Revelation Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 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? I would say make better friends. Side note: California i wish you the best of luck. I know what it feels like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity111 Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 (edited) 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. First question: I personally would wait until my leader(s) had a comment about whether or not there was going to be reps, peace, war, whatever, and then follow whatever path that was decided. (i.e., check diplomatic options first). If that failed, then fine, to war. Enjoy your WRC powered nukes or whatever. Second question: It would probably be wise to do what California is doing. A (semi) peaceful solution has been worked out, we have been told not to attack anymore unless attacked back (Since some of them might be inactive and unable to accept peace, because apparently some of these Californians might actually enjoy 7 days of war [as said by Californian government, I guess]), and whenever peace is accepted, peace is accepted. With this kind of publicity, along with the fact that a peaceful solution has actually already been worked out, reraiding California would definitely incur reps, and we at PC (yes, even us) would view the act as distasteful. Now, if another alliance were to do the raiding, we can't do anything about that. They would get flamed a lot, sure, maybe reps, I don't know. But the wise move would probably for them to go into peace mode for a little bit after accepting peace from their PC raiders, and perhaps finding a new protector. Third question: An alliance that wants peace? You tell me. The second paragraph: You're missing the peace + new/more treaties option. Third paragraph: You are entitled to your opinion. Asshattery though it might be, it increases the volume of my tech and land. @Jbone, it was Twist *edit* I'm going to go ahead and semi-leave the thread. I don't feel like responding to repetitive and incorrect comments, and flame (not you, bzelger ). If there are any semi-intelligent comments or questions, I may decide to respond. Or not. Who knows. Edited May 23, 2009 by Velocity111 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 stuff I learned from this thread: PC techraids Thank you owf for writing a 17 page essay on this. The more you know! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 stuff I learned from this thread:PC techraids Thank you owf for writing a 17 page essay on this. The more you know! I GOT FRIENDS WITH MONEY, AND I GOT MONEY TOO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 I GOT FRIENDS WITH MONEY, AND I GOT MONEY TOO. I was really hoping the guy that wrote all these rules we're debating would have something to say.... but you didn't let me down with pure insanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 I was really hoping the guy that wrote all these rules we're debating would have something to say.... but you didn't let me down with pure insanity. The raiding rules are the best around, the ones I wrote. They gave all the power to the people being raided, and the alliance that was raided, people just didn't understand the rules, and thought they were done because we wanted to raid everything that moved. The rules were written out of fairness, because I strongly believe that raiding limits only favour the raiders, and not those being raided. 200 against 5 is no match for the 5.. but 50 against 50 can be quite the match if they decide to fight back. That was the driving force behind the rule. Fairness. People thought it was because PC wanted to destroy everything, but really it was an attempt to give power back to those being raided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Read the doctrine, and tell me... if you really do recall correctly. Heh, yes I do. It was one of the biggest draws to Poison Clan when it formed. A promise that we wouldn't make stupid or hypocritical limits. In this case, we aren't telling people they can't raid the Pink sphere, because that would be hypocritical. We aren't telling them they can only do one ground attack (my parallel to an alliance of five is okay, but not an alliance of ten), because that would be stupid. We are saying do not bully a raid with cruise missiles, aircraft, and other attacks that are detrimental to both parties (since every CM is at cost to the aggressor, and the point of a raid is profit). It is hypocritical, using your words, to tell other people that they can't do things you do yourselves. You raid protectorates. Therefore it's hypocritical to tell other people they can't raid protectorates. And you're no hypocrite... right? Also from that post. Actually, I try and offer a temporary protectorate to any raid we get ourselves into because I hate re-raiding. Do you plan on offering a temporary protectorate to California, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity111 Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 (edited) It is hypocritical, using your words, to tell other people that they can't do things you do yourselves. You raid protectorates. Therefore it's hypocritical to tell other people they can't raid protectorates. And you're no hypocrite... right? Those are not my own words. You haven't actually quoted the actual text of the doctrine. Keep that in mind. If your alliance supports raiding of large alliances, and you think it would be a good idea to raid our protectorates, we can't do anything to stop you, besides telling you to stop or just straight up attacking you. TPF can tell us to stop (and they have, and we have. Peace has simply not been accepted by many nations is all [which, coincidentally, is thanks to TPF]), or they can straight up attack us. *edit* The Bus Doctrine (or any Doctrine, for that matter) is not telling you what you can or cannot do. We cannot force you to do anything. It is telling you what we will do in response to your actions. Edited May 23, 2009 by Velocity111 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwthegreat Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Do you plan on offering a temporary protectorate to California, then? This seems like the non-idiot move you would do eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Those are not my own words.You haven't actually quoted the actual text of the doctrine. Keep that in mind. If your alliance supports raiding of large alliances, and you think it would be a good idea to raid our protectorates, we can't do anything to stop you, besides telling you to stop or just straight up attacking you. TPF can tell us to stop (and they have, and we have. Peace has simply not been accepted by many nations is all [which, coincidentally, is thanks to TPF]), or they can straight up attack us. I've put our/california's request to CTB. We hope for a amiable solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity111 Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 (edited) I've put our/california's request to CTB. We hope for a amiable solution. Your request is not the same as California's request. And California has already put their request to us. It is an amiable solution. *edit* First line was ambiguous. I mean that you and California are not the same entity, so a request you make is not necessarily the same as a request California would make. The requests these two separate entities make may be the same request, however. Edited May 23, 2009 by Velocity111 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Your request is not the same as California's request. And California has already put their request to us. It is an amiable solution. *edit* First line was ambiguous. I mean that you and California are not the same entity, so a request you make is not necessarily the same as a request California would make. The requests these two separate entities make may be the same request, however. Dude I just said cali and us talked and i relayed that to CTB, don't need to over analyze that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairman Cao Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 So is the Bus Doctrine OK with raiding protectorates on Pink now? Give it a try and see how well you fare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gantanX Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 this will end well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveaLot Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Considering that most of California is on black, they could apply to join NOIR, that would probably be enough to put a stop to PC's current activity, or else... And I don't think that anyone has ever tech raided a 700k NS alliance, seems like a stupid idea that's just meant to cause a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 PC's rules are crystal clear that a raid on a protectorate = reps, and California and TPF have both confirmed in this thread that they are a protectorate. I think it's clear what the right answer is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malazar Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Heres the thing, TPF COULD defend their protectorate if they wanted to. THey can bring all those nations out of peace and fight PC with an even stronger force than they are right now. Why they havent is beyond me. Or its just that TPF doesnt want to put the infra of their big nations on the line to defend one of their protectorates Most of our biggest nations, with a couple exceptions, have already hit or been extremely close to ZI during this war. Of our current top 20 nations in NS, 5 of them I can remember being in the top 20 before the war. Of those 5, 3 of them are at around 1000 or less infrastructure, one is around 2000, and one seems to have been hiding in peace mode since after the first round of wars ended. Sorry sir, but this idea is a myth. People go into peace mode for their 5 days or so if the enemy gives them the opportunity so that we can come out and declare offensively where needed at that point. In a war where our nations are constantly dog piled, it is the only option to have any initiative on the battlefield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Give it a try and see how well you fare Judging by what happened before with TPF when you are put on the spot you will submit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 (edited) Judging by what happened before with TPF when you are put on the spot you will submit. Haflinger isn't TPF. As for the point in case, I believe an amicable solution is being settled as we speak. If it already hasn't. I really don't see why people are trying to paint this as a digusting act on behalf of Karma/PC/whoever. Really, stop grasping for straws, guys. Edited May 23, 2009 by potato Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lakes Union Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Halfinger isn't TPF. As for the point in case, I believe an amicable solution is being settled as we speak. If it already hasn't. I really don't see why people are trying to paint this as a digusting act on behalf of Karma/PC/whoever. Really, stop grasping for straws, guys. I don't see most of us trying to paint this as an act by Karma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 I don't see most of us trying to paint this as an act by Karma. I never said "most". Also, look at AUT's 1st post and the following posts there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Haflinger isn't TPF. As for the point in case, I believe an amicable solution is being settled as we speak. If it already hasn't. I really don't see why people are trying to paint this as a digusting act on behalf of Karma/PC/whoever. Really, stop grasping for straws, guys. I also don't tech raid Hopefully a reasonable solution can be arrived at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guffey Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Hopefully a reasonable solution can be arrived at. since PC is doing this, i find that very doubtful. they are not honorable at all, as we have all seen time and time again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeaR_LeSs Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Have California accept peace, move on, join NOIR and they will be set from ALL raids in the near future. The point is done, the topic should be closed and therefore allowing us to all move on. 18 pages for this is a bit too long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobb Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 since PC is doing this, i find that very doubtful. they are not honorable at all, as we have all seen time and time again. Oh you're so Guffey, I want to marry you! 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.