CptGodzilla Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 We tried ignoring him. First he declared on one of our nations. Then he made this thread. Then he came to our IRC channel with his buddies to troll us. I respect what you're saying, but he'll leave us alone and get peace, not the other way around. pretty much what he has been doing for the past year or so (minus the declaring war part) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 You wanna hand out Perma Zi for such ridiculous crap expect some flak. Good God man, your whole frigging alliance is being attacked by one 90NS nation. What are you going to do next, ask for help from your protectorate? He's at 90 NS. We've issued perma ZI until he stops being a tool. There's really not much else you can do with a 90 NS troll who declares on your newbs and won't stop harassing you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 You wanna hand out Perma Zi for such ridiculous crap expect some flak. Good God man, your whole frigging alliance is being attacked by one 90NS nation. What are you going to do next, ask for help from your protectorate? JB attacked them for even more ridiculous crap. I think it's perfectly justified. He wants to be a tool instead of actually attempting to do something worthwhile in the game after he gets let off of PZI then quite frankly he deserves it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 You wanna hand out Perma Zi for such ridiculous crap expect some flak. Good God man, your whole frigging alliance is being attacked by one 90NS nation. What are you going to do next, ask for help from your protectorate? It's not really a perma-ZI actually. They've used a poor term. If he were truly being PZI/EZIed he would not be allowed to surrender if he wanted to stop. He can get peace though. All he has to do is cut the nonsense. It's not as harsh as you people are making it out to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coursca Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 We tried ignoring him. First he declared on one of our nations. Then he made this thread. Then he came to our IRC channel with his buddies to troll us. I respect what you're saying, but he'll leave us alone and get peace, not the other way around. Oh, I totally understand. In your position, I'd do the exact same thing (and did so on behalf of IRON on several occasions while I was a Councilor). But to be honest, this is obviously JB trying to be "lulzy" (and failing). Pound'em into the ground, but don't let him drag you into this public arena continually -- its not worth it and its what he wants. The peanut gallery will always have an opinion, but it is ultimately your own opinion that matters most for your internal affairs decision-making -- defense being included as part of internal affairs in this sense. If you wish to discuss this further, you can find me in #iron as `Billy_Mays ... I'll be there for a while. (OOC: Writin' a paper ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deth2munkies Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 *sigh* OK, I have a fix for this: JB: Don't make stupid DoWs that you can never back up unless you're trying to make a point instead of just lampooning something this mundane. GOP: Don't do something as stupid as declaring neutrality in a hypothetical war that hasn't even started yet in the future. There, everyone's happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 It's not really a perma-ZI actually. They've used a poor term. If he were truly being PZI/EZIed he would not be allowed to surrender if he wanted to stop. He can get peace though. All he has to do is cut the nonsense. It's not as harsh as you people are making it out to be. Fair enough. What's the proper term for "we're going to keep ZIing you until you stop messing with us." It's not a single ZI because, as soon as we have a nation in range of him, he'll hit that. And I assume that, even then, he won't drop this... so we'll likely have to ZI him again... and again. I don't know what other term applies to this situation besides PZI/EZI... QPZI (quasi-permanent zero infrastructure)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agafaba Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 People it was a case of miss communication, he just said he would offer white peace as soon as the war stops. You cant get much better terms then that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coursca Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Just call it "perpetual war." Its catchy and it would make Kant cringe! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 It's not really a perma-ZI actually. They've used a poor term. If he were truly being PZI/EZIed he would not be allowed to surrender if he wanted to stop. He can get peace though. All he has to do is cut the nonsense. It's not as harsh as you people are making it out to be. Then maybe they should have just said, JB, were going to grind you into dust until you knock it off. But understand this world is polarized when it comes to JB and some of us, like myself have been fast friends with him since 06 when he was but rank and file in GGA. And I have and will always do what I can in defense of my friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) Support JB in this honourous quest. Edited April 20, 2009 by Drai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) Fair enough. What's the proper term for "we're going to keep ZIing you until you stop messing with us." It's not a single ZI because, as soon as we have a nation in range of him, he'll hit that. And I assume that, even then, he won't drop this... so we'll likely have to ZI him again... and again. I don't know what other term applies to this situation besides PZI/EZI... QPZI (quasi-permanent zero infrastructure)? It's what TPF does as well. I call it "attacking until the person makes amends for what they did." Yeah I know. Edited April 20, 2009 by magicninja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Then maybe they should have just said, JB, were going to grind you into dust until you knock it off. But understand this world is polarized when it comes to JB and some of us, like myself have been fast friends with him since 06 when he was but rank and file in GGA. And I have and will always do what I can in defense of my friends. Respect. Fine, JB, we're going to grind you into dust until you knock it off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptGodzilla Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 People it was a case of miss communication, he just said he would offer white peace as soon as the war stops. You cant get much better terms then that. JB can't get terms better than that, but GOP can (read: perpetual war until JB STFU) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 People it was a case of miss communication, he just said he would offer white peace as soon as the war stops. You cant get much better terms then that. Pretty sure he demanded they remove their neutrality thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiawatha Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 This is absurd. Brookbank's obviously in the wrong. The only reason he's getting away with this and people are actually siding with him is because of name recognition, anyone else would only get nods of "you had it coming" if they tried to pull the same BS and got whacked for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 *sigh* OK, I have a fix for this:JB: Don't make stupid DoWs that you can never back up unless you're trying to make a point instead of just lampooning something this mundane. GOP: Don't do something as stupid as declaring neutrality in a hypothetical war that hasn't even started yet in the future. There, everyone's happy. Now this man is wise, all should heed his words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Except this way JB doesn't get his peace terms, you see you could have made this easier but now you've awaken the Brookbank sleeping giant. Well, GOP does have the advantage of not being "nubs". They seem to have a distinct NS and infra advantage, but this is clearly an escalation of this situation by GOP. First, GOP rejected peace talks with JB, and have repeatedly tried to punish JB for trying to engage in a peaceful solution. Doesn't sound very neutral to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 This is absurd. Brookbank's obviously in the wrong. The only reason he's getting away with this and people are actually siding with him is because of name recognition, anyone else would only get nods of "you had it coming" if they tried to pull the same BS and got whacked for it. The name David Banner rings a bell when I think of JB here even if JB is more well spoken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agafaba Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Pretty sure he demanded they remove their neutrality thread. I mean GOP offered white peace once JB stopped, sorry using only hims and hers makes for a confusing read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) Now this man is wise, all should heed his words. It's not like we were sitting around, saw a great war may or may not come and thought to ourselves, "Hey... we should remind everyone that we're neutral because I bet everyone is curious." We've had people come to us, asking if our being a protected alliance meant that our neutrality would be cast aside if either OV, GGA or VE (or all of them) got into a war. Not wanting to get DoWed because of a misunderstanding relating to our protected status, we posted a reiteration of our neutrality. There's nothing wrong with that. We're not having our thread deleted and we're not retracting the statement. We did the right thing and we stand by our decision. Look, I know everyone's bored. I know tensions are riding high. But there's really no reason to eviscerate us. We didn't do anything wrong. There were questions, we answered them. This JB business is just a hassle and a pain in the $@!. Edited April 20, 2009 by Rooman33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savethecheerleader Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I only came to your embassy (OOC: channel) to discuss peace terms. I will give you white peace as soon as you reverse your terrible PR move. That is all I require. No one should be confused about a neutral alliance's stance on any war, but you aren't actually neutral. You have a treaty. Letting the world know that one person with tiny nation can dictate what your alliance can and cannot do doesn't seem like a very good PR move to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asriel Belacqua Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Letting the world know that one person with tiny nation can dictate what your alliance can and cannot do doesn't seem like a very good PR move to me. Depends on whether the majority of the people in the world are voting for JB getting peace his way, or GOP's way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 It's not like we were sitting around, saw a great war may or may not come and thought to ourselves, "Hey... we should remind everyone that we're neutral because I bet everyone is curious."We've had people come to us, asking if our being a protected alliance meant that our neutrality would be cast aside if either OV, GGA or VE (or all of them) got into a war. Not wanting to get DoWed because of a misunderstanding relating to our protected status, we posted a reiteration of our neutrality. There's nothing wrong with that. We're not having our thread deleted and we're not retracting the statement. We did the right thing and we stand by our decision. Look, I know everyone's bored. I know tensions are riding high. But there's really no reason to eviscerate us. We didn't do anything wrong. There were questions, we answered them. This JB business is just a hassle and a pain in the $@!. This is surprisingly reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KIADO Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 9 min Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.