxon, who unarguably went rogue, refused any peace, and recently deleted. Who exactly is conflating these two completely different cases I'm not going to bother figuring out.

[trimm]

Naturally GOONS will tell you that they only have to define raiding for themselves, as they define what an alliance is for themselves. Which is surely their prerogative. I don't agree with them, there are probably very few outside GOONS that do. But, it it what it is.

Of course, what is also undeniable is that folks around Bob have long memories. Sometimes I wonder if anyone in GOONS ever considers that. It is more likely, however, that as with everything else they just don't particularly care.

[Sardonic]

Before anyone sheds any further tears about the now deceased badposter Stonewall Jackson, it should be stated that he never even bothered talking to us about a cash/tech settlement. Nor did anyone offer to pay for him that I can recall.

[Aeros]

[quote name='Ameroca' timestamp='1350100381' post='3040940']
Does this mean I can attack someone on the Anarchy Inc AA, and as long as they are currently raiding, then you guys won't do squat about it? Because as a goon I am all for my actions not having consequences.
[/quote]

I did not respond to this because it was dumb. Since you are forcing the issue though, the answer would emphatically be no unless of course GOONS somehow has a treaty with the raided target. Then perhaps you would have some justification. The problem here is you are raiding an AA, and then claiming that when that AA retaliates, its roguery. That is dumb, since they are perfectly justified to retaliate. You going on a crusade to hit an Ai raider in defense of some nation you have no affiliation with would not be justified, outside of some moralist argument. Which coming from GOONS would be pretty funny and probably not end well. You are of course, more then free to try this though. Bob needs fireworks.

*Edit* GraMmAr.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Aeros

[Nintenderek]

[quote name='Ameroca' timestamp='1350358317' post='3041780']

He was specifically talking about Stonewall Jaxon, who unarguably went rogue, refused any peace, and recently deleted. Who exactly is conflating these two completely different cases I'm not going to bother figuring out.
[/quote]

Since I was part of this chain of events, let me tell you what was being referred to.


[quote name='Tir Nan Og' timestamp='1350335475' post='3041678']
I look forward to seeing you down by me in a week or two. [b]Then it will be my turn to do to you what we did to Stonewall. [u]Keep you in perpetual war until you surrender[/u].[/b]
[/quote]

In response to that statement, in particular the underlined statement, I made the post about GOONS stating that it doesn't practice PZI (which perpetual war would be pzi, regardless of surrender options) and then

[quote name='Tir Nan Og' timestamp='1350340643' post='3041707']
We don't. He could have requested peace at any time and paid reps for going rogue on us. He chose not to.
[/quote]

Which since I was referring to Doornail, I would guess this post was referring to Doornail. That's when the post you quoted happened, all referring to Doornail.

In all reality, it doesn't matter which person it was, or if they posted for peace or not. After ZIing each individual, GOONS should leave them alone regardless of if they asked for peace. Perpetual war is PZI. It doesn't matter what surrender terms there are. Alliances like NPO and such whom used to practice PZI, would also sometimes give the same types of ridiculous surrender terms GOONS does for people on their perma ZI lists. The only difference is that they still called it what it actually is. Anyone who's been on a PZI list knows this. Just ask Starfox over there. He's been on a couple of them in the past.

PZI is wrong, and GOONS should be ashamed for practicing it.

[Sardonic]

I'm playing the world's smallest violin. They could have surrendered to us and negotiated a reasonable tech deal repayment plan (if they had nothing else left) at any time. Refusing to give people white peace for their transgressions is not PZI. People on PZI lists also traditionally has no hope of revocation. You either aren't very intelligent or you're trying to twist words to mean things they don't. Perhaps both.

[DoorNail]

That's quite a picture Sardonic, the worlds largest terrorist playing the worlds smallest violin lol

You're not fooling anyone by saying you can be negotiated with and the lies that have come out of you and your crew is proof. It is GOONS that believe that I had acted like a rogue for defending, it is you yourself that claims that we didn't try to avoid escalation by attempting to contact you directly, trying to avoid any middleman. All we've ever asked for is peace, nothing more. Your "repayment plan" is like a promise to a mugger for more money after you've taken a wallet.

Your insults to those that know the truth, only reinforces claims that you seek to destroy instead of even considering peace that can only come from giving into your demands. You want to continue coming after me, that's fine. At least if you're coming after me, you're are leaving some other poor SOB alone.

I'm sure it's not the first time you've underestimated somebody and I didn't say that I was the sleeping giant. I hope that your nonchalant thumbing of your nose at anyone and everyone that sees what you're doing, comes back to bite you on the ass.

[KenMorningstar]

Had your "alliance" mates come to our board and asked for peace they would have immediatley been given a cease fire and a few days to answer terms, such as make a comic, do a poem about something silly or try to be entertaining. Its all done in the spirit of fun and we have had some really hilarious results in the past.

They didnt and you attacked us instead. So... this is what you get.

I will be seeing you soon. Keep in mind you can still come to some kind of surrender terms, Hiro even offered to pay them. Maybe you should work closer with him and PPO to come up with some plans for your extraction from this mess.

edit:[ooc] As for my good buddy Stonewall Jaxon, he and I communicated a lot over our 4 wars via PM. At the end of our last war he said he was going overseas for a bit and was busy with his college life. So he may have decided the time to run his nation just wasnt worth it anymore.Either way he knew exactly why we were fighting and he was complimentary about how we fought that war. Although he was amazed I would sell down over and over again just to keep him off our small guys. As bad of a poster as he was he was not that bad on the other side of a fight. He also knew he could surrender at any time paying what small reps he would be able to, but had decided to stick to his guns before giving up and deleting.[/ooc]

Edited October 16, 2012 by Tir Nan Og

[ChairmanHal]

Oh another one of these threads...

Sardonic...please keep trying to justify the unjustiable. Not that I expect that anyone will actually [b]do[/b] anything about it any time soon that is capable of kicking your entire crew to the curb (what's left of it that is), but it's nice to see the hatred in the eyes of the newer people as you continue to accumulate enemies around the fringes of the planet. It's amongst the newer people that I place my hope that things will one day change.

[KenMorningstar]

You should go rogue instead and attack us. I hear that works really well.

[Aeros]

You underestimate the grief a skilled nation with a couple billion dongs on hand can cause. Judging from past history it would only be a matter of time before you call in allies on that too. Just ask GOD about the time they got rouged by Vlad.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Aeros

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Tir Nan Og' timestamp='1350410717' post='3041889']
You should go rogue instead and attack us. I hear that works really well.
[/quote]

How about...no?

[i]OOC: I've always said I would never rogue out simply because it's poor game play. Then again, who am I to lecture the masters of poor game play? There's being the heavy in the improv piece and then there's just being stupid and ruining other people's good time for lulz. Yeah, I've done more than my share of raiding over the course of over 5 years. But I never deliberately ran people out of the game, nor made them do silly IC/OOC bovine scatology to save their pixels. I sure as hell never urinated all over someone's nation for defending their friends. I don't expect you to understand...I've given this lecture before to no avail, but god dammit you people are frustrating.[/i]

[Sardonic]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1350410378' post='3041888']
Oh another one of these threads...

Sardonic...please keep trying to justify the unjustiable. Not that I expect that anyone will actually [b]do[/b] anything about it any time soon that is capable of kicking your entire crew to the curb (what's left of it that is), but it's nice to see the hatred in the eyes of the newer people as you continue to accumulate enemies around the fringes of the planet. It's amongst the newer people that I place my hope that things will one day change.
[/quote]

Well Mr. Hal, maybe you don't see the value in having a zero-tolerance policy regarding attacks on the alliance, but we do. We have more than enough justification.

Also, you're seriously going to peg your hopes of us being crushed one day to the likes of doornail? Don't make me laugh. We have a strong command, and many friends and allies. He barely has command of the English language.

[D34th]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1350417582' post='3041933']
We have more than enough justification.
[/quote]

No you don't, but I doubt any GOONS will ever understand that, though I wonder what make your alliance thinks that raid without retaliation from the raided nation and his friends is some kind of god given right.

[Ameroca]

[quote name='Aeros' timestamp='1350395116' post='3041845']
I did not respond to this because it was dumb. Since you are forcing the issue though, the answer would emphatically be no unless of course GOONS somehow has a treaty with the raided target. Then perhaps you would have some justification.
[/quote]

Strange, the alliance you specifically picked out (MONGOLS) had no treaty with the alliance we were raiding at the time

[quote]The nations you raided were involved with various economic and personal ties with Mongols.[/quote]

Was your line of thought completely incorrect and unjustified? Or can undocumented relationships be used as justification? Can I say, well, that guy you raided was a friend of mine, therefore you are unjustified in defending your members?

[quote name='Nintenderek' timestamp='1350397239' post='3041849']
Since I was part of this chain of events, let me tell you what was being referred to.
[/quote]

So you are conflating the two, okay, congrats, I guess.

Stonewall continued to declare war on us up until the round he deleted, so you really have no claim that we were unfairly targeting him. The only person who had any sort of claim of utilizing PZI was him (it was his declarations on us).

Edited October 16, 2012 by Ameroca

[Don Chele]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1350027181' post='3040520']
We have a very well defined set of moral beliefs in GOONS. We value Alliance (Read: Real Alliance) sovereignty, collectiveism in foreign affairs, and individual raiding freedom. Through raiding and forcing people into the alliance treaty system we are civilizing the barbarians who live in the wilderness. It is a thankless task to uplift these inferior peoples, but we raiding alliances do our part to move global society forward.
[/quote]

You have to understand how ridiculous it is to state that your beliefs are moral in the context of the extra-GOONS community. Morality can only ever be judged by disinterested observers, and the actions of GOONS here elicit responses of moral disgust among those who are disinterested (not GOONS, not DoorNail, not GOONS allies, not TSL). You certainly have some internal values with which I disagree, but acknowledge you have the right to hold. To call them moral in the greater Digiterran community, however, is intellectually dishonest and you are smart enough to know that.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't expect your entire hyper-reply squad to be intellectually honest, but you and SirWilliam at the very least are intelligent enough to make your case without being so utterly disengenuous.

[Ameroca]

They must rely on valueless arguments of morality and technical arguments of legality because the position they took in this case was inconsistent with previous decisions. And in a might-makes-right society, consistency is the only enduring value.

[Nintenderek]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1350417582' post='3041933']
Well Mr. Hal, maybe you don't see the value in having a zero-tolerance policy regarding attacks on the alliance, but we do. We have more than enough justification.

[/quote]


Wait, what? You attacked a member of his alliance. He attacked back. That's how alliances work. If someone attacked a member of GOONS, another member of GOONS would typically fight back. Should that be considered a rouge attack now? You attacked him, not the other way around. You have no justification at all.



[quote name='Ameroca' timestamp='1350418979' post='3041939']
So you are conflating the two, okay, congrats, I guess.

Stonewall continued to declare war on us up until the round he deleted, so you really have no claim that we were unfairly targeting him. The only person who had any sort of claim of utilizing PZI was him (it was his declarations on us).
[/quote]


I was not confusing the two events and I'm not even sure why you keep bringing up Stonewall, since at not point did I ever mention him, nor is he relevant to this situation.

[Sardonic]

The unaligned aren't people, and groups of unaligned of insufficient size and political connections are not alliances. How would any good alliance deal with an unaligned nation attacking them? Simple, treat them as any other rogue. The cause for attacking GOONS members is irrelevant, the punishment will be the same regardless.

Cute how CoJ thinks they represent the mainstream thought on these matters.

[trimm]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1350426190' post='3041969']
The unaligned aren't people, and groups of unaligned of insufficient size and political connections are not alliances. How would any good alliance deal with an unaligned nation attacking them? Simple, treat them as any other rogue. The cause for attacking GOONS members is irrelevant, the punishment will be the same regardless.

Cute how CoJ thinks they represent the mainstream thought on these matters.
[/quote]

I would venture a guess that his position is more representative of mainstream thought than yours.

[Nintenderek]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1350426190' post='3041969']
The unaligned aren't people, and groups of unaligned of insufficient size and political connections are not alliances. How would any good alliance deal with an unaligned nation attacking them? Simple, treat them as any other rogue. The cause for attacking GOONS members is irrelevant, the punishment will be the same regardless.

Cute how CoJ thinks they represent the mainstream thought on these matters.
[/quote]

Who the hell are you to define what is an is not an alliance? Let's look up the definition, shall we? We shall get our first definition from Cybernations Wiki. That seems like a fairly accurate and relevant source. So, let's see what it has to say on the subject.

[quote][b]Alliances[/b][color=#3A3A3A][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3] are player created and maintained and function almost completely outside of the game mechanics (excepting the Alliances statistics screen). [b]They are primarily defense (and sometimes aggression) pacts between nation[u][i]s[/i][/u][/b].[/size][/font][/color][/quote]

[url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Alliance"]http://cybernations....m/wiki/Alliance[/url]

So, what we get here is that an alliance is a pact between nations. Nations is plural, so obviously any number 2 or more would be accurate. Let's see how many people are in Doornai's group of people

[url="http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance_stats_custom.asp?Alliance=The%20Shadow%20Legacy"]http://www.cybernati...e Shadow Legacy[/url]

6? That's certainly more than 1. Of course, personally, I don't think the wiki's definition quite takes it far enough, so I of course went and saw what Wikipedia has to say on the subject.

[quote][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3]An [/size][/font][/color][b]alliance[/b][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3] is a [/size][/font][/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact"]pact[/url][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3], [/size][/font][/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition"]coalition[/url][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3] or [/size][/font][/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship"]friendship[/url][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3] between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests.[/size][/font][/color][/quote]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance[/url]

Interesting. Wikipedia seems to agree with Cybernations wiki's definition. It says 2 or more parties. 6 is obviously 2 or more, so this is an alliance. Of course, something in common with both websites I have mentioned above is the ability for anyone to randomly edit them. While I personally believe both websites to be reliable, I'm sure other people would disagree with me, so let's look at the actual dictionary definition of it.

[url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alliance"]http://dictionary.re...browse/alliance[/url]

[quote]2. [size=3][color=#333333][font=verdana]a [/font][/color][color=#333333][font=verdana]formal [/font][/color][color=#0055BB][font=verdana]agreement [/font][/color][color=#333333][font=verdana]or [/font][/color][color=#333333][font=verdana]treaty [/font][/color][color=#333333][font=verdana]between [/font][/color][color=#333333][font=verdana]two [/font][/color][color=#333333][font=verdana]or [/font][/color][color=#333333][font=verdana]more [/font][/color][color=#333333][font=verdana]nations [/font][/color][color=#333333][font=verdana]to [/font][/color][color=#333333][font=verdana]cooperate [/font][/color][color=#333333][font=verdana]for [/font][/color][color=#333333][font=verdana]specific [/font][/color][color=#333333][font=verdana]purposes.[/font][/color][/size][/quote]

[url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alliance"]http://dictionary.re...browse/alliance[/url]

It seems the dictionary seems to agree with me. Three sources, all of which say that The Shadow Legacy is indeed an alliance.

And you know what's really cute? How you don't think this opinion represents the mainstream thought on these matters. Look at this thread. You have lots of people from a multitude of alliances telling you how wrong you are. Yet the only people who seem to agree with you, are all GOONS. I don't just think I represent the mainstream thought on these matter, I know I do.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Nintenderek

[Baldr]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1350417582' post='3041933']
Well Mr. Hal, maybe you don't see the value in having a zero-tolerance policy regarding attacks on the alliance, but we do. We have more than enough justification.[/quote]

Obviously Doornail felt the same when GOONS attacked his alliance. For that response, you've placed him on PZI.

[KenMorningstar]

In most alliance charters there is a minimum number of people required before they will recognize a group of players as an alliance. 6 doesn't meet our number requirement. Your requirements may differ but that does not meet ours. It doesn't matter what you think about it, it matters what we think about it. And according to our charter that is years and years old, you need more than 6 before we recognize you.

If you have an issue with it man up and make us change. If not stop whining it isn't fair. All you forum warriors sit there cuddling your nations and never actually do anything to make this game the way you think it should be. You just whine and complain on the forums. I know it's cliche but if you don't like DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

That doesn't have to be war. You could start some negotiations with our envoy's and Doornail to work an agreement to let him go and pay for it to, or find someone who will.

Otherwise you are farts in the wind, good for nothing but making stupid noises.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Tir Nan Og

[rabonnobar]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1350426190' post='3041969']
The unaligned aren't people, and groups of unaligned of insufficient size and political connections are not alliances. How would any good alliance deal with an unaligned nation attacking them? Simple, treat them as any other rogue. [b]The cause for attacking GOONS members is irrelevant, the punishment will be the same regardless.[/b]

Cute how CoJ thinks they represent the mainstream thought on these matters.
[/quote]

!@#$@#$ ridiculous.

[Ameroca]

[quote name='Nintenderek' timestamp='1350424978' post='3041966']
I was not confusing the two events and I'm not even sure why you keep bringing up Stonewall, since at not point did I ever mention him, nor is he relevant to this situation.
[/quote]

Tir Nan Og said he would do what he did to Stonewall, which is what you are taking offense to. It is impossible to object to "what [GOONS] did to Stonewall" without involving what we did to Stonewall. I agree he and his situation is not relevant, thus, a judgement shouldn't be cast upon the remark (beyond, of course, "who cares?"). Instead, you took it as evidence that Doornail was sentenced to a widely vilified practice. I'm sure you can find better examples than that.

I, too, find it strange that people are bringing up factually incorrect statements about subjects unconnected in any way to this situation (both Stonewall and MONGOLS).