tamerlane Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 (edited) MQ isn't an alliance by their own words. Neither are y'all last I checked. How do you protect them? They do it quite easily as outlined in the OP. Edited September 22, 2013 by tamerlane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 (edited) They do it quite easily as outlined in the OP. There's an implication that there was a protectorate treaty between your two "alliances;" is that true? If so why not attack TPF and whoever else raided MQ? Looks to me like DBDC/MK is full of pussies too scared to hit a real alliance. Edit: I'm better then this... Edited September 22, 2013 by Unknown Smurf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 That is exactly what every warring alliance does in times of war, it's what activates treaties and makes people fight friends. Any alliance could call itself a neutral until they start declaring wars, as none of them are technically at war yet. Just because 9 months have passed doesn't make NPO or TOP neutral again. Sorry I really see no gray area here. Neutral to global conflicts. It can go around attacking people if it wants. GOP attacked MQ because it had an ideological difference with MQ. That doesn't change its neutrality toward any war that's happening. As a different yet oddly similar example, how would you feel about a neutral that allowed tech raiding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamerlane Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 Neutral to global conflicts. It can go around attacking people if it wants. GOP attacked MQ because it had an ideological difference with MQ. That doesn't change its neutrality toward any war that's happening. As a different yet oddly similar example, how would you feel about a neutral that allowed tech raiding? I'm pretty neutral on the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 GPA is acting decidedly isolationist and neutral in this conflict. GOP is most definitely not being neutral or isolationist. In fact, GOP is fighting to defend its right to remain isolationist - which in a very real sense means they can no longer be truly neutral (since they are now attempting to uphold their CN worldview and force it on others). Fighting to spread and defend your worldview is most decidedly not neutral as indeed GOP has definitively taken sides in the MQ vs TDO war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 (edited) You can morally justify whatever you want, righteous or not, but the facts are clear. GOP obviously isn't neutral, they're exactly the same as CCC and TTE and those opportunistic TPF nations who struck MQ without actually being struck. TPF raided rouges, I can't imagine why anyone including rogues would have an issue with something that has happened for years. You're a bit opportunistic yourself so it is weird that you somewhat disprove of TPF striking without being struck. Edited September 22, 2013 by Commander shepard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 GPA is acting decidedly isolationist and neutral in this conflict. GOP is most definitely not being neutral or isolationist. In fact, GOP is fighting to defend its right to remain isolationist - which in a very real sense means they can no longer be truly neutral (since they are now attempting to uphold their CN worldview and force it on others). Fighting to spread and defend your worldview is most decidedly not neutral as indeed GOP has definitively taken sides in the MQ vs TDO war. I don't think GOP minds your point of view, to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamerlane Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 (edited) TPF raided rouges, I can't imagine why anyone including rogues would have an issue with something that has happened for years. You're a bit opportunistic yourself so it is weird that you somewhat disprove of TPF striking without being struck. Ahem, TPF attacked the Mushqaeda AA (alliance affiliation), which is composed of 50 members all of whom are coordinating their attacks and receiving orders from a centralized command. If we are not an alliance, then I think we need to establish a clear definition of what is and isn't an alliance. Something no one making the claim that MQ is not an alliance seems intellectually capable of doing. Edited September 22, 2013 by tamerlane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 (edited) Ahem, TPF attacked the Mushqaeda AA (alliance affiliation), which is composed of 50 members all of whom are coordinating their attacks and receiving orders from a centralized command. If we are not an alliance, then I think we need to establish a clear definition of what is and isn't an alliance. Something no one making the claim that MQ is not an alliance seems intellectually capable of doing. Perhaps we should visit your forums or you come to ours and we'll discuss this? Edited September 22, 2013 by Roadie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pd73bassman Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 Have fun Cuba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamerlane Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 (edited) Perhaps we should visit your forums or you come to ours and we'll discuss this? I'll be happy to visit if you'd be so kind as to prep an embassy for my arrival. Otherwise, you can query me on IRC if you would like to speak. Edited September 22, 2013 by tamerlane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tayloj7 Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 (edited) Sir Hoppington smiles at your choice to get a little aggressive and hopes you'll find CN becomes much more interesting now that you have :) Edited September 22, 2013 by tayloj7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walshington Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 (edited) Ahem, TPF attacked the Mushqaeda AA (alliance affiliation), which is composed of 50 members all of whom are coordinating their attacks and receiving orders from a centralized command. If we are not an alliance, then I think we need to establish a clear definition of what is and isn't an alliance. Something no one making the claim that MQ is not an alliance seems intellectually capable of doing. I see your point, but a DoE announcement with a charter and a flag seem to be the minimum, forums and a wiki entry help as well. Your flag, if I recall, was actually used in the disbandment announcement of MK. Edited September 22, 2013 by Walshington Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zacharias Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 Nope, GOP atm is the only neutral with the stones to defend its beliefs. I don't think they needed stones to attack an alliance of 40 members who was already outnumbered, but regardless they broke their neutrality to defend their interests. I have to give them credit for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 MQ isn't an alliance by their own words. Neither are y'all last I checked. How do you protect them?This is blatantly false. Just because an alliance acts as others would not, everyone decides to say they are not an alliance? That's dumb as shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cager Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 I see your point, but a DoE announcement with a charter and a flag seem to be the minimum, forums and a wiki entry help as well. Your flag, if I recall, was actually used in the disbandment announcement of MK. Mushqaeda was but one of the many factions with MK. It was only fitting the flag be used in the disbandment considering we are the best faction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamerlane Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 (edited) I see your point, but a DoE announcement with a charter and a flag seem to be the minimum, forums and a wiki entry help as well. Your flag, if I recall, was actually used in the disbandment announcement of MK. So? We have been acting as a vassal state of the Mushroom Kingdom for some time now. It was only fititng it was included in the memorial of our former protectors. Our AA, prior to MKs disbandment, was protected by the Mushroom Kingdom. We follow the will of Allarchon which is interpreted by yours truly. We are no new presence to this game as we have fought many wars under the Mushqaeda banner, 3 vs CCC. In our last war, we actually declared war on behalf of the Mushroom Kingdom. DoEs and Charters. DoEs and Charters mean so little to this game in this day and age, who really cares if some micro of 50 something nations creates one. It just gets lost in time until some e-lawyer decides they are up to the task of attempting to find a loophole for a war that said alliance was going to start whether it was there or not. As for forums and wiki, who can be bothered to create such things when the goal of so many of our own is ultimately matrydom? Edited September 22, 2013 by tamerlane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 Mushqaeda was but one of the many factions with MK. It was only fitting the flag be used in the disbandment considering we are the best faction. Liar! Southern Delegation was the best faction! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubaQuerida Posted September 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 This is blatantly false. Just because an alliance acts as others would not, everyone decides to say they are not an alliance? That's dumb as shit. Something is wrong when I find myself agreeing with Rey, makes me feel like I must have missed something logically, but he's right on point here. All sides have proven to stand up for what they think is right, and it's refreshing for a change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimaera Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 Looks like I might be delayed coming home MI6. You know we've got your back, Q. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walshington Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 So? We have been acting as a vassal state of the Mushroom Kingdom for some time now. It was only fititng it was included in the memorial of our former protectors. Our AA, prior to MKs disbandment, was protected by the Mushroom Kingdom. We follow the will of Allarchon which is interpreted by yours truly. We are no new presence to this game as we have fought many wars under the Mushqaeda banner, 3 vs CCC. In our last war, we actually declared war on behalf of the Mushroom Kingdom. DoEs and Charters. DoEs and Charters mean so little to this game in this day and age, who really cares if some micro of 50 something nations creates one. It just gets lost in time until some e-lawyer decides they are up to the task of attempting to find a loophole for a war that said alliance was going to start whether it was there or not. As for forums and wiki, who can be bothered to create such things when the goal of so many of our own is ultimately matrydom? Well, SOMEbody asked what it took to be recognized as an alliance. I'm just saying that the stuff on paper is usually what does it. DoE's, charters and that sort of thing are recognized as the currency in this. Is there a record of your protectorate with MK anywhere? Even Bear Force 1 went through the motions of legitimacy. Clearly you have numbers and are organized. I can see both sides of the argument. In the end, it is all semantics, I suppose -- you are what you are, and other nations' actions are what they are. Whether you are a large rogue group or an undocumented alliance, it really doesn't change anything for anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubaQuerida Posted September 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 In the end, it is all semantics, I suppose -- you are what you are, and other nations' actions are what they are. Whether you are a large rogue group or an undocumented alliance, it really doesn't change anything for anyone. That's the idea ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 (edited) This is blatantly false. Just because an alliance acts as others would not, everyone decides to say they are not an alliance? That's dumb as shit. ? DBDC at its inception said it is not an alliance it is "offshoot of the SBSC internal faction of Umbrella." (and/or Doomhouse as a whole). If they have changed that since I am unaware, hence me saying "last I checked." As for acting unconventionally, you are talking to the one of the least conventional alliances out here and we do still consider ourselves an alliance. Edited September 22, 2013 by Unknown Smurf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevolutionaryRebel Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 Technically, any Alliance Affiliation is an Alliance. However, to accommodate conventions and traditions regarding Alliances, I would suggest the following; A 'formal' Alliance is one which is governed by rules or regulations of some kind. An 'informal' Alliance does not. MQ is an informal Alliance. DBDC is a formal Alliance, albeit one whose identity is irrevocably tied to another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevolutionaryRebel Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 Of course, anyone is welcome to call themselves whatever they want. Or call others whatever they want. but it doesn't make it true. 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.