Perma ZI allowed back in CN ?

[berbers]

 
Heh, all I am getting from this war is that NATO/TPF/Fark/R&R/CCC/TTE and whomever else did not have the balls in eQ to hit MK and get some satisfaction then. Now that they disbanded and moved to an unprotected AA, y'all feel like you can finally get some satisfaction but even then are so damn incompetent, you fuck that up. 
 
 
edit: added CCC/TTE

What the hell, two wars ago NATO oA'd to hit MK, how the hell did we lack the balls to fight them O.o

You guys are firing such wide bursts you're hitting everything even when it's not applicable.

Edit: you are right about last war though, the coalition assigned us MK but we chickened out and hit Umbrella instead :( Edited October 24, 2013 by berbers

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

The highlight of this thread are the MK/GOONies complaining about reps that haven't even been asked for when they were the rep taking kings of CN for years. Didn't GOONS used to constantly brag about getting reps in every situation possible? Didn't MK once demand millions over a trade circle? Weren't GOONS the most excited when a raid target fought back so they could 3v1 that nation until they faced the mercy board, keeping them at war for as long as it took to do whatever idiotic thing to GOONIE satisfaction? Hilarious posting by the lot of you. 

"Millions".

 

Yes, that was mostly my work, when I was in MK, as a low government official (Baron of Trade/Tech, whatever).

 

Since it often gets repeated as an heinous crime MK committed, here's the full story:
I had been organizing trade circles on the behalf of MK members. One circle in particular lacked a rare trade (before resources swapping) so I started messaging nations with those resources and offering them a few millions dollars if they accepted to join said trade circle. One of them did. He was a member of NSO. He accepted the money, sent me a message saying he also accepted the conditions (one of them was that he would be bound to the TC for at least sixty days, seemed fair on both sides).

Fast forward fifteen or so days, he cancels the trade. We send him a few messages, no answer. I contact NSO's leadership, ask them about this fellow and his current status since he was still on the NSO AA. They tell me he has left the alliance and is essentially a ghost and that we are good to attack him (OOC: guy has like 100 NS so meh). Normally, it would have stopped there but we found out a few days later that he was still masked as a member on NSO's boards.

 

So we went to NSO and asked what was up and why they had lied to us about it, since the guy was clearly still masked and active on their boards. They told us that it was an oversight and not their responsibility. At that point, we saw it different. We figured that since the guy had accepted the money as a member of NSO and since he still showed apparent signs of being a NSO member (being masked on their forums, being on their AA), we would hold NSO responsible for that. We got into a discussion with RV, who was into their govt at that time. We had given a few millions to the nation in question and figured they were only abandoning him because he probably didn't care about his own nation (OOC: being 100 NS, easy to rebuild, nothing to lose, except our own money). We thought we would start it by asking them to repay a little bit more than what we had given to their nation.

 

Normally, it would have led to a bit of back and forth and they probably would have accepted to repay the six millions we had paid in the first place. Instead, RV decided to play the "anti-MK" card publicly and went on a campaign of "see, they are trying to extort 15m-250tech from us for a single cancelled trade!". Add incomplete logs and half the story and most people ran home thinking we had asked for reps just because someone cancelled a trade. It was a good move by RV, though, as we simply abandoned the affair entirely, given public backlash. Amusingly, RV was to join MK shortly after.

[Timberland]

To the people who think I care about my nation you're sadly mistaken, i've said my goodbyes already. I made an alliance leader rage quit, i'm proud of myself.

[the rebel]

To the people who think I care about my nation you're sadly mistaken, i've said my goodbyes already. I made an alliance leader rage quit, i'm proud of myself.

 

So thread was pointless...Congrats.

[Timberland]

So thread was pointless...Congrats.

 

You're welcome, but it was obviously important enough to you for you to post in it

Edited October 25, 2013 by Timberland

[the rebel]

You're welcome, but it wasn't that pointless because you had to post in it

 

Yep a week later when the original poster turns out he was just attention whoring.

[Timberland]

Yep a week later when the original poster turns out he was just attention whoring.

hell yeah I am, schattenman can't be the only attention whore around here

[Farnsworth]

The only thing I am getting out of this thread is that House Baratheon is such a piece of shit alliance that we should have attacked them instead. 

Hey, hey, hey... Lets simmer down a bit. There's only one HB member posting here, I think, and we all know that nearly all AAs with even a smidgen of OWF presence have the occasional member that says this or that to offend so and so... and often they're not words/thoughts/sentiments/feelings/beliefs that the entire AA or its government are willing to make, endorse, support, and/or get fully behind.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Farnsworth

[The Zigur]

"Millions".

 

Yes, that was mostly my work, when I was in MK, as a low government official (Baron of Trade/Tech, whatever).

 

Since it often gets repeated as an heinous crime MK committed, here's the full story:
I had been organizing trade circles on the behalf of MK members. One circle in particular lacked a rare trade (before resources swapping) so I started messaging nations with those resources and offering them a few millions dollars if they accepted to join said trade circle. One of them did. He was a member of NSO. He accepted the money, sent me a message saying he also accepted the conditions (one of them was that he would be bound to the TC for at least sixty days, seemed fair on both sides).

Fast forward fifteen or so days, he cancels the trade. We send him a few messages, no answer. I contact NSO's leadership, ask them about this fellow and his current status since he was still on the NSO AA. They tell me he has left the alliance and is essentially a ghost and that we are good to attack him (OOC: guy has like 100 NS so meh). Normally, it would have stopped there but we found out a few days later that he was still masked as a member on NSO's boards.

 

So we went to NSO and asked what was up and why they had lied to us about it, since the guy was clearly still masked and active on their boards. They told us that it was an oversight and not their responsibility. At that point, we saw it different. We figured that since the guy had accepted the money as a member of NSO and since he still showed apparent signs of being a NSO member (being masked on their forums, being on their AA), we would hold NSO responsible for that. We got into a discussion with RV, who was into their govt at that time. We had given a few millions to the nation in question and figured they were only abandoning him because he probably didn't care about his own nation (OOC: being 100 NS, easy to rebuild, nothing to lose, except our own money). We thought we would start it by asking them to repay a little bit more than what we had given to their nation.

 

Normally, it would have led to a bit of back and forth and they probably would have accepted to repay the six millions we had paid in the first place. Instead, RV decided to play the "anti-MK" card publicly and went on a campaign of "see, they are trying to extort 15m-250tech from us for a single cancelled trade!". Add incomplete logs and half the story and most people ran home thinking we had asked for reps just because someone cancelled a trade. It was a good move by RV, though, as we simply abandoned the affair entirely, given public backlash. Amusingly, RV was to join MK shortly after.

 

 

I actually believe MK may have been right in this instance.

 

Facilitating the breaking of an agreement could be considered a threat to global stability.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Tywin Lannister

[Dochartaigh]

I'm sorry, but what?  How are alliances doing anything on MK's level right now?

 

Hitting random nations disguised as raiding, helping TDO, or whatever the fuck all excuse they are using but not giving peace as has been convention of CN for a while now. Apparently, some get peace but some don't as is apparent by 3 nations who are attempting to join TOP. 

 

I mean, if I were TOP, I would be kind of pissed at y'all for continuing to hit nations on the TOP AA (even if pending) as it is pretty blatant they are trying to join TOP. Most alliances give peace when a raid victim joins another alliance. 

 

What the hell, two wars ago NATO oA'd to hit MK, how the hell did we lack the balls to fight them O.o

You guys are firing such wide bursts you're hitting everything even when it's not applicable.

Edit: you are right about last war though, the coalition assigned us MK but we chickened out and hit Umbrella instead :(

 

Yeah, along with NPO, IRON, and TIO. So don't act as if no one else was fighting Umb. TIO hit MK even when we weren't supposed to (thanks Charles :D ). I have not yet gotten any straight story as to why NATO is even bothering with MQ and why they refuse to peace out with some members who have decided to move on. Most rogues are usually treated better if they decide to quit. 

 

I mean TDO has essentially peaced out with MQ about a week ago since no new wars have been declared between the two. For that matter can't find any wars with MQ. 

[Sir Humphrey]

Hitting random nations disguised as raiding, helping TDO, or whatever the fuck all excuse they are using but not giving peace as has been convention of CN for a while now. Apparently, some get peace but some don't as is apparent by 3 nations who are attempting to join TOP.

I mean, if I were TOP, I would be kind of pissed at y'all for continuing to hit nations on the TOP AA (even if pending) as it is pretty blatant they are trying to join TOP. Most alliances give peace when a raid victim joins another alliance.

This is why I loved you when you were in TIO. You never let facts get in the way of a good story :)

NATO engaged a group of rogues with a reputation for switching AAs to escape war, so our scepticism regarding their motives for switching AAs mid-war was warranted. Only one of those nations contacted me to say they were joining another alliance, and NATO has cooperated with every alliance which has approached us in good faith about rogue nations looking to join (see comments by Doom Squad). This includes TOP, and I understood from those discussions that our actions did not conflict with its policy regarding nations under its protection, which we have respected.

Yeah, along with NPO, IRON, and TIO. So don't act as if no one else was fighting Umb. TIO hit MK even when we weren't supposed to (thanks Charles :D ). I have not yet gotten any straight story as to why NATO is even bothering with MQ and why they refuse to peace out with some members who have decided to move on. Most rogues are usually treated better if they decide to quit.

I mean TDO has essentially peaced out with MQ about a week ago since no new wars have been declared between the two. For that matter can't find any wars with MQ.

I see you chose to disregard Berbers' reference to our involvement in the Dave War, which you will recall MK started under the pretext of a legitimate target switching AA mid-war, ironically enough.

And you probably never got a straight story because you were never interested in one, and never asked before making up your mind. This is evidenced by the predisposition in the opening sentence of the first quote above, followed this subsequent admission that you really have no idea. Edited October 25, 2013 by Sir Humphrey

[Vol Navy]

We've fought MK most likely more than any other alliance in CN. But as much as I wanted to fight them in EQ we took the easy road and fought those hippies in TOP instead. As to "fucking" that up, MQ was crushed like a bug, we've suffered minor scratches. You cheer lead for them so much, just stick on the MQ AA.

Heh, all I am getting from this war is that NATO/TPF/Fark/R&R/CCC/TTE and whomever else did not have the balls in eQ to hit MK and get some satisfaction then. Now that they disbanded and moved to an unprotected AA, y'all feel like you can finally get some satisfaction but even then are so damn incompetent, you fuck that up. 

 

 

edit: added CCC/TTE

[Neo Uruk]

I actually believe MK may have been right in this instance.
 
Facilitating the breaking of an agreement could be considered a threat to global stability.

I feel as if you're the only person to ever care about "stability"

[Dochartaigh]

This is why I loved you when you were in TIO. You never let facts get in the way of a good story  :)

NATO engaged a group of rogues with a reputation for switching AAs to escape war, so our scepticism regarding their motives for switching AAs mid-war was warranted. Only one of those nations contacted me to say they were joining another alliance, and NATO has cooperated with every alliance which has approached us in good faith about rogue nations looking to join (see comments by Doom Squad). This includes TOP, and I understood from those discussions that our actions did not conflict with its policy regarding nations under its protection, which we have respected.I see you chose to disregard Berbers' reference to our involvement in the Dave War, which you will recall MK started under the pretext of a legitimate target switching AA mid-war, ironically enough.

And you probably never got a straight story because you were never interested in one, and never asked before making up your mind. This is evidenced by the predisposition in the opening sentence of the first quote above, followed this subsequent admission that you really have no idea.

 

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. 

 

We've fought MK most likely more than any other alliance in CN. But as much as I wanted to fight them in EQ we took the easy road and fought those hippies in TOP instead. As to "fucking" that up, MQ was crushed like a bug, we've suffered minor scratches. You cheer lead for them so much, just stick on the MQ AA.

 

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.  

[Commander shepard]

 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. 

 

Well it is an untrue statement as RIA is one alliance MQ were rogues against.

[Sir Humphrey]

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.

Heh, well a rogue is a rogue as far as I am concerned. We never claimed MQ rogued NATO, and I don't know anyone in the past has needed justification to hit an unaligned nation choosing to rogue another alliance, regardless of whether there is a formal treaty chain (which we have never claimed).

I will note that CCC does have a rogue-busting agreement with TDO, and that CCC is NATO's ODP treaty partner. I don't use that to justify NATO's involvement, because I think it misses the point that no justification was needed by virtue of the actions of nations on the MQ AA (i.e. choosing to disassociate with the protection of MK by TOP/TLR, and attacking another alliance). But in that context, support for my treaty partner is a strong motivating factor in itself, whether or not MQ supporters like the reasoning. The feedback I received beforehand suggested the conflict was in the balance even with CCC/TTE engaged (with GOP heavily engaged by DBDC), which our involvement rectified.

Edit:

Well it is an untrue statement as RIA is one alliance MQ were rogues against.

TIO also, actually. But again, I don't use that to justify our involvement, given they appeared to be isolated incidents (albeit consistent with the nature of rogue nations). Edited October 25, 2013 by Sir Humphrey

[potato]

I don't know anyone in the past has needed justification to hit an unaligned nation choosing to rogue another alliance, regardless of whether there is a formal treaty chain (which we have never claimed).

So, Umbrella actually was justified and AI was in the wrong in the Equilibrium Wa? Sweet!
 

[Sir Humphrey]

So, Umbrella actually was justified and AI was in the wrong in the Equilibrium Wa? Sweet!
 

Lol. I am more than happy to cooperate with TDO if it has a problem with slot filling ;) Edited October 25, 2013 by Sir Humphrey

[Dochartaigh]

Well it is an untrue statement as RIA is one alliance MQ were rogues against.

 

That was later on iirc. After other alliances had already gotten involved. So, whose statement is untrue? 

 

Heh, well a rogue is a rogue as far as I am concerned. We never claimed MQ rogued NATO, and I don't know anyone in the past has needed justification to hit an unaligned nation choosing to rogue another alliance, regardless of whether there is a formal treaty chain (which we have never claimed).

I will note that CCC does have a rogue-busting agreement with TDO, and that CCC is NATO's ODP treaty partner. I don't use that to justify NATO's involvement, because I think it misses the point that no justification was needed by virtue of the actions of nations on the MQ AA (i.e. choosing to disassociate with the protection of MK by TOP/TLR, and attacking another alliance). But in that context, support for my treaty partner is a strong motivating factor in itself, whether or not MQ supporters like the reasoning. The feedback I received beforehand suggested the conflict was in the balance even with CCC/TTE engaged (with GOP heavily engaged by DBDC), which our involvement rectified.

Edit:TIO also, actually. But again, I don't use that to justify our involvement, given they appeared to be isolated incidents (albeit consistent with the nature of rogue nations).

 

Gotcha. The actions of MQ. I like that, though it opens up so much. I can foresee sooooo much whining happening in the future, particularly from alliances that hit MQ, if anyone chooses to build on this precedent. I mean as potato said, y'all just nullified the reason AI, NPO, TIO, IRON, and NATO used to hit Umbrella in the eQ war. Good job on that. Don't bitch when a nation rogues y'all later on and others choose to help out. 

 

As for TIO, did not even know about that one. Though from all the wars I looked at, MQ hit TDO solely then CCC/TTE/NATO/others came in. Then MQ hit HoT. Then it just went even more stupid. 

[Commander shepard]

That was later on iirc. After other alliances had already gotten involved. So, whose statement is untrue? 

 

Yours, because it occurred within a day of MQ declaring war on TDO.

 

 

 

Gotcha. The actions of MQ. I like that, though it opens up so much. I can foresee sooooo much whining happening in the future, particularly from alliances that hit MQ, if anyone chooses to build on this precedent. I mean as potato said, y'all just nullified the reason AI, NPO, TIO, IRON, and NATO used to hit Umbrella in the eQ war. Good job on that. Don't !@#$%* when a nation rogues y'all later on and others choose to help out. 

 

They stole war slots from TDO on purpose in order to give MQ a better chance to enter pm to rebuy nukes and pick 3 new targets?

It's a stale argument but in this case TDO is actually benefiting and I'm sure they appreciate not being destroyed more.

If they were actually working with MQ against TDO then maybe this would be a valid point.

[Rebel Virginia]

The highlight of this thread are the MK/GOONies complaining about reps that haven't even been asked for when they were the rep taking kings of CN for years. Didn't GOONS used to constantly brag about getting reps in every situation possible? Didn't MK once demand millions over a trade circle? Weren't GOONS the most excited when a raid target fought back so they could 3v1 that nation until they faced the mercy board, keeping them at war for as long as it took to do whatever idiotic thing to GOONIE satisfaction? Hilarious posting by the lot of you. 

You may not remember, but I was one of the loudest critics of MK's and GOONS' practices of getting reparations in any situation they could - especially in situations were they were the aggressors or not the aggrieved party. Interestingly enough, many today who are attacking MQ and insisting they're owed reps joined me in my protests against MK and GOONS.

 

While you in TPF may not be the aggressors, as you only came to the aid of TDO, you are in now way the aggrieved party. You entered of your own choice. Nothing was asked of you. That you are owed even a dime is an absolutely absurd nothing, as is the idea that you have the right to ask for anything on TDO's behalf (last time I checked they were more than able to speak for themselves). You continue to "justify" your actions by stating that because of MK's past actions they have no right to complain, and that you yourselves are perfectly entitled to act as they did.

 

I will not lecture you on the morality of asking for reparations. That conversation has been had dozens of times. However, I will take your statement here as proof that the actions of TPF are not guided principles other than their own opportunism.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Rebel Virginia

[Neo Uruk]

I would just like to point out that most alliances hitting MQ just fought a war in which the CB was "a rogue's slots are owned by the alliance the rogue has hit"

[berbers]

I would just like to point out that most alliances hitting MQ just fought a war in which the CB was "a rogue's slots are owned by the alliance the rogue has hit"

 

AI politely asked Umbrella to not engage Puppets, which they continued to do after the request.  To the best of my knowledge, TDO has not requested anyone stop attacking their rogues.  Different situation.

[Neo Uruk]

AI politely asked Umbrella to not engage Puppets, which they continued to do after the request.  To the best of my knowledge, TDO has not requested anyone stop attacking their rogues.  Different situation.

Apparently, your coalition is speaking for TDO. How would we ever know?

[Caliph]

AI politely asked Umbrella to not engage Puppets, which they continued to do after the request.  To the best of my knowledge, TDO has not requested anyone stop attacking their rogues.  Different situation.

 

So if TDO were to politely ask the rest of you lot to stop attacking MQ/former MK nations, you would immediately stop attacks?