WarriorConcept 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 $@!. I think most protectorates would want to defend their protectors. With that being said, JB shut up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel 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. Tell me about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commisar Gaunt Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) Certainly this should motivate GOP to aid their fledgling nations out of JB's range. JB is doing GOP a favor by encouraging their growth. Edited April 20, 2009 by Commisar Gaunt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azhrarn Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I think most protectorates would want to defend their protectors. You would think. Hence why the GOP's OP was ill-advised for more than just one reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 You would think. Hence why the GOP's OP was ill-advised for more than just one reason. Our protectors knew the deal going in and they continue to support our neutrality. Their protection of us is really not much more than an agreement to keep our alliance safe so that there are more nations in the green sphere for resource trades which mutually benefit us all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkyrie9002 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Our protectors knew the deal going in and they continue to support our neutrality. Their protection of us is really not much more than an agreement to keep our alliance safe so that there are more nations in the green sphere for resource trades which mutually benefit us all. You arent neutral. You have a treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason8 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I think most protectorates would want to defend their protectors. Protectorates want their protectors dead. Remember Atlantis? :V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deth2munkies Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Tell me about it. Badum tish. Also, declaring your neutrality doesn't mean jack until an actual war breaks out. If this all blows over, all you'll do is look extremely silly. Plus, it's not like you're a giant alliance at the core of the cyberverse that could make or break the outcome of a Great War... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiawatha Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 They're not doing it from the point of a mega-alliance, just from the point of a small alliance looking to preserve itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbrownso Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 The things is that protectorates are really only arranged that the protector provides protection to the protectee. It'd be rare to have a protectorate agreement require the protectee to jump into a war for their protector. I mean, we all remember Atlantis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 1. JB declares on GOP. 2. GOP PZIs JB. 3. Alliance comes to rescue JB. 4. GOP calls upon protectors to save them. 5. ??? 6. GOP is the CB for the next great war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodemofi-NPO Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) 1. JB declares on GOP.2. GOP PZIs JB. 3. Alliance comes to rescue JB. 4. GOP calls upon protectors to save them. 5. ??? 6. GOP is the CB for the next great war. That would actually be hilarious. Talk about the most unexpected way for this war to start. Ha! All you guys thought it was going to be TORN-OV, but really it's JB-GOP! The only problem being that I believe GOP's protectors span both sides... Edited April 20, 2009 by Shodemofi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deth2munkies Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 They're not doing it from the point of a mega-alliance, just from the point of a small alliance looking to preserve itself. And my point is, there's no way in hell that they'd be included in some sort of preemptive blitz no matter what the scenario, and thus it's a moot point to even declare neutrality, much less do so when a war might not even occur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) I'd like to state that I'm neutral in the JB-GOP war. Please don't attack me. Edited April 20, 2009 by neneko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Lightning Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Using the Dominion's name as an excuse to post this in alliance politics seems extremely disrespectful to your former alliance mates. Maybe I just missed the other triumvirates' signatures in your recent flurry of threads regarding the Dominion though, they do come at such a pace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rekh127 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) And some not so small nations who really love Brookbank may just make target practice of your newb alliance. Funny, we're not a newb alliance, nor are we scared of troll lovers Also, I think you all are getting EZI and PZI mixed up, But whatever permanant war, and this wasn't just Our IRC channel (which we did ban him from), it was VE OV and the UJA channels as well, in addition to forums and War Edited April 20, 2009 by Rekh127 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenos Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 This is intriguing. I used to think neutrality was simple. Choose no side and be peaceful to all. Now that neutrality is defined as: "attack me and I will EZI you" my world has been turned upside down. How is it that the neutrals dole out the harshest punishment now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) I was pretty convinced that this was a joke thread until about page 6. And since this is the real deal; 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. Never thought I'd find myself agreeing with you. Edited April 20, 2009 by Emperor Marx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 This is intriguing. I used to think neutrality was simple. Choose no side and be peaceful to all. Now that neutrality is defined as: "attack me and I will EZI you" my world has been turned upside down. How is it that the neutrals dole out the harshest punishment now? Being neutral doesn't mean you can't defend yourself, nor does it dictate the methods you use to defend yourself. It just means that we will not assist any other alliance in their wars or aggressive actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heracles the Great Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 As I am neither a member of GOP or Dominion, I can only speculate and offer an outsiders view. However what I see happening here is one alliance making a statement of neutrality to preempt any impending attack upon them due to confusion. Dominion dislikes this show of cowardice and declares war on GOP. GOP takes offense to this declaration of war as well as statements made in public by members of Dominion, and sentences the leader of Dominion to EZI - however states that the EZI will be withdrawn when Dominion withdraws their troops and stops their offensive actions as well as their public statements against GOP. Am I following this correctly? If so... JB - you need to grow up and move on. Trolling a small alliance who perhaps lacks the history to know the proper S.O.P. of the OWF and then declaring war on them because of it is not a good sign of your future. Many people supported your return and fought to have you removed from multiple EZI lists. While you are free to do what you wish with that freedom, one would hope you have learned your lesson and all the work of your friends was not for nothing. A man of your intelligence and passion could accomplish far greater things than this "lulzfest". Either way - I wish both parties the best of luck in finding a resolution to this situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) As I am neither a member of GOP or Dominion, I can only speculate and offer an outsiders view. However what I see happening here is one alliance making a statement of neutrality to preempt any impending attack upon them due to confusion. Dominion dislikes this show of cowardice and declares war on GOP. GOP takes offense to this declaration of war as well as statements made in public by members of Dominion, and sentences the leader of Dominion to EZI - however states that the EZI will be withdrawn when Dominion withdraws their troops and stops their offensive actions as well as their public statements against GOP. Am I following this correctly? He also issued threats of "perma ZIing our entire alliance," trolled our channel and the channel of our protectors, brought in his "friends" to flood and troll our IRC channel, tried to dictate how we run our alliance, and actually attacked one of our baby nations. But yes, you are pretty much correct my friend. Edited April 20, 2009 by Rooman33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwilliams Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 This thread went from being hilarious, to being angry, to now just being sad. In my opinion this is all being blown way out of proportion. GOP makes a silly post, JB trolls them, ok no big deal. JB attacks one of their nations, ok, ZI him, let everyone have their lulz and move on. This nonsense about PZI/EZI/PEZI/PEZ(i love pez) is ridiculous. This is a joke gone way too far, and I fully expect JB to stop all of this after one cycle of war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) This thread went from being hilarious, to being angry, to now just being sad. In my opinion this is all being blown way out of proportion. GOP makes a silly post, JB trolls them, ok no big deal. JB attacks one of their nations, ok, ZI him, let everyone have their lulz and move on. This nonsense about PZI/EZI/PEZI/PEZ(i love pez) is ridiculous. This is a joke gone way too far, and I fully expect JB to stop all of this after one cycle of war. It can stop the instant he stops harassing us, it doesn't even have to go a full cycle of war. Until then, we're left no other option than to continually attack him since he has repeatedly shown that he will attack us and harass us until he gets his way (which isn't going to happen). As we said earlier, PZI/EZI may not be the best term. Suffice it to say that he is on our target list until he no longer insists on threatening and harassing us. If that's not "PZI" or "EZI" then fine. Edited April 20, 2009 by Rooman33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) Funny, we're not a newb alliance, nor are we scared of troll loversAlso, I think you all are getting EZI and PZI mixed up, But whatever permanant war, and this wasn't just Our IRC channel (which we did ban him from), it was VE OV and the UJA channels as well, in addition to forums and War Enjoy your war. Edited April 20, 2009 by Merrie Melodies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sethb Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) Ill leave this to GOP, seems as if they have it pretty well handled. Edited April 20, 2009 by sethb 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.