Jump to content

UOKMB vs TTE war


 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Some pretty disgraceful abuse of sanction powers shown by senator Big Z today.

You should hang your head in shame.

 

You're hilarious. First you spy on an alliance that never aggrieved you, then you feel offended when you're treated like the collection of rogues that you actually are? LOL funny dude. Funny, funny little man. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh look, the R word again. Yawn.

We spied, no denying that. Spying would have been the end of it. We gathered intelligence. Hardly crime of the century.

Then TTE declared on us. They have called in help from another alliance because they are unable to keep 3 nations in anarchy. Now they have cried and called in sanctions because they are losing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please point out to me where I declared any war on your collection of rogues...
 
I posted no DoW, because I do not recognise you as a legitimate alliance, nor is this a "war". You are rogues doing what rogues do.
 
I ignored you while you spent a couple weeks spying info for every member of my alliance within your range.  We confirmed that you had information on all our nations that you could reach... but contrary to your statements that info was all you wanted, that was actually not enough for you. You continued repeat spying and then escalated your spy attacks.  It was only after you began more damaging spy attacks that we decided to deal with you.
 
You are cowards.  You came at us after we had already been at war for nearly 2 months dealing with Mushqaeda.... so yes, we did get assistance from some allies to keep you in anarchy. That's what friends are for, you moron. 
 
And while I did not request your being sanctioned, that is indeed a legitimate action to deal with a rogue.
 
Denying that you are a rogue doesn't make your denial the truth.  By stating that you are acting on behalf of another party makes you a rogue. By acting against any alliance that has done nothing to you makes you a rogue. And most tellingly, by stating that your nations are disposable and that you want to cause as much damage as possible with no interest to save anything of your nations most certainly makes you absolutely rogues.
 
You claim to have done us significant amounts of damage, but we have lost more to both DBDC and to usual inactivity deletions than to you lot.  
 
Because of your claims to have replacement nations, and that you can keep causing damage regardless of the damage you take, we have had to use very non-standard tactics and out-of-the-box strategy to deal with you.  It you want to mistake this as inability to fight, you go ahead and think that... but a standard ZI strategy does not work under these circumstances.
 
As for your "clients", if they even exist, you have been significantly used.  Whether there was ever any truth to the claim that you would get to take over other nations or not, is now moot.  Obviously the powers that be are aware of your plan and are watching.  The only reason you have not ceased to exist already it that until you actually take control of these other nations, no rules have yet been broken...except that your intent alone violates the spirit of the rule by affecting your current actions by giving you freedom to act without any concern of consequences or loss.
 
We did not seek you out. You came to our door. You spied our nations. And when we communicated that you cease your spying, you displayed your usual arrogance. I suspect that when you insisted on forcing a confrontation, you did not expect it to drag on indefinitely.  We are not going anywhere, and we certainly won't be caving in to rogues.
 
I have received word that you have been shopping around trying to find an end to this... 
 
I have already given you my terms to end this. There will be no further negotiation.  The terms were fair, especially at the time they were first given to you on 10 November... but 40 days later, math is not on your side.

[spoiler]8LnSC6J.jpg[/spoiler]

 

 

You are correct, The ball is in our court... and yet this entire thread has been nothing but you calling foul.

 

Say what you want, but it wasn't us that came crying to OWF.

 

I wonder how long those other nations will be kept waiting for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that TTE is in the right and *shouldn't* bow to these rogues, but this could have been made a memory long ago. Was the principle of the situation worth your alliance's longevity? We've all had to eat an unpleasant dish served up by enemies and considering the state of Bob, it might have been more prudent to just move on instead of playing right into their hand; once in a while, one must simply take a bite of that $#!+ sandwich and keep truckin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh look, the R word again. Yawn.

We spied, no denying that. Spying would have been the end of it. We gathered intelligence. Hardly crime of the century.

Then TTE declared on us. They have called in help from another alliance because they are unable to keep 3 nations in anarchy. Now they have cried and called in sanctions because they are losing.

Why do I get the feeling that it isn't the end of it?  

3b22d4b3-fd63-4e9c-9386-dade2bd1b464.png

 

Also I'm sure everyone here would still like to know who your client is.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that TTE is in the right and *shouldn't* bow to these rogues, but this could have been made a memory long ago. Was the principle of the situation worth your alliance's longevity? We've all had to eat an unpleasant dish served up by enemies and considering the state of Bob, it might have been more prudent to just move on instead of playing right into their hand; once in a while, one must simply take a bite of that $#!+ sandwich and keep truckin'.


While it might have been more prudent to do as you say I must respectfully say that you are wrong. TTE may not be the biggest alliance around but we sure as hell will not let rogues or alliances intimidate us. We have pride and determination in our ranks. Wether this raid by rogues brings our nation count down or not is irrelevant as we will bring it back up just as we did before our intervention on TDO's behalf. I believe we have proven ourselves to be an alliance worth respecting for sticking up for the downtrodden of Bob.

Aside from that we really don't care what the Big shot alliances do with Bob. We just want to grow and prosper, should an alliance find that to be a worthwhile character they are free to open up dialogue between us and if interested, join Arizona to share in the prosperity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to see Yuurei speak out. It's good to talk.

 

There's lots of rogue words and raid words being bandied about. I'll remind y'all that we don't consider ourselves as rogues and that we didn't start the shooting. We raided nobody. But, semantics really. We are where we are.

 

It's good not to be pushed around and it's good to have a bit of pride about yourself. I'll point out that allowing that pride to commit yourself to one course of action may not be the sharpest chisel in the toolbox. Being a bit agile and lateral-thinking can be handy.

 

It was always a bit cheeky of us to demand TTE's surrender, and to be honest I'd have been astounded if they had. But clearly, they are struggling to get a grip on us and come up with a war-winning formula. Can't say I envy them that task.

 

Whaddaya say Yuurei, want to call it a draw?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are both shitty alliances. Call it a draw and leave owf posting for the alliances that are fighting real wars. Not that yuurei knows what that is haha.

Side note: piss off with all this rouge crap! UOKMB, however shitty of an alliance they may be, have conducted themselves as a real alliance. They had a mission, they acted, and they stood there knowing what they did and took the bullets for it. They have offered peace, again in a shit way that can only be explained by the fact that they are a shit alliance but hey, that's hardly being rouge.

You people see someone who doesn't conform to your ways and instantly cry rouge. In reality you are just a bunch of sheep. An ally is someone who is there for you, someone who will help when your in need. An alliance is a grouping of these types. Now last time I took math class (which forgive me, was a few years ago now) 3 is more then one.Therefore UOKMB is indeed an alliance. As I stated above they are acting in accordance to a plan, they commuted a crime against TTE, they went to war because of it, and now they seek peace, hardly rouge.

Also a personal message to Gatorback05 if he's still reading this thread, CANUCKS WON! EAT IT!!!

TK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are both !@#$%* alliances. Call it a draw and leave owf posting for the alliances that are fighting real wars. Not that yuurei knows what that is haha.

Side note: piss off with all this rouge crap! UOKMB, however !@#$%* of an alliance they may be, have conducted themselves as a real alliance. They had a mission, they acted, and they stood there knowing what they did and took the bullets for it. They have offered peace, again in a !@#$ way that can only be explained by the fact that they are a !@#$ alliance but hey, that's hardly being rouge.

You people see someone who doesn't conform to your ways and instantly cry rouge. In reality you are just a bunch of sheep. An ally is someone who is there for you, someone who will help when your in need. An alliance is a grouping of these types. Now last time I took math class (which forgive me, was a few years ago now) 3 is more then one.Therefore UOKMB is indeed an alliance. As I stated above they are acting in accordance to a plan, they commuted a crime against TTE, they went to war because of it, and now they seek peace, hardly rouge.

Also a personal message to Gatorback05 if he's still reading this thread, CANUCKS WON! EAT IT!!!

TK

A rogue can be defined as:

 

rogue  (romacr.gifg)

n.
1. An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal.
2. One who is playfully mischievous; a scamp.
3. wandering beggar; a vagrant.
4. A vicious and solitary animal, especially an elephant that has separated itself from its herd.
5. An organism, especially a plant, that shows an undesirable variation from a standard.
 
 
 
I suppose you are correct on #'s 3, 4 and 5 (and possibly also #2?) not being appropriate terms to label them as.  
 
[OOC]I'm also aware that they aren't a comic book superhero either.  :p [/OOC]
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...