Question to Poison Clan

[Velocity111]

I do not see any timestamps...thus, these shots prove nothing.(OOC?)

You don't need timestamps. You only need the day to prove that the screenshots occurred before we attacked. You can gather the day from the amount of time nations have been in their alliance affiliation, compared to what they are at currently.

[HeinousOne]

Hai guys. I'm here to answer questions.

Are you sure? I could keep you busy for quite awhile.

[Poobah]

IIRC, the Bus Doctrine is about people who are raiding Pink Sphere abiding by the same rules that you guys do on your own raids. Since you guys are fine with raiding other people's protectorates, obviously the Bus Doctrine allows other people to raid protectorates, as long as they're on Pink.

Have you actually read the garage you've been posting on these forums for the last few weeks?

I used to think you were a really good poster...not anymore.

[iAlan]

Are you sure? I could keep you busy for quite awhile.

I'll do my best!

[fant0m]

If I were one of the larger California nations I'd nuke my raiders. My nation would be destined to burn but at least my attackers wouldn't gain anything and probably lose a lot more than I'd have to lose.

We have never been nuked before while out raiding and would more than likely cry. We would learn our lesson that tech raiding is completely evil, ban every PC nation from ever raiding again and open a small store selling bunny rabbits at a reasonable price to underprivileged children.

[Tom Litler]

We have never been nuked before while out raiding and would more than likely cry. We would learn our lesson that tech raiding is completely evil, ban every PC nation from ever raiding again and open a small store selling bunny rabbits at a reasonable price to underprivileged children.

It seems you're verbally just as trigger happy as you are physically. No need to jump on the defensive sarcasm horse just yet, cowboy. I wouldn't care if PC changed or not, nor would I care that you've been nuked before. The point would be that you'd be getting nuked right then and that you would be losing money fighting me.

You can go back to being the generic tough-guy grunt now.

[Velocity111]

I'll do my best!

Approximately how long ago did your nations start putting up the "California was a protectorate of TPF. We have chosen not to activate the optional defense clause of our protectorate treaty, and thus are neutral in this conflict. PM VenetianBlind if you have any questions." bio?

Note that this is the old bio. It appears as though some of your nations are starting to update their bios.

[iAlan]

Approximately how long ago did your nations start putting up the "California was a protectorate of TPF. We have chosen not to activate the optional defense clause of our protectorate treaty, and thus are neutral in this conflict. PM VenetianBlind if you have any questions." bio?

Note that this is the old bio. It appears as though some of your nations are starting to update their bios.

This was not approved by California leadership. Although I'm not quite sure of the origin, some members have been discussing the disbandment of the protectorate. The leadership has not approved of this, and the action never went through. The bios have not been updated since then.

[HeinousOne]

I'll do my best!

Alright, here we go.

1. Why did California opt out of defending TPF in the war?

2. Do you feel California is being unfairly targeted by PC currently?

3. Are you satisfied with the current protectorate relationship with TPF in that you are one of many?

4. Do you feel that TPF has too many treaties?

5. Has Poison Clan been offering peace after its initial raids?

6. Have they done anything besides ground attacks?

7. Did California plan to sit out the war in order to offer cash aid to TPF after the war for rebuilding?

8. Do you believe that these raids by PC will have much affect on such plans if you indeed have them?

9. Do you believe this really has anything to do with Karma?

10. If not then why do you think some are wishing to use these raids upon you as propaganda against Karma?

[fant0m]

It seems you're verbally just as trigger happy as you are physically. No need to jump on the defensive sarcasm horse just yet, cowboy. I wouldn't care if PC changed or not, nor would I care that you've been nuked before. The point would be that you'd be getting nuked right then and that you would be losing money fighting me.

You can go back to being the generic tough-guy grunt now.

Generic tough-guy grunt? That's probably the best insult anyone has ever flung at me, you actually made me lol IRL.

And I believe it was you who was making threats as to what you would do to your attackers should you be in the situation certain members of California currently find themselves.

[Samuel Houston]

We have never been nuked before while out raiding and would more than likely cry. We would learn our lesson that tech raiding is completely evil, ban every PC nation from ever raiding again and open a small store selling bunny rabbits at a reasonable price to underprivileged children.

This obviously proves that PC dislikes bunny rabbits and supports extorting children's lunch money. For shame, PC. FOR SHAME!

[iAlan]

Alright, here we go.

1. Why did California opt out of defending TPF in the war?

2. Do you feel California is being unfairly targeted by PC currently?

3. Are you satisfied with the current protectorate relationship with TPF in that you are one of many?

4. Do you feel that TPF has too many treaties?

5. Has Poison Clan been offering peace after its initial raids?

6. Have they done anything besides ground attacks?

7. Did California plan to sit out the war in order to offer cash aid to TPF after the war for rebuilding?

8. Do you believe that these raids by PC will have much affect on such plans if you indeed have them?

9. Do you believe this really has anything to do with Karma?

10. If not then why do you think some are wishing to use these raids upon you as propaganda against Karma?

These answers do not reflect the AA as a whole, and will be my personal answers.

1) I think that California is too small to help TPF as a whole, and probably would've been annihilated fast. Some members wanted to help, however.

2) Yes. We are just a small AA that took a neutral stance to the war.

3) I'm pretty satisfied with the protectorate status that TPF has generously offered us. Without them, we probably would have been gone a long time ago.

4) I'm not too informed on their current treaties.

5) Yes.

6) No. Not me, at least.

7) We have not planned on doing that yet. It is most likely that we would help them out after the war. I guess it's a little somewhat like protection money.

8) No. We don't have much planning in general.

9) I'm not even sure which side Karma is on.

[Desperado]

True Scenario: PC wanted some land.

Twisted TPF version of events: We declared on TPF twice.

Either way we don't really have any more to discuss with TPF. If California wishes to speak with us in the morning then so be it.

5 ) Sparta, DT, AO, and Brig agree NOT to declare war, offensively, against any of the following alliances: IRON, TPF, FEAR, NEW, UCN, Zenith or NPO until the end of the "Karma" War.

Using this logic, this means that DT has undoubtedly ignored the joint white peace announcement from earlier. Looks like they are the ones ignoring what Karma stands for, most notably the surrender terms.

Edit: Not calling out karma, just showing the difference.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Desperado

[ditchboy00]

7. Did California plan to sit out the war in order to offer cash aid to TPF after the war for rebuilding?

see you've brought this up several times here, it is like you havent seen terms that have "no outside aid" in them.

[FeaR_LeSs]

You made a mistake. We signed peace for TPF not California. As stated earlier in the previous posts California WAS a GP of TPF, that would come across as past tense otherwise they would have said California IS a GP for TPF but wishes to remain netural for the duration of the war.

[Velocity111]

Using this logic, this means that DT has undoubtedly ignored the joint white peace announcement from earlier. Looks like they are the ones ignoring what Karma stands for, most notably the surrender terms.

Edit: Not calling out karma, just showing the difference.

What is your problem? 1 (READ: ONE) DT nation attacked (READ: RAIDED) a nation in California (READ: NOT TPF). They are not declaring war on TPF, NOR are they declaring war on California. What Syrik says has nothing (READ: NOTHING) to do with DT. It has to do with how we (READ: PC) are raiding California, and how you (READ: TPF) are trying to say that we declared full-scale war on them as an alliance. DT has nothing to do with this! As has been said before, the DT nation was probably not supposed to attack California in the first place, and will be punished accordingly. Of course, I wouldn't know anything about that, since I'm not in DT.

[mhawk]

Changed their bios... to what?

Do you mean the "We were a protectorate of TPF" thing? No, that's been there for a while. Why would we send them taunting PM's before raiding them? (which would alert them to the possibility of being raided). Or do you mean we sent them taunting PM's after we raided them? I would like to know exactly what PM's you are talking about, in that case.

The bios I am talking about are these bios:

These screenshots were taken before I raided. These are also the exact bios I am talking about. So, I would like to know, wtf are you talking about? What did they change their bios to, and why do you assume I was referring to them?

IIRC, this:

Read the doctrine, and tell me... if you really do recall correctly.

How do you explain me going to your leader and telling him straight up these guys are a protectorate when only 2 people had raided, then going to your allies to say these are a protectorate.... Then you guys go ape and full out launch another 20 wars.

[iAlan]

You made a mistake. We signed peace for TPF not California. As stated earlier in the previous posts California WAS a GP of TPF, that would come across as past tense otherwise they would have said California IS a GP for TPF but wishes to remain netural for the duration of the war.

California never canceled the protectorate TPF has offered.

TPF never canceled the protectorate offered to California.

tl;dr California is protected by TPF.

[Kilkenny]

You made a mistake. We signed peace for TPF not California. As stated earlier in the previous posts California WAS a GP of TPF, that would come across as past tense otherwise they would have said California IS a GP for TPF but wishes to remain netural for the duration of the war.

That has been hashed out, but let me do it again just for you.

our claim: Our wiki says they are, they say they are, we say they are.

Your claim: a few bios said was instead of is.

If you had asked you would have been told, didn't though did you?

As so it goes, an attack on a General's Protectorate, is an attack on TPF. That is the statement and declaration of ALL General's Protectorates. Therefore you did violate your peace agreement and attacked TPF.

[FeaR_LeSs]

I am one of the nations that raided him and have sent peace saying I made a mistake in raiding him. I plan on dealing with my govt since I made a mistake. It is not an attack on TPF, it is an attack on california. Is it really a huge deal that it needs to be dragged out this far?

[Kilkenny]

I am one of the nations that raided him and have sent peace saying I made a mistake in raiding him. I plan on dealing with my govt since I made a mistake. It is not an attack on TPF, it is an attack on california. Is it really a huge deal that it needs to be dragged out this far?

Not really. The fact is that the raids are in violation of the Tech Raiding Rules that PC set upon themselves. All we are really asking for is they pay reps for the mistake...just like their Tech Raiding rules call for.

[mhawk]

I am one of the nations that raided him and have sent peace saying I made a mistake in raiding him. I plan on dealing with my govt since I made a mistake. It is not an attack on TPF, it is an attack on california. Is it really a huge deal that it needs to be dragged out this far?

Reps for your mistaken attack to the californian nation would make it all right. Your case seems to be an isolated raid just the same as we had daily on our protectorates and dealed with the reps for those mistakes. The massive attack by pc paints a different picture, which we do hope they repay the damages done to California, given their own charter.

[Velocity111]

How do you explain me going to your leader and telling him straight up these guys are a protectorate when only 2 people had raided, then going to your allies to say these are a protectorate.... Then you guys go ape and full out launch another 20 wars.

I don't really need to explain anything to you, as I am but a lowly peon in PC. (I wouldn't know since I was one of the initial 2 people who had raided)

If you want an answer to that one, you'll have to ask the people who raided afterward, or said leader. If you want my guess, I'd guess that some of us could care less that they were your protectorate, because you were incapable of protecting them. Effectively, they were an unprotected alliance (Well ok, you could still try protect them with your few nations in peace mode, but I'm sure you wouldn't want to do that. It would also be rather ineffectual, since they've already been sent peace). Or maybe there was a lack of communication. I don't know.

Or we could take the Kilkenny approach and say that an attack on a GP is an attack on TPF. In which case, we're just attacking TPF. We're at war with them, right? Well whatever, spin it however you want, but the web you weave (not you, mhawk. There are contradictory and incorrect statements in this thread) is getting tangled.

[HeinousOne]

see you've brought this up several times here, it is like you havent seen terms that have "no outside aid" in them.

Yeah, those last forever.

[bzelger]

It has to do with how we (READ: PC) are raiding California, and how you (READ: TPF) are trying to say that we declared full-scale war on them as an alliance.

Out of curiousity, how would you react to having your alliance triple teamed out of the blue? You can't allow your members to be raided or you aren't really an alliance. I mean, what if you accept peace and the next day you're being mugged again, either by the same people or people who have learned that attacking you equates to free tech? What kind of alliance would let you raid them and then roll over and accept peace?

An alliance in their situation really only has two viable options: fighting back as hard as they can and getting steamrolled, or disbanding.

Traditionally the community has turned a blind eye to this sort of thing, but don't try to play it off as anything less than asshattery of the highest order.