Rayvon Posted October 21, 2013 Report Share Posted October 21, 2013 I thought Planet Bob collectively put Tom Riddle on a communal EZI list... All diseases should be purged. This thread is about players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jalap Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 Timberland, don't try to play victim here. You went rogue and got standard rogue treatment. You couldn't shake our roguebusters and thanks to a friend of yours we had peace negotiations. You blew up the peace negotiations and now standard rogue treatment continues. The only way out is you negotiate peace and surrender. As long as you're a rogue, you will be under attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 You engage in the same practice when people you tech raid defend themselves. To the best of my knowledge, we haven't threatened anyone with ZI until deletion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) To the best of my knowledge, we haven't threatened anyone with ZI until deletion... Not explicitly but you guys (well, FARK but the rest of your "coalition" is too chickenshit to tell them to stop being ridiculous) want the Jihadist to pay reps to get peace. We both know that's not going to happen. PS: before anyone gets into it, I really don't care what the anti-MK coalition does, nor am I seeking peace. As some of our opponents admitted, you're just getting your last hits on Shrooms because you were not brave enough to do it when we were an alliance. It's all fine and dandy, just be open about it and stop sugarcoating whatever you're doing with the "we're protecting stability" and "we're defending the neutrals" bullshit. Edited October 23, 2013 by potato Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helbrecht Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Fark wants reps? From people that went rogue on them? Or on their friends? oh the horror of it! Oh the humanity!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Humphrey Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Not explicitly but you guys (well, FARK but the rest of your "coalition" is too chickenshit to tell them to stop being ridiculous) want the Jihadist to pay reps to get peace. We both know that's not going to happen. PS: before anyone gets into it, I really don't care what the anti-MK coalition does, nor am I seeking peace. As some of our opponents admitted, you're just getting your last hits on Shrooms because you were not brave enough to do it when we were an alliance. It's all fine and dandy, just be open about it and stop sugarcoating whatever you're doing with the "we're protecting stability" and "we're defending the neutrals" bullshit. Nice try. NATO had a number of reasons for engaging which I have been happy to share with anyone who has asked. But we didn't need a reason, because any unaligned group of rogues attacking a legitimate alliance is a sufficient target in its own right (as I would expect NATO nations to be if we ever pulled a stunt like that). The fact that you seem surprised to be targeted and deserving of a special exemption is telling as to your state of mind. Plus, many of us did fight MK while it was an alliance :) This whole self-serving faux moral outrage regarding "PZI" is totally removed from its historical context. It reflects that rogues such as MQ or Timberland (with a $1b warchest below 5k NS) simply want to get free shots on some weak targets, cause as much damage as possible, and walk away with a round or so of war without any material damage on their warchests or tech levels. The only way to make any meaningful impact relative to losses taken is to keep rogues at war for longer once they have run out of nukes, but that is merely a pragmatic consideration and, in the absence of any attempt by individual rogues to negotiate, hardly represents victimisation of the rogues under some vague (non-explicit) threat of PZI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) So, keeping individual nations at war for ridiculously extended periods of time is for promoting global security by punishing troublemakers (read anyone who isn't "in" with the powers-that-be)? Yeah, I haven't heard that one before. Edited October 23, 2013 by Rebel Virginia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) Fark wants reps? From people that went rogue on them? Or on their friends? oh the horror of it! Oh the humanity!!!! I may be wrong but I don't recall MQ nations hitting FARK first. Nor their friends. Unless you want to go the silly route of "omg fark and tdo are soooooooo buttbuddies!1!!", which no one in their right mind would believe anyway. Nice try. NATO had a number of reasons for engaging which I have been happy to share with anyone who has asked. But we didn't need a reason, because any unaligned group of rogues attacking a legitimate alliance is a sufficient target in its own right (as I would expect NATO nations to be if we ever pulled a stunt like that). The fact that you seem surprised to be targeted and deserving of a special exemption is telling as to your state of mind. Plus, many of us did fight MK while it was an alliance :) This whole self-serving faux moral outrage regarding "PZI" is totally removed from its historical context. It reflects that rogues such as MQ or Timberland (with a $1b warchest below 5k NS) simply want to get free shots on some weak targets, cause as much damage as possible, and walk away with a round or so of war without any material damage on their warchests or tech levels. The only way to make any meaningful impact relative to losses taken is to keep rogues at war for longer once they have run out of nukes, but that is merely a pragmatic consideration and, in the absence of any attempt by individual rogues to negotiate, hardly represents victimisation of the rogues under some vague (non-explicit) threat of PZI. Perhaps you have some sort of selective reading deficiency. Or perhaps you're putting words in my mouth. Either way, I did state (and let me quote for you so you don't miss it this time) "before anyone gets into it, I really don't care what the anti-MK coalition does, nor am I seeking peace". I know why you did what you did. Everyone can see right through you. Everyone knows why you did it. It's fine by me, as I said "I really don't care what the anti-MK coalition does, nor am I seeking peace". Just cut the bullshit. They're also have been quite a few nations trying to get peace individually. But this might be above your pay grade. Edited October 23, 2013 by potato Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheeKy Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 The only alliance which is allowed to ask for reps is TDO. If you decide to raid a rogue and then get nuked then it is your own fault that you take damage, unless we suddenly decided to change the "rules" where raiders are allowed to demand reps from their raid targets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 The only alliance which is allowed to ask for reps is TDO. If you decide to raid a rogue and then get nuked then it is your own fault that you take damage, unless we suddenly decided to change the "rules" where raiders are allowed to demand reps from their raid targets. This is correct. If TDO had requested reparations they would be justified. MQ inconvenienced them, and they are the only party that had no say in the matter. Each and everyone of the rest of you chose to enter. You wanted to take some parting shots at MK -something you had been unable to do before because of your perpetually being outclassed in the field of intelligence (and no, I'm not talking about information gathering). Everything you have done so far has not been out of some noble spirit within you but out of your own pettiness and spitefulness. You are a lot of losers and never-beens. Your "peaks" were due only to riding the coattails of NPO or someone else, and you know it too. So you now try to get some blood money from former MK members to prove something to yourselves. We all see right through you. Well, I'm not going to have any of it. I assure you, evildoers, that the nation of Rebel Virginia will be battle-ready in several months. You will answer for your hypocrisy then. Do not delude yourselves into thinking you will emerge unscathed, for in the long run all my enemies are vanquished. Though it be redundant, I shall remind you anyway: I am very important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) The only alliance which is allowed to ask for reps is TDO. If you decide to raid a rogue and then get nuked then it is your own fault that you take damage, unless we suddenly decided to change the "rules" where raiders are allowed to demand reps from their raid targets. This is correct. If TDO had requested reparations they would be justified. MQ inconvenienced them, and they are the only party that had no say in the matter. Each and everyone of the rest of you chose to enter. You wanted to take some parting shots at MK -something you had been unable to do before because of your perpetually being outclassed in the field of intelligence (and no, I'm not talking about information gathering). Everything you have done so far has not been out of some noble spirit within you but out of your own pettiness and spitefulness. You are a lot of losers and never-beens. Your "peaks" were due only to riding the coattails of NPO or someone else, and you know it too. So you now try to get some blood money from former MK members to prove something to yourselves. We all see right through you. Well, I'm not going to have any of it. I assure you, evildoers, that the nation of Rebel Virginia will be battle-ready in several months. You will answer for your hypocrisy then. Do not delude yourselves into thinking you will emerge unscathed, for in the long run all my enemies are vanquished. Though it be redundant, I shall remind you anyway: I am very important. If we're all calling it the raiding of rogues, raid targets who fight back are generally treated badly. Even worst if they're rogues, even worst still if they were from MK. Mercy boards and the use of reparations seems like a solution to the problem because you can say they don't have to pay reparations. Not too many nations in TDO actually deserve reparations, a lot seemed to have surrendered the fight before it began. Edited October 23, 2013 by Commander shepard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scytale Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Well… Timberland began his rogue activity by attacking the MHA. At one point, there was a message from Timberland that pretty much said that he would rogue the MHA until he ran out of money and delete. But, that information will undoubtably be lost in this land of trolls. (I know, I know, don't feed the trolls but I just couldn't resist. They looked hungry and sad) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farnsworth Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Well… Timberland began his rogue activity by attacking the MHA. At one point, there was a message from Timberland that pretty much said that he would rogue the MHA until he ran out of money and delete. Given this, MHA seems more than justified in keeping him at war until he surrenders and even pays reps if that's what they want. That said, I cannot speak to the larger discussion going on here, as my lack of involvement and lack of will to look into the matter has left me ignorant of the facts. Besides, absolutely nobody here was interested in my opinion anyway. Lulz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jalap Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 The only alliance which is allowed to ask for reps is TDO. If you decide to raid a rogue and then get nuked then it is your own fault that you take damage, unless we suddenly decided to change the "rules" where raiders are allowed to demand reps from their raid targets. That discussion is misleading in this thread. Although I'm happy to read you approve of alliances under unprovoked attack demanding reps in exchange for peace. The OP was made by is a single rogue, not connected to any MQ-stuff. He declared (unprovoked, as far as I know)) on MHA, NATO, Solis and ToR nations. All 4 alliances have the right to demand reps from Timberland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 This went from a bunch of nobodies threatening to PZI Timberland to a discussion on post-hegemonic Karma to a discussion on MQ's rogue band of warriors to revelations about MHA. PZI is a fantastic practice. It fell out of use because too many people actually bought the anti-NPO propaganda and it was part of it. So now viceroys, PZI and so on are frowned upon to the point where they're more damaging than useful for any alliance who use it. Shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Link Gaetz Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 I may be wrong but I don't recall MQ nations hitting FARK first. Nor their friends. Unless you want to go the silly route of "omg fark and tdo are soooooooo buttbuddies!1!!", which no one in their right mind would believe anyway. Perhaps you have some sort of selective reading deficiency. Or perhaps you're putting words in my mouth. Either way, I did state (and let me quote for you so you don't miss it this time) "before anyone gets into it, I really don't care what the anti-MK coalition does, nor am I seeking peace". I know why you did what you did. Everyone can see right through you. Everyone knows why you did it. It's fine by me, as I said "I really don't care what the anti-MK coalition does, nor am I seeking peace". Just cut the bullshit. They're also have been quite a few nations trying to get peace individually. But this might be above your pay grade. Keep telling us more and more emphatically that you don't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) If I had any hopes that you morons would understand things at the first attempt, I wouldn't have to repeat things. Edited October 23, 2013 by potato Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) Well RV is right. This anti MK coalition is not for the greater good. It may have sound tactical reasoning behind it, but that reasoning is not "global stability". Anyone who claims this is being done for "global stability" needs to get their head examined and stop drinking the kool aid. TDO is the only entity here who can request reps. They were attacked. The rest of the people attacking MK did so of their own free will, and all the damage they take is their own fault and responsibility. Nobody deserves reps or should be able to deliver sentences of PZI other than TDO. Edited October 23, 2013 by Caliph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 The thing about talking about "rights" is that all of the terrible alliances who cry about any/everything and throw a fit are all of the ones who hate MK/Q and want to violate their, erm, "rights". That, alongside nobody wanting to actually spend political capital on a group of rogues means that whether or not reps will be paid is more or less up to whether or not MQ can do enough damage over a long enough time to force the hands of their aggressors. Of course, like potato said, is anybody actually trying to get out of the "war" in the first place? I know his dolphin pictures are awesome but don't let them distract you from the actual content. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 The only alliance which is allowed to ask for reps is TDO. If you decide to raid a rogue and then get nuked then it is your own fault that you take damage, unless we suddenly decided to change the "rules" where raiders are allowed to demand reps from their raid targets. TDO is the only alliance who would get any reps. I know I've relayed those terms to a couple of rulers and perhaps others have as well, but those aren't TPF's or any other alliances expect TDO terms, TDO is the only alliance with any claim to reps. The thing about talking about "rights" is that all of the terrible alliances who cry about any/everything and throw a fit are all of the ones who hate MK/Q and want to violate their, erm, "rights". That, alongside nobody wanting to actually spend political capital on a group of rogues means that whether or not reps will be paid is more or less up to whether or not MQ can do enough damage over a long enough time to force the hands of their aggressors. Of course, like potato said, is anybody actually trying to get out of the "war" in the first place? I know his dolphin pictures are awesome but don't let them distract you from the actual content. A few have asked and so far none have agreed to terms put forth by TDO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheeKy Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) TDO is the only alliance who would get any reps. I know I've relayed those terms to a couple of rulers and perhaps others have as well, but those aren't TPF's or any other alliances expect TDO terms, TDO is the only alliance with any claim to reps. A few have asked and so far none have agreed to terms put forth by TDO. Then shut the fuck up talking for TDO, they are more than capable to negotiate themselfs. You literally have nothing to do with TDO AT ALL. Edited October 23, 2013 by CheeKy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Then shut the fuck up talking for TDO, they are more than capable to negotiate themselfs. You literally have nothing to do with TDO AT ALL. This. Put these MQ nations in direct contact with TDO, this coalition should have nothing to do with negotiating for peace other than peacing out when TDO says the situation is resolved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farnsworth Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 When people say no alliances have a "claim" or "right" to request/require reps, are they basing this off of convention or what? It seems to me that the victors in any fight are able to make demands of their choosing, assuming they are in a position to enforce/collect their demands. Disclaimer: I'm not saying making such demands would be OK or advisable. For the record, I'd oppose reps in nearly all scenarios. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Nice try. NATO had a number of reasons for engaging which I have been happy to share with anyone who has asked. But we didn't need a reason, because any unaligned group of rogues attacking a legitimate alliance is a sufficient target in its own right (as I would expect NATO nations to be if we ever pulled a stunt like that). The fact that you seem surprised to be targeted and deserving of a special exemption is telling as to your state of mind. Plus, many of us did fight MK while it was an alliance :)This whole self-serving faux moral outrage regarding "PZI" is totally removed from its historical context. It reflects that rogues such as MQ or Timberland (with a $1b warchest below 5k NS) simply want to get free shots on some weak targets, cause as much damage as possible, and walk away with a round or so of war without any material damage on their warchests or tech levels. The only way to make any meaningful impact relative to losses taken is to keep rogues at war for longer once they have run out of nukes, but that is merely a pragmatic consideration and, in the absence of any attempt by individual rogues to negotiate, hardly represents victimisation of the rogues under some vague (non-explicit) threat of PZI.You hold nations at war indefinitely because they defended themselves when you tech raided them. You violate the sovereignty of other alliances that these nations join when you continue declaring wars on them after the fact of them being on the AA, citing that you are "at war" with them because they nuked you back when you raided them. These nations are not required to sue for peace from you once they have joined a legitimate alliance but you continue to pursue and hold these nations in the exact same manner nations on a ZI list would be held. Only you give no indication of giving them peace until another alliance decides to take a stand against the illegal wars against their members and applicants.The only alliance that has any right to pursue these nations and hold them to any conditions required for peace is The Democratic Order since they are the victim of these rogue attacks, not NATO. Not TPF. Not Fark or anybody else including the GOP's own mass raids against MQ. The arguments I've heard in private from NATO and TPF government are flawed and incredibly stupid. There is no legal or otherwise legitimate standing for these alliances to hold these nations on a PZI list like they are. Which is precisely what is happening when these alliances refuse to end their attacks on these nations after they have joined legitimate alliances and have already received peace from TDO, the only plaintiff with a solid case, and then threatening war against the alliance they attacked illegally to begin with. And let's face it, if nobody assisted these nations in getting peace, NATO would and has clearly indicated they would keep them at war until deletion. Which is PZI in the literal definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 NATO has no intention of keeping anyone at war until deletion, but we aren't about to let anyone dictate to us when our wars end. 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.