Jump to content

We have a 2319


Recommended Posts

May I ask when I cry about DBDC? I've expressed my opinion about them, I'll admit not to thrilled about there raids but it is what it is. Now this thread isn't about DBDC it's about MI blundering about DoW on SWF

 

blundering? last I recall we have maintained our stance on the issue 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 299
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

May I ask when I cry about DBDC? I've expressed my opinion about them, I'll admit not to thrilled about there raids but it is what it is. Now this thread isn't about DBDC it's about MI blundering about DoW on SWF


Ok I'll admit I exaggerated for effect. Replace 'crying' with 'complaining' in my previous post; the point stands.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This. the offer BMTH proposed was the best we would have done. Rejecting that with out a counter offer told us they were buying time

no, not this.
SWF has always had a counter offer. even your own buddy BMTH has made it clear, if you will check post #40 of this topic
seems yous guys don't got your facts straight.
And it is your alliance that has had the benefit of forethought in this event, while SWF has had to react to all the mishaps and misunderstandings, I don't know why yalls not trying harder to fix this sitch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, not this.
SWF has always had a counter offer. even your own buddy BMTH has made it clear, if you will check post #40 of this topic
seems yous guys don't got your facts straight.
And it is your alliance that has had the benefit of forethought in this event, while SWF has had to react to all the mishaps and misunderstandings, I don't know why yalls not trying harder to fix this sitch

 

We have our facts straight. The biggest issue with SWF is it's hard to tell fact from fiction with them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a fundamental difference between not accepting reps and refusing to give a counter offer and just declaring on the alliance. SWF could've asked for those 2 members to be ZIed or 100 million in reps or something else crazy and I wouldn't have had an issue. But for them to sit there and not even speak to Monsters and just pull in all their allies on rolling a new micro that's still figuring things out is unacceptable.

Still figuring things out? BMTH has been in this world longer than I have. If he hasn't got his !@#$ together by now, then he shouldn't be here.

SWF is perfectly within their rights to refuse diplomacy when multiple members of a small alliance attack them. Lest we forget, some characters in this alliance had a role in raiding Guinness multiple times after the diplomatic approach was tried, and we see how that ended. Edited by Neo Uruk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We have our facts straight. The biggest issue with SWF is it's hard to tell fact from fiction with them

 

The only fact that matters is that two of your members attacked a 29-nation alliance. That point continues to bounce off your thick skulls.

 

You're in the wrong, but rather than own up to it you're declaring war? Amazing. Simply amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The only fact that matters is that two of your members attacked a 29-nation alliance. That point continues to bounce off your thick skulls.

 

You're in the wrong, but rather than own up to it you're declaring war? Amazing. Simply amazing.

 

and we disagree, hence why we are fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The only fact that matters is that two of your members attacked a 29-nation alliance. That point continues to bounce off your thick skulls.

 

You're in the wrong, but rather than own up to it you're declaring war? Amazing. Simply amazing.

Two members of Monsters Inc hit a 8-nation alliance which happens to have dual-membership with a 21-nation alliance. As a result, unless they attacked both in one go which they didn't, it's just the SWF component, the LSF component are free to act (as per the Die Linke treaty) within 24 hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two members of Monsters Inc hit a 8-nation alliance which happens to have dual-membership with a 21-nation alliance. As a result, unless they attacked both in one go which they didn't, it's just the SWF component, the LSF component are free to act (as per the Die Linke treaty) within 24 hours.

 

Article one, section two. Article three, section one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two members of Monsters Inc hit a 8-nation alliance which happens to have dual-membership with a 21-nation alliance. As a result, unless they attacked both in one go which they didn't, it's just the SWF component, the LSF component are free to act (as per the Die Linke treaty) within 24 hours.

Within 24 hours? There's a time limit on treaty activations now?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two members of Monsters Inc hit a 8-nation alliance which happens to have dual-membership with a 21-nation alliance. As a result, unless they attacked both in one go which they didn't, it's just the SWF component, the LSF component are free to act (as per the Die Linke treaty) within 24 hours.

 

Their agreement makes it clear that they are ONE alliance irrespective of the AA they bear. Your opinion on the matter doesn't count for anything. Theirs, however, does. You can sit there and interpret all you like, but all anyone has to do to know that I'm right and you are completely, utterly, wrong is to possess some very basic reading and comprehension skills.

 

FAKEEDIT: Aaaaaand.....Trotsky beat me to it.

 

 

Within 24 hours? There's a time limit on treaty activations now?

 

Well, if Franz says so. He's interpreting everything else, after all.

Edited by kingzog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We have our facts straight. The biggest issue with SWF is it's hard to tell fact from fiction with them

 

SWF seems to have an entirely separate set of facts on the matter, and the declaration dates ingame back their story up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

SWF seems to have an entirely separate set of facts on the matter, and the declaration dates ingame back their story up. 

 

Which is exactly what it is. "A story". Being that we had the earlier declarations, of course we'd set nukes off first- they can story line it all they want. I feel like BMTH has done an outstanding job bridging with them and it turns into more 'stories' from them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still figuring things out? BMTH has been in this world longer than I have. If he hasn't got his !@#$ together by now, then he shouldn't be here.

SWF is perfectly within their rights to refuse diplomacy when multiple members of a small alliance attack them. Lest we forget, some characters in this alliance had a role in raiding Guinness multiple times after the diplomatic approach was tried, and we see how that ended.

BMTH is new to Monsters inc and isn't even their leader. His job is to convey the leaderships thoughts. Monsters inc as an entity is new and are (trying) to do things differently. That is what they are figuring out/I believe they should be given the opportunity to figure out.

In light of recent diplomatic efforts, however, I'm going to bow out from this topic.

I sincerely hope something as this doesn't escalate. Edited by Unknown Smurf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight.

Monsters Inc hit SWF, SWF defends itself by hitting some MI, and somehow SWF are in the wrong because they didn't come to you to get reps instead.

Actions have consequences.

This is why micro's shouldn't exist.

I spat my drink all over the place

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Article one, section two. Article three, section one. 

 

Article one, section one, besides the Doom War showed that they do have autonomy to make their own decisions which makes Article one, section 2 somewhat shaky, especially as Article four section one in that was broken by UCR during and post-war by leaving.

 

Within 24 hours? There's a time limit on treaty activations now?

 

Article three section one (as Ayatollah points out) state the following:

 

1. As it likely goes without saying, an attack on one signatory of this treaty is to be treated as an attack on all signatories, and additionally, an attack by a signatory should be taken as an attack by all signatories.

 

No challenge here from me, and as a result, section two of this article plays out:

 

2. Any signatory to this treaty has the obligation to inform all other signatories of their intentions to attack another group to the other signatories at least 48 hours before any attack occurs.

 

Socialist Workers Front was hit 24 hours ago, and I sense that the Libertarian Socialist Federation will be getting involved as a result. True, it says "at least" so they will start in 24 hours at the earliest and whoever knows how long at the latest.

 

 

Their agreement makes it clear that they are ONE alliance irrespective of the AA they bear. Your opinion on the matter doesn't count for anything. Theirs, however, does. You can sit there and interpret all you like, but all anyone has to do to know that I'm right and you are completely, utterly, wrong is to possess some very basic reading and comprehension skills.

 

FAKEEDIT: Aaaaaand.....Trotsky beat me to it.

 

 

 

Well, if Franz says so. He's interpreting everything else, after all.

UCR resulted in Die Linke's treaty shaky ground as they did NOT follow protocol and violated Article four section one. Their actions in the Doom War as well as leaving means it can be open to interpretation whether or not Die Linke's "dual membership" is actually binding. To the layman, it is is shaky ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BMTH is new to Monsters inc and isn't even their leader. His job is to convey the leaderships thoughts. Monsters inc as an entity is new and are (trying) to do things differently. That is what they are figuring out/I believe they should be given the opportunity to figure out.

In light of recent diplomatic efforts, however, I'm going to bow out from this topic.

I sincerely hope something as this doesn't escalate.

Sure, they should be given the opportunity to figure out. Take this as a lesson -- try not to step on too many toes while you figure shit out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bringing UCR and comparing their decision with what will LSF and SWF share is wrong Franz. LSF and SWF have been more into loyal-allying than pixel-hugging, both of us know that. Its safe to assume that DL is one alliance right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BMTH is new to Monsters inc and isn't even their leader. His job is to convey the leaderships thoughts. Monsters inc as an entity is new and are (trying) to do things differently. That is what they are figuring out/I believe they should be given the opportunity to figure out.
In light of recent diplomatic efforts, however, I'm going to bow out from this topic.
I sincerely hope something as this doesn't escalate.

before you leave you need to admit you were wrong and spreading lies
or perhaps you simply didn't know the truth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both the Doom War and the situation with UCR were exceptions. The former due to personal issues with certain members and the latter due to the situation being on the eve of another great conflict where we were needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bringing UCR and comparing their decision with what will LSF and SWF share is wrong Franz. LSF and SWF have been more into loyal-allying than pixel-hugging, both of us know that. Its safe to assume that DL is one alliance right now.

I'm using the UCR example to dispute the claim that SWF was a 29-man alliance due to LSF's members who were not flying the SWF banner. They are loyal, and I see the agreement as being similar to The Härmlins. SWF and LSF are loyal, they have a binding MADP (which means entry) but they are NOT a combined alliance in the traditional sense, they are two separate components who signed a quasi-MADP/dual membership deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article one, section one, besides the Doom War showed that they do have autonomy to make their own decisions which makes Article one, section 2 somewhat shaky, especially as Article four section one in that was broken by UCR during and post-war by leaving.
 

 
Article three section one (as Ayatollah points out) state the following:
 
1. As it likely goes without saying, an attack on one signatory of this treaty is to be treated as an attack on all signatories, and additionally, an attack by a signatory should be taken as an attack by all signatories.
 
No challenge here from me, and as a result, section two of this article plays out:
 
2. Any signatory to this treaty has the obligation to inform all other signatories of their intentions to attack another group to the other signatories at least 48 hours before any attack occurs.
 
Socialist Workers Front was hit 24 hours ago, and I sense that the Libertarian Socialist Federation will be getting involved as a result. True, it says "at least" so they will start in 24 hours at the earliest and whoever knows how long at the latest.
 


an attack not a defense...
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I'm using the UCR example to dispute the claim that SWF was a 29-man alliance due to LSF's members who were not flying the SWF banner.

 

The exception tests the rule. Amazing how many people get that saying wrong.

 

 

They are loyal, and I see the agreement as being similar to The Härmlins.

 

 

What you see is irrelevant, since neither LSF nor SWF see it that way.

 

 

SWF and LSF are loyal, they have a binding MADP (which means entry) but they are NOT a combined alliance in the traditional sense,

 

 

Already refuted. If you like, Trotsky and I can continue quoting the same parts of Die Linke over and over again until it sinks in.

 

 

they are two separate components who signed a quasi-MADP/dual membership deal.

 

 

Nope. What they signed was something reasonably unique in the history of the Cyberverse. This may help to explain why you have trouble understanding it, but it doesn't explain why you insist that you are even remotely qualified to interpret it in a way that differs so radically from those who actually signed the treaty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

an attack not a defense...

So would it be possible to state which article / section combo will cover the defence section of the Die Linke agreement?
 
 

kingzog, on 14 Apr 2015 - 06:56 AM, said:
 
The exception tests the rule. Amazing how many people get that saying wrong.
 
 
 
 
What you see is irrelevant, since neither LSF nor SWF see it that way.
 
 
 
 
Already refuted. If you like, Trotsky and I can continue quoting the same parts of Die Linke over and over again until it sinks in.
 
 
 
 
Nope. What they signed was something reasonably unique in the history of the Cyberverse. This may help to explain why you have trouble understanding it, but it doesn't explain why you insist that you are even remotely qualified to interpret it in a way that differs so radically from those who actually signed the treaty.

 
Ok, point 1, I looked at the charter for Monsters Inc and could not find any reference to what their raiding pre-requisites are, so either way, they would be valid to hit the Socialist People's Front but would expect to face the repercussions of those actions.
 
Point 2, nope, what I see is irrelevant because it's what I say, heh. It's my opinion which may be right or wrong, but it appears similar to The Härmlins. They are free to perceive it any way they wish, but at the end of the day unless they merged to formally create Die Linke, they are Die Linke the "bloc" not Die Linke the "alliance".
 
Point 3, I would like that, please do.
 
Point 4, it's so unique because it is for them only and for nobody else. You know something, it's funny when the typically imperialist Nordreich who typically classed with the communists have finally found some common ground. In that, I am certain we can say that Planet Bob has finaly frozen over. Edited by Franz Ferdinand
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.


×
×
  • Create New...