We have a 2319

[Emperor Oskar]

LOL actually I think I'm suppossed to post a DoW on your AA but have been too busy atm and I would say be careful what you ask for but it is too late for small talk such as that for your AA and I suppose I will have to walk down the road to the Jewish Nursing Home my Grandma was at and recruit some day 1 players to reach you and most of you AA mates...but make no mistake Doom is coming for you...enjoy! :war:

Lulz we will be waiting in joy to send your members into anarchy!

[Unknown Smurf]

I don't think I've ever read a charter in my life.

[Neo Uruk]

I certainly don't care for strict sets of rules. If you're gonna write it down, though, get ready for it to be thrown in your face when something goes awry.

[Capibara]

:psyduck:  http://www.cybernations.net/war_information.asp?ID=787559

 

Let's do it! :war:

Edited April 14, 2015 by Capibara

[BringMeTheHorizon]

You're right, I said charter in the OP, and I was wrong. That doesn't negate that we didn't break our charter. Words have meanings, and I use the wrong word giving the wrong meaning to the world, in having them assume that our charter had that clause in it. 

 

I should have used internal bill, procedure, policy other than charter. Charter was a place holding word for the something that is technically an internal policy. As LH pointed out, it's not in the charter yet, but it will be. So even if we go by the current charter we have now, there is nothing wrong, and even with our internal procedure there is nothing done wrong by our members. 

 

So if we can agree that I messed up using the word charter in the OP, we can move on to agreeing we did not break our current charter as found on our forums, even with our internal procedure. So there shouldn't be anymore debate about that. 

[Lord Hitchcock]

I certainly don't care for strict sets of rules. If you're gonna write it down, though, get ready for it to be thrown in your face when something goes awry.

We formed as 6 friends who fought together, as we grew we wrote a basic charter to cut red tape. The raid at your risk policy had been up brought many times.

Typically we get a new member who doesn't like the raiding policy and wants to change it and we show him/her the door and they run and hide in Avalanche (actual example). Edited April 14, 2015 by Lord Hitchcock

[Tehmina]

I don't think I've ever read a charter in my life.

Hahaha I feel ya bro :D

[HM Solomon I]

You're right, I said charter in the OP, and I was wrong. That doesn't negate that we didn't break our charter. Words have meanings, and I use the wrong word giving the wrong meaning to the world, in having them assume that our charter had that clause in it. 
 
I should have used internal bill, procedure, policy other than charter. Charter was a place holding word for the something that is technically an internal policy. As LH pointed out, it's not in the charter yet, but it will be. So even if we go by the current charter we have now, there is nothing wrong, and even with our internal procedure there is nothing done wrong by our members. 
 
So if we can agree that I messed up using the word charter in the OP, we can move on to agreeing we did not break our current charter as found on our forums, even with our internal procedure. So there shouldn't be anymore debate about that.

2) Don't raid big/and/or protected alliances

 
Is this also an "internal policy"?  If so, you used an incorrect term twice, and the second time deliberately in order to respond misleadingly to a legitimate point.  If not, then where does this come from, because either you're claiming kingzog is a liar or you're not and he's correctly citing your laws.  If it's the latter, then you violated your Charter by failing to enforce the laws it provides the means to make.

[Lord Hitchcock]

We did enforce our policy- raid at your own risk. Had they of gotten ZId we wouldnt have cared. They know the risks

It's when they hit nation associated with the initial conflict that we hit swf as an alliamce wide matter.

Twist it, turn it, recite our charter and all the paperwork you want- it still doesn't change anything

Edited April 14, 2015 by Lord Hitchcock

[Stonewall14]

Hahaha I feel ya bro :D

I had a charter once when I was leader of POWER right before FEAR, UPN and TORN DoW'd on my 4 man AA... :frantic: It was the highlight of my CN career and wish the youtube video DoW or whatever they used was still active as it was awesome... :awesome: It had some commandos on a PT boat and one of them unrolled this scroll and it read The Combined forces of FEAR, UPN and TORN DoW on POWER...it was bad ass DoW of all time IMO which is biased of course... :ehm: We fought them for 2 weeks until we ran out cash and shot out last CM... :smug:

[Lord Hitchcock]

BMTH remind me to center our charter once we get in the new forums... Because God forbid it isn't centered

[Tehmina]

I had a charter once when I was leader of POWER right before FEAR, UPN and TORN DoW'd on my 4 man AA... :frantic: It was the highlight of my CN career and wish the youtube video DoW or whatever they used was still active as it was awesome... :awesome: It had some commandos on a PT boat and one of them unrolled this scroll and it read The Combined forces of FEAR, UPN and TORN DoW on POWER...it was bad ass DoW of all time IMO which is biased of course... :ehm: We fought them for 2 weeks until we ran out cash and shot out last CM... :smug:

Lol you sound like one of those one-legged war veterans :p

[BringMeTheHorizon]

 
Is this also an "internal policy"?  If so, you used an incorrect term twice, and the second time deliberately in order to respond misleadingly to a legitimate point.  If not, then where does this come from, because either you're claiming kingzog is a liar or you're not and he's correctly citing your laws.  If it's the latter, then you violated your Charter by failing to enforce the laws it provides the means to make.

 

That line was in the DoE of Monsters Inc. That was when they were six members big, with no charter. Just a "set rules". That was changed awhile ago, just never announced via the OWF, as I mean really, who wants to read a charter update on the OWF? The line has nothing to do with us now, or in our charter, or any part of written down internal policy.

 

He would have been right going just off of the DoE, but if we go off of everyone's DoE ever, a lot of charter's or first set of rules will always look different than what they have now. 

Edited April 14, 2015 by BringMeTheHorizon

[Tiberius]

We added a raid at your own risk policy- haven't updated it yet because we are switching over to better forums soon

 

 

The line has nothing to do with us now, or in our charter, or any part of written down internal policy.

Your statements conflict.

[YOLO SWAG]

I'm packing the peace pipe. Let's smoke soon.

[BringMeTheHorizon]

 

 

Your statements conflict.

 

They don't because they line you are quoting from me says that it was taken from the DoE, and subsequently removed via our new charter. Something you're quoting from LH has yet to be updated or even added to our internal policy. So no they are not conflicting. One was something removed entirely that someone was quoting as fact. The other is something that hasn't beed added or updated. Though I thank you for your continued scrutiny of our charter. 

 

One say's explicitly what, and one is implicit. I hope you know the difference. The explicit one was removed via a new charter instead of guidelines from our DoE. 

 

 

 

I would like to thank Sabcat for being easier to work with than SWF, in understanding the fact that some of our leaders are no readily available to partake in our little war, has been in this whole situation. 

Edited April 14, 2015 by BringMeTheHorizon

[smurthwaite]

 

The difference between a tech raid, and alliance war being? 

 

Most nations don't recognize a difference.  I certainly don't.  I would take it personally if somebody raided me.  I would nuke them, and fill my offensive slots with members of their AA, just so I could nuke them too.  I guarantee my nukes would add up to a lot more damage than theirs would of me.  The thing is, raiding is an act of war.  The only people who ever claim otherwise are the raiders themselves.  If simply claiming something makes it true, then I claim I am the most handsome member of this community. If members of your AA raided a chartered AA, then you AA has committed an act of war.

 

I didn't bother to read past page three, but it seems to me that SWF has merely up the anti by one, each time you hit one of their nations.  The folly here lies in continuing to hit their nations.  Raiding had a consequence, apparently one that SWF didn't want to think about in terms of money.  In this world, we have seen over and over again that an eye for an eye doesn't make anybody blind; it just makes them livid enough to do something stupid.  In this world, the only way to make right, as has been proven in the past couple of major global actions, is a head for an eye.  Were I in SWF, or any AA who was raided, I would attempt to take the raiders eyes, head, and any other body part I could wrap my nukes around.

 

Edit:  If I precieved the raiders to be whining or complaining about my response to their raiding, I would be sure to send taunting messages.

Edited April 14, 2015 by smurthwaite

[Sigrun Vapneir]

 

Most nations don't recognize a difference.  I certainly don't.  I would take it personally if somebody raided me.  I would nuke them, and fill my offensive slots with members of their AA, just so I could nuke them too. 

 

Most nations do. I was in the tiny minority that did not until recently - admin and Walford combined to change my mind. But that's another subject.

 

The thing is you have every right to take it as an act of war, and retaliate against the raider, but when you start attacking other nations that are not involved (without first giving his alliance any chance to disavow the attack) YOU are no better. The nations on the MInc AA that were hit out of the blue are just as much victims here as the SWF nations that were initially abused are.

 

IF you had first reached out and failed to get a satisfactory response, THEN started attacking? Ok, harsh but necessary.

 

IF you had simply limited initial responses to hitting the nations *actually involved* and held off on attacking the rest of the AA until the situation could be clarified, that too would have been defensible.

 

But why go wreck uninvolved nations without first making any attempt at diplomacy? That's a pretty bloodthirsty response. Trying to prove a point?

[Master Hakai]

Monster inc is weak lol I'm surprised we haven’t raided you guys yet.... we may have to do that.....

Do it, that would be so awesome. Or Kashmir could pre-emptive raid animals

[eejack]

 

But why go wreck uninvolved nations without first making any attempt at diplomacy? That's a pretty bloodthirsty response. Trying to prove a point?

 

Here is what folks don't understand. If your alliance attacks another alliance there are no uninvolved nations. You hit my alliance or one of my friends you just opened up every nation in your alliance for retaliation. Raiding alliances don't get some special nerf protection - you hang out with folks who will get you attacked you cannot be surprised when it happens.

 

If you randomly declare war on folks you putting your alliance mates at risk.

[eejack]

 

Most nations don't recognize a difference.

 

There is no difference. It is a declare war button.

[HM Solomon I]

 

Here is what folks don't understand. If your alliance attacks another alliance there are no uninvolved nations. You hit my alliance or one of my friends you just opened up every nation in your alliance for retaliation. Raiding alliances don't get some special nerf protection - you hang out with folks who will get you attacked you cannot be surprised when it happens.

 

If you randomly declare war on folks you putting your alliance mates at risk.

 

Agreed.  This is also why constitutions and laws matter and why they're relevant to this thread.  By legally disclaiming responsibility to protect and defend raiders when their raids go bad, MI has shown it knows about the potential consequences of such raids.  Otherwise there would be no reason for such a provision.  Given this, complaining about these negative consequences is disingenuous at best.

 

If you cannot or will not control your members, what good is a government, and why would others even make a distinction between the two?  Why should they care if it was the act of an alliance or its members?  And why would anyone care whether it was an attack made by the alliance?  Your laws permit their actions, so the alliance condones their actions because if it didn't their actions wouldn't be permitted in the first place.  If the alliance condones its raiding members' actions, it must accept that others will see any such actions as those of the alliance.

[Lord Hitchcock]

Agreed.  This is also why constitutions and laws matter and why they're relevant to this thread.  By legally disclaiming responsibility to protect and defend raiders when their raids go bad, MI has shown it knows about the potential consequences of such raids.  Otherwise there would be no reason for such a provision.  Given this, complaining about these negative consequences is disingenuous at best.
 
If you cannot or will not control your members, what good is a government, and why would others even make a distinction between the two?  Why should they care if it was the act of an alliance or its members?  And why would anyone care whether it was an attack made by the alliance?  Your laws permit their actions, so the alliance condones their actions because if it didn't their actions wouldn't be permitted in the first place.  If the alliance condones its raiding members' actions, it must accept that others will see any such actions as those of the alliance.

That is about the dumbest most hypocritical statement I have ever seen on planet bob

[TurnipCruncher]

That is about the dumbest most hypocritical statement I have ever seen on planet bob

Seriously?

[Sigrun Vapneir]

 

Here is what folks don't understand. If your alliance attacks another alliance there are no uninvolved nations. You hit my alliance or one of my friends you just opened up every nation in your alliance for retaliation. Raiding alliances don't get some special nerf protection - you hang out with folks who will get you attacked you cannot be surprised when it happens.

 

That's not how it works and that has essentially never been how it works, and frankly you know better.

 

It has nothing to do with raiding alliances having some special status either. Any alliance can have a member launch wars that they were not supposed to do - even alliances that do not allow raiding at all! Show some common sense. I've had raiders hit my AA many times launched from a variety of AAs. Not once did it lead to full out warfare, and only once did I even have to threaten it. The first thing you do is contact the AA you see on the declaration and ask them what's up? Very often that is all you have to do to bring the incident to a satisfactory close, yet it seems to be the one thing SWF just did not want to do.