CubaQuerida Posted October 25, 2013 Report Share Posted October 25, 2013 So if TDO were to politely ask the rest of you lot to stop attacking MQ/former MK nations, you would immediately stop attacks? Nope. Only 10% of the people ITT believe TDO has anything to do with this. The other 90% see it as opportunistic hitting of nations that gave up their alliance affiliation. Under either circumstance the continued hitting of these nations only degrades the already weak political capital any of these AAs ever had. I have to admit, I'm kinda tempted now to propose a modified perma ZI policy for DBDC whereby instead of making sure a nation never has infra, we just make sure the alliance in question never has a nation over 140k NS. Ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted October 25, 2013 Report Share Posted October 25, 2013 I have to admit, I'm kinda tempted now to propose a modified perma ZI policy for DBDC whereby instead of making sure a nation never has infra, we just make sure the alliance in question never has a nation over 140k NS. Ever. Ooooh drama, put your money where your mouth is. Would love to see the ramifications of such a policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted October 25, 2013 Report Share Posted October 25, 2013 So if TDO were to politely ask the rest of you lot to stop attacking MQ/former MK nations, you would immediately stop attacks? Yeah, except some of those alliances have also formulated their own set of demands. So who knows. I just know that this is a first, where uninvolved alliances are hitting rogues and then demanding reparations from them. It's like a raid where you also ask the raided nation to pay you. I guess raiders need to take note. This is progress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted October 25, 2013 Report Share Posted October 25, 2013 Yeah, except some of those alliances have also formulated their own set of demands. So who knows. I just know that this is a first, where uninvolved alliances are hitting rogues and then demanding reparations from them. It's like a raid where you also ask the raided nation to pay you. I guess raiders need to take note. This is progress. Well that is sooooo 2007 of them, don't they realize a certain white alliance in 2007 did that and got all mashed up for it? Nope. Only 10% of the people ITT believe TDO has anything to do with this. The other 90% see it as opportunistic hitting of nations that gave up their alliance affiliation. Under either circumstance the continued hitting of these nations only degrades the already weak political capital any of these AAs ever had. I have to admit, I'm kinda tempted now to propose a modified perma ZI policy for DBDC whereby instead of making sure a nation never has infra, we just make sure the alliance in question never has a nation over 140k NS. Ever. Well I wanted to see them say it flat out one way or the other. They are not on the same page, and will keep saying whatever they want to justify them attacking rogues who didn't rogue on them. As for your modified policy, I thought you guys were already doing that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubaQuerida Posted October 25, 2013 Report Share Posted October 25, 2013 Well I wanted to see them say it flat out one way or the other. They are not on the same page, and will keep saying whatever they want to justify them attacking rogues who didn't rogue on them. As for your modified policy, I thought you guys were already doing that? As of now, we've just been responding to AA's that are at war with us. Besides TDO/GOP, we aren't outwardly declaring wars. There really was no reason for anyone other than those two AA's to get involved, but we're always happy to have targets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted October 25, 2013 Report Share Posted October 25, 2013 Ooooh drama, put your money where your mouth is. Would love to see the ramifications of such a policy. You must be new here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted October 25, 2013 Report Share Posted October 25, 2013 You must be new here Just bored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted October 25, 2013 Report Share Posted October 25, 2013 Ooooh drama, put your money where your mouth is. Would love to see the ramifications of such a policy. Were you around for the last big war here? You seem to be new or not very knowledable about the last war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted October 25, 2013 Report Share Posted October 25, 2013 Were you around for the last big war here? You seem to be new or not very knowledable about the last war. See above. Also anything that adds drama rather than the regular circle jerk treaty signing and DoE's, is good in my book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Humphrey Posted October 26, 2013 Report Share Posted October 26, 2013 (edited) So if TDO were to politely ask the rest of you lot to stop attacking MQ/former MK nations, you would immediately stop attacks?Yes, NATO would have stopped at any point if TDO had requested. And NATO has not requested reps from any nation, which would be for TDO anyway. Edited October 26, 2013 by Sir Humphrey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingervites Posted October 26, 2013 Report Share Posted October 26, 2013 Can sengoku demand reps? We are more deserving of them than TDO. We were hurt more than they were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Lord of Funk Posted October 26, 2013 Report Share Posted October 26, 2013 I demand reps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheeKy Posted October 26, 2013 Report Share Posted October 26, 2013 Ooooh drama, put your money where your mouth is. Would love to see the ramifications of such a policy. who is going to do something about it if you have no nations above 140k ns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted October 26, 2013 Report Share Posted October 26, 2013 Yeah, except some of those alliances have also formulated their own set of demands. So who knows. I just know that this is a first, where uninvolved alliances are hitting rogues and then demanding reparations from them. It's like a raid where you also ask the raided nation to pay you. I guess raiders need to take note. This is progress. I actually would partially disagree with this. If you do not view Mushqaeda as an alliance, but instead a group of rogues, by attacking one, you have not attacked all of them. If I tech raided an unaligned nation, and then another nation that was also unaligned attacked my alliance in retaliation for my raid on the other nation, separate punishment of each nation wouldn't be weird - it would be the global norm. Actually, IIRC, GOONS has punished nations who were raided by multiple GOONS for then declaring war on other nations in GOONS. As stupid as I think the raiding alliances are for pretending as though they're valiantly defending neutrality, I honestly don't see anything unprecedented or worthy of excessive condemnation beyond that, except for possible hypocrisy between actions and previous words, as RV pointed out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted October 26, 2013 Report Share Posted October 26, 2013 Stories are great mate. If y'all fine with TOP, that is all well and good. I stated how I would feel, not what TOP is doing. As for facts, there have been many statements made with various reasons given. Y'all did not engage a group of rogues, that is a fact. Y'all engaged a group of nations roguing an alliance y'all had no ties to. That amounts to raiding. That I guess is where my confusion comes in. Y'all act as if MQ rogued an alliance that anyone in the neutral coalition was actually allied to. That is blatantly false and easily verified. Yet another fact. You come at me as if I have no facts and you have them all but the entire crux of your argument is a lie. MQ were not rogues against NATO, TPF, CCC, TTE, GOP, or anyone else other than TDO. This may suck and screw up your narrative but it is what it is. As for the Dave War, y'all actually gained a lot of respect from me for going all out on MK. But yeah, most wars have started to blend together for me. After so many years and several alliances I barely keep track of what alliance I was in for whatever war I fought, haha. So I will give you that one. :P This action though I just find extremely stupid and done with no reason other than revenge against MK. While a decent enough reason for CN standards, it is mostly just a meh. I would rather people just be honest and declare war instead of hiding. 500k NS over a month may not be war standards for damage, but for what 20-30 nations (yes I am including DBDC) against a few hundred.... That ain't a minor scratch mate. As for wars, TPF lost to MK in the Karma war and the DH-NPO war. I am not finding any other wars that TPF fought MK. I would wager, NPO fought more against MK than y'all. And actually in the DH-NPO war, y'all fought GOONs. So from what I can find, y'all fought MK once and lost. I could be wrong but that is what I am finding on wiki. By looking at the DoWs, I think I can see where you are coming from. There'e more to it than DoWs though. You are correct that we only DoW'd GOONS during DH-NPO, but the rest of DH countered so we did fight MK during DH-NPO as well. That and Karma together make for a pretty good stretch of time. To my knowledge, NPO and MK didn't fight at all during Karma. As for other alliances who may have fought MK longer than TPF, I would guess there's maybe some alliances in the old SF sphere that fought them in both wars against SF and I know MK had a habit of declaring on CCC through it's MQ faction. I figure we had somewhere in the neighborhood of 6-8 months against them and CCC probably had a good chuck of time across form them as well. As for SF, I don't recall any of the specifics of either of the two wars against SF, but I would there's gotta be an alliance or two that fought them during both of those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 By looking at the DoWs, I think I can see where you are coming from. There'e more to it than DoWs though. You are correct that we only DoW'd GOONS during DH-NPO, but the rest of DH countered so we did fight MK during DH-NPO as well. That and Karma together make for a pretty good stretch of time. To my knowledge, NPO and MK didn't fight at all during Karma. As for other alliances who may have fought MK longer than TPF, I would guess there's maybe some alliances in the old SF sphere that fought them in both wars against SF and I know MK had a habit of declaring on CCC through it's MQ faction. I figure we had somewhere in the neighborhood of 6-8 months against them and CCC probably had a good chuck of time across form them as well. As for SF, I don't recall any of the specifics of either of the two wars against SF, but I would there's gotta be an alliance or two that fought them during both of those. So then why this fascination? I truly do not understand the necessity of this current war and only see the foolishness in allowing your nations to be blown up and warchest spent on nations that would have left already or most likely left y'all alone. The upcoming war is not that far off (I hope) and this foolishness, while amusing, is just that, foolishness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubaQuerida Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 So then why this fascination? I truly do not understand the necessity of this current war and only see the foolishness in allowing your nations to be blown up and warchest spent on nations that would have left already or most likely left y'all alone. The upcoming war is not that far off (I hope) and this foolishness, while amusing, is just that, foolishness. Let the man have some GD fun doch. Next you'll be telling people to get off your lawn. Fools gonna fool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 Let the man have some GD fun doch. Next you'll be telling people to get off your lawn. Fools gonna fool. I already say that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freelancer Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 VE, the trigger of Karma, kept Ephriam Grey as a pet for a year and awarded him the Viridian Cross and protected him after the disbandment of his AA; he was a prolific PZIer who got off PZIing prominent oppositional figures hahaha... The reason I'm laughing. I recall the VE hanging him out to dry via the OWF, once they realized he was a lying piece of shit, . I'd have to find that but that thing was at least 50 pages deep of pure hatred LOL. If memory serves I think he came clean in an IRC chat room and smooth sent him to his grave, VE Historian's help me. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikolay Posted November 3, 2013 Report Share Posted November 3, 2013 hahaha... The reason I'm laughing. I recall the VE hanging him out to dry via the OWF, once they realized he was a lying piece of shit, . I'd have to find that but that thing was at least 50 pages deep of pure hatred LOL. If memory serves I think he came clean in an IRC chat room and smooth sent him to his grave, VE Historian's help me. ? Yeah that was hilarious. Also "I only suck up to people who I know I can get somewhere with by sucking up to." because lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted November 4, 2013 Report Share Posted November 4, 2013 People making threats they can't back isn't anything new. Not much worse than "stop or I'll destroy you". You can reduce their stats, but you can't actually destroy their nation. Also the only way perma-ZI worked in the past was other alliances considering it the norm to recognize "Perma-ZI' lists as no recruit lists, without that someone can't be Perma-ZI. If someone is actually being Perma-ZI in practice it would be a case worth looking at, but someone making extreme threats is every day stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldr Posted November 4, 2013 Report Share Posted November 4, 2013 In this case, the "threat" was "If you keep attacking us, we will keep you at ZI". The implication is that the only reason the guy is being attacked is because he's attacking them. I can hardly blame them for fighting back, and if he wants it to end, he can quit attacking them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 Honestly, I only have one person who I have on my personal Perma ZI list, and you aren't that person. I wonder who that coulddddd beeeeee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 I wonder who that coulddddd beeeeee Hime Themis, but good to think that you thought I was referring to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hime Themis Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 Aww Franz And here I thought we would be BFFs ;( I find the concept of perma ZI repulsive unless the actions over multiple reincarnations have proven someone incapable of playing nice with others. Respectfully Dame Hime Themis 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.