Announcing The Bus Doctrine

[TwistedRebelDB47]

Oh, this is rich coming from an alliance that would raid entire alliances under 20 members, that would full out attack the entire alliance if one nation retaliated, then threaten to nuke or ZI those that retaliated. Too funny.

Slayer, do you just come up with random 'facts' when you need to make a point against Poison Clan? Hahaha.

Maybe I should just say, "This coming from the leader who threatened to ZI all nations leaving to splinter alliances of TPF."

I find this statement extremely ironic coming from you, Second in Command of Poison Clan, Surrender King, Master of Fighting One Sided Wars.

Sometimes its better to kneel and send a well timed knockout blow rather than a several little jabs that change nothing.

[extraduty]

What if I raid an unaligned pink for non-tech related reasons. What if my sole purpose for raiding an unaligned is to hone my war skill rather than to profit materially from it? Will I have to deal with PC?

Not only PC but RAD and TCB

[youwish959]

Sometimes its better to kneel and send a well timed knockout blow rather than a several little jabs that change nothing.

Wise as always twist.

[Blacky]

What if I raid an unaligned pink for non-tech related reasons. What if my sole purpose for raiding an unaligned is to hone my war skill rather than to profit materially from it? Will I have to deal with PC?

I don't believe any nations on the Pink sphere which are unaligned are in your range. Apparently, they're all under 3,000NS.

There might be a few nations on Red sphere in range which you could use to hone your war skills on however. In fact I'm willing to bet you'd get a little more than you bargained for if you go down that route. If you want to be a hero atleast do it properly.

[Thomas Jackson]

Wise as always twist.

You understand it if you had a brain.

[Tygaland]

If you were complaining about the Bus Doctrine it would fit your previous position toward YN5. My point was that you opposed YN5 enough to sign that treaty and now you are firmly supporting this because TPF disagrees with it and you can't stand them. It doesn't really get more transparent than that.

How is Don't Pee on Our Snow complaining about Yellow No.5? If TPF want to create a doctrine banning raids on the white team by pink-based alliances then I couldn't care less. At the time DPoOS was signed it was agreed by a number of white team alliances at the time that if YN5 made the yellow team off limits to raiders then the white team should be off limits to yellow team raiders. You'll note, we did not refuse to acknowledge or comply with YN5. We created a similar treaty on white in response to it. Now, had TPF proposed a treaty banning pink alliances from raiding white team nations and I objected, I would be a hypocrite. But seeng as neither TPF or myself have done that, you really have no basis to your accusation at all.

As for supporting this doctrine, I didn't say I supported it per se. I said I saw no issue with it in so far as its impact on the STA. TPF stated they did not like it and would not recognise it because it infringed on their right to raid any team they choose and I merely pointed out that if that was the issue then why the silence and compliance with the Revenge Doctrine.

I'm not sure where you leap to the conclusion my views on this doctrine are influenced by what TPF have said about it. If you bother to read the thread in its entirity you will see I had concerns about the original draft of the doctrine and those concerns were addressed by amendment. My only question to TPF is one a number of people have asked. If this doctrine is unpalatable because is infringes on your right to raid whoever you like (which it doesn't mind you) then why is the Revenge Doctrine acceptable as it infringes on that right moreso that the Bus Doctrine does.

And don't give me the "NPO doesn't raid" BS because that does not address the question I am asking.

[New Frontier]

Slayer, do you just come up with random 'facts' when you need to make a point against Poison Clan? Hahaha.

Maybe I should just say, "This coming from the leader who threatened to ZI all nations leaving to splinter alliances of TPF."

As someone who has experienced you doing this first hand, I can tell you he is right.

And not only that, you refused to stop after several queries. Generally raiders don't keep going like that, particularly ones who intend to create a doctrine such as this.

[New Frontier]

How is Don't Pee on Our Snow complaining about Yellow No.5? If TPF want to create a doctrine banning raids on the white team by pink-based alliances then I couldn't care less. At the time DPoOS was signed it was agreed by a number of white team alliances at the time that if YN5 made the yellow team off limits to raiders then the white team should be off limits to yellow team raiders. You'll note, we did not refuse to acknowledge or comply with YN5. We created a similar treaty on white in response to it. Now, had TPF proposed a treaty banning pink alliances from raiding white team nations and I objected, I would be a hypocrite. But seeng as neither TPF or myself have done that, you really have no basis to your accusation at all.

As for supporting this doctrine, I didn't say I supported it per se. I said I saw no issue with it in so far as its impact on the STA. TPF stated they did not like it and would not recognise it because it infringed on their right to raid any team they choose and I merely pointed out that if that was the issue then why the silence and compliance with the Revenge Doctrine.

I'm not sure where you leap to the conclusion my views on this doctrine are influenced by what TPF have said about it. If you bother to read the thread in its entirity you will see I had concerns about the original draft of the doctrine and those concerns were addressed by amendment. My only question to TPF is one a number of people have asked. If this doctrine is unpalatable because is infringes on your right to raid whoever you like (which it doesn't mind you) then why is the Revenge Doctrine acceptable as it infringes on that right moreso that the Bus Doctrine does.

And don't give me the "NPO doesn't raid" BS because that does not address the question I am asking.

Tyga, it is possible that TPF leaves red alone out of respect to their allies, whereas the Bus Doctrine is created by alliance they have no formal ties with.

[youwish959]

You understand it if you had a brain.

I don't think I get what your trying to say.

[Thomas Jackson]

I don't think I get what your trying to say.

Hardly surprising.

[Chinatownbus]

As someone who has experienced you doing this first hand, I can tell you he is right.

And not only that, you refused to stop after several queries. Generally raiders don't keep going like that, particularly ones who intend to create a doctrine such as this.

'Scuse me what?

[New Frontier]

'Scuse me what?

I will repeat.

The Poison Clan raided an alliance of mine, and members of the Clan attacked other nations of ours that came to their brothers' defence. And after multiple queries, the raiding didn't stop.

[Tygaland]

Tyga, it is possible that TPF leaves red alone out of respect to their allies, whereas the Bus Doctrine is created by alliance they have no formal ties with.

Indeed, that is possible. But doesn't that make their stated reason for opposing this doctrine a little weak seeing as it infringes on their right to raid whoever they like far less than the Revenge Doctrine which they apparently have no issue with? If what you say is true, then why not say so? Why make up a reason so easily seen through then toss out the "NPO doesn't raid" excuse that makes no sense whatsoever?

[Darth Revan]

The amount of rule infractions in this thread is out of hand, warnings have been distributed accordingly and will continue to be if you keep it up. I suggest that those posting here shape up.

[Nintenderek]

This is certainly an interesting move and not the team I would expect it from. However, I was never a fan of the Revenge Doctorine and I'm not a big fan of this. I personally believe people should be able to tech raid who they want, but that's just me.

Also, I find it funny that so many oppose this and not the Revenge Doctorine. I know this was already brought up, but golly, it seems like everyone complains when it's an alliance that's smaller than them, and then rejoices when alliances bigger than them do it.

[pezstar]

You have indeed tried mhawk, and while my underlings (lol) still hold resentment towards the way they were treated by certain elements of your alliance, I hold no ill will towards you. And my opinion is the only one that matters.

The opinions of your alliance members don't matter? Wow. What fun it must be to be in PC. How lucky your alliance members must feel!

[extraduty]

This is certainly an interesting move and not the team I would expect it from. However, I was never a fan of the Revenge Doctorine and I'm not a big fan of this. I personally believe people should be able to tech raid who they want, but that's just me.

Also, I find it funny that so many oppose this and not the Revenge Doctorine. I know this was already brought up, but golly, it seems like everyone complains when it's an alliance that's smaller than them, and then rejoices when alliances bigger than them do it.

It comes from pink cause we are the closet knit allies of any color. We are a collective alliance when it comes to pink unity.

I also don't get that those that support the Revenge Doctrine are against this till I gander at the MDP web and see that all that oppose are NPO ball swingers.

[astronaut jones]

Oh, this is rich coming from an alliance that would raid entire alliances under 20 members, that would full out attack the entire alliance if one nation retaliated, then threaten to nuke or ZI those that retaliated. Too funny.

You really, really have no idea of what you're talking about. And this isn't the normal "I'm slayer99, listen to me because I'm self-righteous" routine, you're flat out making stuff up now, and flat out lying.

PC NEVER raided entire alliances under 20 members. PC NEVER would attack if a raid attacked back. PC NEVER threatened to nuke or ZI anyone that retaliated.

1) The raid rules were 20 and under without permission and 20 and over with permission because too often, TPF can DEFINITELY be included in this catagory, alliances would gang up on alliances that were small and defenseless so they would take no damage. 200 against 5 is no match, since the 5 could do next to no damage. PC was never meant to be large, and nowhere near as large as it even is now (and it's a testament to CTB and Twisted that it even is), so the raid rules were set up that way to be FAIR to those being raided. Because if they felt wronged by it, there's more incentive for an alliance of 30 to work things out with an alliance of 20. There's no incentive for an alliance of 200 to work things out with an alliance of 5. Get your facts straight.

2) The PC raid rules, from the VERY START laid out that 2 ground attacks and peace was what you do, and if they attacked back? Send peace again. It's rare people attack back, and when they do, once they get their licks in, chances are very good that they will accept the 2nd peace offer. Everyone knew this was the rule from the very start, and everyone followed it. The only time retaliation was warranted was if they nuked first, or if they refused to accept further peace offers. Tit for tat. Get your facts straight.

3) Any member of PC that threatened to nuke or threatened to ZI a raid target would have been kicked out, period. That was unnacceptable, especially considering what I said above. It never happened while I was in charge, and I highly doubt it's happened since I left, especially since about a month or two before I left, I made my 10 raid commandments a part of the raiding rules, instead of simply a guideline for raiding. They had been a guideline since the very beginning of the alliance, and I made them a part of the rules after Twisted raided the same person twice within a week. Cause, effect, punishment. Get your facts straight.

If you want to be ignorant, that's your right. You can be as ignorant as you want to be. But as soon as you start spouting off blatant lies and falsehoods regarding something I started, something that I was damn proud of, and something CTB, Twisted and everyone else there have worked DAMN hard at in spite of the damage I caused them and the mess I left them with? I will call you on your !@#$ every time, sir. EVERY TIME.

Get your facts straight.

[Slayer99]

Slayer, do you just come up with random 'facts' when you need to make a point against Poison Clan? Hahaha.

Maybe I should just say, "This coming from the leader who threatened to ZI all nations leaving to splinter alliances of TPF."

Not all nations...just PC nations.

[Slayer99]

You really, really have no idea of what you're talking about. And this isn't the normal "I'm slayer99, listen to me because I'm self-righteous" routine, you're flat out making stuff up now, and flat out lying.

PC NEVER raided entire alliances under 20 members. PC NEVER would attack if a raid attacked back. PC NEVER threatened to nuke or ZI anyone that retaliated.

1) The raid rules were 20 and under without permission and 20 and over with permission because too often, TPF can DEFINITELY be included in this catagory, alliances would gang up on alliances that were small and defenseless so they would take no damage. 200 against 5 is no match, since the 5 could do next to no damage. PC was never meant to be large, and nowhere near as large as it even is now (and it's a testament to CTB and Twisted that it even is), so the raid rules were set up that way to be FAIR to those being raided. Because if they felt wronged by it, there's more incentive for an alliance of 30 to work things out with an alliance of 20. There's no incentive for an alliance of 200 to work things out with an alliance of 5. Get your facts straight.

2) The PC raid rules, from the VERY START laid out that 2 ground attacks and peace was what you do, and if they attacked back? Send peace again. It's rare people attack back, and when they do, once they get their licks in, chances are very good that they will accept the 2nd peace offer. Everyone knew this was the rule from the very start, and everyone followed it. The only time retaliation was warranted was if they nuked first, or if they refused to accept further peace offers. Tit for tat. Get your facts straight.

3) Any member of PC that threatened to nuke or threatened to ZI a raid target would have been kicked out, period. That was unnacceptable, especially considering what I said above. It never happened while I was in charge, and I highly doubt it's happened since I left, especially since about a month or two before I left, I made my 10 raid commandments a part of the raiding rules, instead of simply a guideline for raiding. They had been a guideline since the very beginning of the alliance, and I made them a part of the rules after Twisted raided the same person twice within a week. Cause, effect, punishment. Get your facts straight.

If you want to be ignorant, that's your right. You can be as ignorant as you want to be. But as soon as you start spouting off blatant lies and falsehoods regarding something I started, something that I was damn proud of, and something CTB, Twisted and everyone else there have worked DAMN hard at in spite of the damage I caused them and the mess I left them with? I will call you on your !@#$ every time, sir. EVERY TIME.

Get your facts straight.

Greena...er...Astronaut Jones....this occured after Greenacres departed Planet Bob.

Does OIN ring a bell?

EDIT:

Apparently Greenacres' replacements in Gov, didn't care about the tech-raiding rules as much as green did.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...mp;#entry946617

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...mp;#entry946603

Edited April 3, 2009 by Slayer99

[D34th]

Not all nations...just PC nations.

Not really Slayer, unless you are talking just about the present...

[Lord Brendan]

It comes from pink cause we are the closet knit allies of any color.

I think Maroon and Purple both have you beat on that one.

[Desperado]

What? Never in the history of PC threatened to nuke or ZI any retaliators, in fact our alliance wide policy is to take our licks and offer peace even if they do attack us back. Get informed, geezer - or are you really that out of touch in your retirement?

Hmm...I seem to remember differently..

[Buds The Man]

edited didnt mean to include that quote thanks stumpy

It comes from pink cause we are the closet knit allies of any color. We are a collective alliance when it comes to pink unity.

I also don't get that those that support the Revenge Doctrine are against this till I gander at the MDP web and see that all that oppose are NPO ball swingers.

LOL is that the best you have

I think Maroon and Purple both have you beat on that one.

on this we can agree pink has yet to reach the level of maroon.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Buds The Man

[astronaut jones]

Greena...er...Astronaut Jones....this occured after Greenacres departed Planet Bob.

Does OIN ring a bell?

EDIT:

Apparently Greenacres' replacements in Gov, didn't care about the tech-raiding rules as much as green did.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...mp;#entry946617

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...mp;#entry946603

From reading the thread, it seems the OIN nonsense was a non-issue that was blown up because it was taken public. I don't blame them for taking it public, but that doesn't mean there was actually any wrong-doing going on there. I don't see what you mean, so what I say still stands.