keeology Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 By all means, find someone to sanction me on brown team. I would find it mildly surprising. for shits and giggles i might take my entire alliance to brown just to do that :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingervites Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 HoT is and remains a member of RIA EvU declared on our coalition partner, and due to the much ballyhooed coalition policy on this front, yes that means technically RIA is at war with EvU. HoT's war was of his own initiative but EvU is a legitimate war target in this war, even if our own priorities lie elsewhere. there we go, so HoT is in the ok by RIA for attacking EvU, albeit by stretching the situation. I think we should all learn from this and use mass team colour sanctions as a real part of war. Just for the entertainment of the fallout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shimmer Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) I'll be frank. If anyone wanted to use senators as a way to advance themselves in a war. (Which is useless due to resource changing.) They would have probably sanctioned some of the upper-tier in peace mode....not a loudmouth on the OWF who frankly isn't worthy of a sanction. He's more like the dog that tries to hump your leg on occasion you just shake-off and carry on with your day. Edit: I mean no disrespect to all the dogs in the world. Edited February 27, 2013 by TimLee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 there we go, so HoT is in the ok by RIA for attacking EvU, albeit by stretching the situation. I think we should all learn from this and use mass team colour sanctions as a real part of war. Just for the entertainment of the fallout. I'm sure RIA can post a proper declaration of war if it is the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o ya baby Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 I saw this thread and chose to ignore it, but now I just have to post because HoT wishes to believe he's a lot more important than he really is. First things first, if I wanted to start a sanction war, please believe me that I could find much better people to use it on than some loudmouthed 8,000 NS, completely worthless and irrelevant nation fighting in a single war at the lowest NS range. You aren't important, you never will be important and your desperate cries for attention on these forums just go to show that you realize this fact and can't come to terms with it. You attacked with no official alliance declaration, were the only RIA nation attacking EvU and from what I can tell here, hold a personal grudge against them for some reason. That's reason enough for me to believe them when they deemed you a rogue. If you want to prevent these misunderstandings in the future, maybe you should have your alliance post an official declaration. And I mean come on, who really cares anyway? You're HoT :smug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 I'm still compelled to vote for o ya baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted February 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 Rogues are different from people who are on different AA's. Rogues, like HOT here, attacks in violation of policy. Our boys on different AA's are members of our alliances, and everyone knows that. ITT: Hopping AA's makes you a member of an alliance while flying the actual AA of your alliance makes you a rogue. What an interesting world we live in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 its ok when we do it, it's not ok when you do it. - every owf argument ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crownguard Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 Ok....I'll bite. For someone relatively new to this game and not having seen this happen before...please explain to me why this is a particular issue? What is the purpose of senators if they aren't used for anything exactly? Additionally, given the desire to ZI and generally wreck nations/alliances in this game, why is this considered in bad taste? I am curious when this became an issue for people during the game, as I understand the move away post-Karma from things like EZi and the like, but this seems a bit strange to be hurt over. I mean, it's not as if our side isn't already projected as the incarnation of what is wrong in this game. Having changed the rules of warfare with "one for all" etc. as your party why is this even an issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 Ok....I'll bite. For someone relatively new to this game and not having seen this happen before...please explain to me why this is a particular issue? What is the purpose of senators if they aren't used for anything exactly? Additionally, given the desire to ZI and generally wreck nations/alliances in this game, why is this considered in bad taste? I am curious when this became an issue for people during the game, as I understand the move away post-Karma from things like EZi and the like, but this seems a bit strange to be hurt over. I mean, it's not as if our side isn't already projected as the incarnation of what is wrong in this game. Having changed the rules of warfare with "one for all" etc. as your party why is this even an issue? There is nothing wrong with sanction warfare, it's just annoying rather than valuable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 Just nuke them, that's what I would do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurunin Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Ok....I'll bite. For someone relatively new to this game and not having seen this happen before...please explain to me why this is a particular issue? What is the purpose of senators if they aren't used for anything exactly? Additionally, given the desire to ZI and generally wreck nations/alliances in this game, why is this considered in bad taste? I am curious when this became an issue for people during the game, as I understand the move away post-Karma from things like EZi and the like, but this seems a bit strange to be hurt over. I mean, it's not as if our side isn't already projected as the incarnation of what is wrong in this game. Having changed the rules of warfare with "one for all" etc. as your party why is this even an issue? trades have always been seen as something holy, and the only time it's been justified to crash 6 nations' trades is when one of them goes off the handle and goes rogue. roguery has always been seen as something bad and has always been seen as the only reason to touch something as sacrilegious as trades. even when beaten down to ZI/ZT, with the right trade set you can atleast rebuild yourself to a certain point of where you were before so long as you have the money to do so. senators are elected by the masses to use said powers against such nations and to perform in a way agreeable by those who chose to vote for them (usually). This is not to say certain instances like this thread come about, but usually they are met with fierce opposition by the community (honestly if this happened to almost anyone other than HoT that's what we'd be seeing here today) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keeology Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 trades have always been seen as something holy, and the only time it's been justified to crash 6 nations' trades is when one of them goes off the handle and goes rogue. roguery has always been seen as something bad and has always been seen as the only reason to touch something as sacrilegious as trades. even when beaten down to ZI/ZT, with the right trade set you can atleast rebuild yourself to a certain point of where you were before so long as you have the money to do so. senators are elected by the masses to use said powers against such nations and to perform in a way agreeable by those who chose to vote for them (usually). This is not to say certain instances like this thread come about, but usually they are met with fierce opposition by the community (honestly if this happened to almost anyone other than HoT that's what we'd be seeing here today) this sums it up really nicely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 trades have always been seen as something holy, and the only time it's been justified to crash 6 nations' trades is when one of them goes off the handle and goes rogue. roguery has always been seen as something bad and has always been seen as the only reason to touch something as sacrilegious as trades. even when beaten down to ZI/ZT, with the right trade set you can atleast rebuild yourself to a certain point of where you were before so long as you have the money to do so. senators are elected by the masses to use said powers against such nations and to perform in a way agreeable by those who chose to vote for them (usually). This is not to say certain instances like this thread come about, but usually they are met with fierce opposition by the community (honestly if this happened to almost anyone other than HoT that's what we'd be seeing here today) Yeah but think about who o ya baby's voter base is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShamWOW Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Well I think using sanctions in a war is kind of cheap, but one could easily argue that a nuclear nation attacking a non-nuclear nation is equally as cheap and unfair, but not frowned apon because it is a part of war. Sanctions are a part of war to, so just deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subcomandante VL Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 I may be in the minority here, but I'm on the EQ side and see nothing wrong with this. Why not use every tool at your disposal? Color politics should come back anyway; they were tons of fun. Sarcasm not even intended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingervites Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 colour politics have been dead for awhile, nothing funny or interesting since MK went maroon to annoy GOD. Let's see Argent do a sanction war on TOP :nuke: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Well I think using sanctions in a war is kind of cheap, but one could easily argue that a nuclear nation attacking a non-nuclear nation is equally as cheap and unfair, but not frowned apon because it is a part of war. Sanctions are a part of war to, so just deal with it. Your sentiment is 100% correct. Its RAWR you hurt some trades. But we would all (myself included) jump at the chance to nuke a non nuke nation. It is also hilarious to see anyone using the "A DoW on one is a DoW on the whole coalition" nonsense talk about standards in CN. Either all of them are untouchable, or none of them are, you do not get to pick and choose based on political expediency. I dont care which way is picked or chose, I am ok with either, but do not try to ride both sides of the fence. /end rant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Hakai Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 You have something against vaginas? best comment in the entire thread, thank you very much caliph. :v: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 I dont care which way is picked or chose, I am ok with either, but do not try to ride both sides of the fence. /end rant. Hypocrisy is the playground of those in power. We had to put up with it for a few years, now you need to suck it up :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azreal Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Hypocrisy is the playground of those in power. We had to put up with it for a few years, now you need to suck it up :P Dropping the supposed moral high ground so soon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Your sentiment is 100% correct. Its RAWR you hurt some trades. But we would all (myself included) jump at the chance to nuke a non nuke nation. All? I'm sure there are lots of people who actually like nuclear warfare (sending/receiving) I know that because I'm one of them, so no I wouldn't jump at the chance to nuke a non nuke nation because there is no nuke back :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurunin Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 I'd rather fight a nuke nation with no sdi rather than a non nuke nation :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Dropping the supposed moral high ground so soon? You must have me confused with someone who has morals... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 won't somebody please think of the [s]children[/s] fillies 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.