Question to Poison Clan

[Chimaera]

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.

No doubt, this is what needs to happen.

[HeinousOne]

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.

That is pretty silly if they were to be e-lawyered into a corner like that considering they are at war with california's protector. A world ran by e-lawyers will become just as boring as a world ran by hegemonic despots.

[JBone]

That is pretty silly if they were to be e-lawyered into a corner like that considering they are at war with california's protector. A world ran by e-lawyers will become just as boring as a world ran by hegemonic despots.

It's not silly at all.

The rules concerning PC tech raids were set down by PC, not anyone else.

They pride themselves on being fair and just raiders.

PC declared this a raid....not a DoW.

Seems like they should follow the rules they themselves set in place.

....and ffs, this has nothing to do with Karma, PC is on that side of the coin for purely opportunistic reasons.

Good job T, CTB should kick you in the nuts.

Edited May 23, 2009 by JBone

[HeinousOne]

It's not silly at all.

The rules concerning PC tech raids were set down by PC, not anyone else.

They pride themselves on being fair and just raiders.

PC declared this a raid....not a DoW.

Seems like they should follow they rules they themselves set in place.

....and ffs, this has nothing to do with Karma, PC is on that side of the coin for purely opportunistic reasons.

Good job T, CTB should kick you in the nuts.

Yes they should have just declared war. I thought someone mentioned though that the 15 member alliance rule could be overruled by twisted or something. Is this false?

I would think the 15 member rule is a general rule to be followed by membership so that leadership does not have to sit down and approve every single raid target. If leadership makes an exception to the rule then why does the world think it has the right to e-lawyer those leaders out of leading their own alliances?

[bzelger]

Yes they should have just declared war. I thought someone mentioned though that the 15 member alliance rule could be overruled by twisted or something. Is this false?

I would think the 15 member rule is a general rule to be followed by membership so that leadership does not have to sit down and approve every single raid target. If leadership makes an exception to the rule then why does the world think it has the right to e-lawyer those leaders out of leading their own alliances?

The 15-member rule can be sidestepped, but there's also the issue of raiding alliances with standing protectorates. PC asserts that they ran the raid under the misconception that the protectorate was void. As it is clear that they were mistaken, their rules dictate that they pay reparations. If they don't follow through then it's pretty silly for them to have bothered writing the rules in the first place.

[JBone]

Yes they should have just declared war. I thought someone mentioned though that the 15 member alliance rule could be overruled by twisted or something. Is this false?

I would think the 15 member rule is a general rule to be followed by membership so that leadership does not have to sit down and approve every single raid target. If leadership makes an exception to the rule then why does the world think it has the right to e-lawyer those leaders out of leading their own alliances?

I would think it would be hard to justify a DoW on California seeing as how they couldn't even furnish a valid CB for the war with TPF...so a "raid" was the way to go....and yea, I know they are fond of spewing the "Slayer wanted us dead" and "TPF isolated us" crap, but ask them why we never attacked them....no one ever talks about that or the forces behind it.

This action not only violates the 15 member rule laid down by PC, but the rule against attacking protected alliances.

I guess Twist or CTB could over ride the written raid rules, but then why have them....as it could always be said that the OK was given in any and all cases....thus rendering the fair and just "rules" useless and skating around the need to ever pay reps for violations of said rules.

[HeinousOne]

The 15-member rule can be sidestepped, but there's also the issue of raiding alliances with standing protectorates. PC asserts that they ran the raid under the misconception that the protectorate was void. As it is clear that they were mistaken, their rules dictate that they pay reparations. If they don't follow through then it's pretty silly for them to have bothered writing the rules in the first place.

Ahh, but this is the part where I really am not happy with the e-lawyering. PC is at war with California's protector. I realize its not in any raiding alliance's charter that such a rule would be null and void should the alliance go to war with an alliance's protector but it really should be and I would bet that after the war raiding alliances such as PC might put that clause in there.

When I push aside all the paper garbage being thrown around I see that this maneuver makes sense for PC. It's a shame how many others wish to tell them how to run themselves. Tell them they need to amend their charter to show how they feel now.

[neneko]

....and ffs, this has nothing to do with Karma

Take that The AUT, Brandon Simonson, Rajistani, Alterego, Thom98, mhawk and malazar

[HeinousOne]

I would think it would be hard to justify a DoW on California seeing as how they couldn't even furnish a valid CB for the war with TPF...so a "raid" was the way to go....and yea, I know they are fond of spewing the "Slayer wanted us dead" and "TPF isolated us" crap, but ask them why we never attacked them....no one ever talks about that or the forces behind it.

This action not only violates the 15 member rule laid down by PC, but the rule against attacking protected alliances.

I guess Twist or CTB could over ride the written raid rules, but then why have them....as it could always be said that the OK was given in any and all cases....thus rendering the fair and just "rules" useless and skating around the need to ever pay reps for violations of said rules.

Ok, before I continue let me address the fact that I am not here to defend PC's "honor" in doing this. I do not really care about such. I do care about PC's sovereignty. That is what I see is truly being declared upon here.

Once again, the 15 member rule is for general raiding. It surely can be overridden for particular alliances. What is the point of having leadership if all you ever need to do is simply follow a piece of paper?

As far as attacking protected alliances, they should amend their charter to show that if they are at war with an alliance then all that alliance's protectorates are no longer under the status of "protected alliance".

I understand you are trying to protect California in the only way you can but this is has become a discussion on how to step all over PC's sovereignty.

[bzelger]

Ahh, but this is the part where I really am not happy with the e-lawyering. PC is at war with California's protector. I realize its not in any raiding alliance's charter that such a rule would be null and void should the alliance go to war with an alliance's protector but it really should be and I would bet that after the war raiding alliances such as PC might put that clause in there.

When I push aside all the paper garbage being thrown around I see that this maneuver makes sense for PC. It's a shame how many others wish to tell them how to run themselves. Tell them they need to amend their charter to show how they feel now.

If you want to complain about "e-lawyering" take it up with PC. They're arguing that their raid is legal because some nation bios used the word "was" rather than "is" and asserting that it's unrelated to them being at war with TPF.

[Merrie Melodies]

Ok, before I continue let me address the fact that I am not here to defend PC's "honor" in doing this. I do not really care about such. I do care about PC's sovereignty. That is what I see is truly being declared upon here.

Once again, the 15 member rule is for general raiding. It surely can be overridden for particular alliances. What is the point of having leadership if all you ever need to do is simply follow a piece of paper?

As far as attacking protected alliances, they should amend their charter to show that if they are at war with an alliance then all that alliance's protectorates are no longer under the status of "protected alliance".

I understand you are trying to protect California in the only way you can but this is has become a discussion on how to step all over PC's sovereignty.

I hope that one day the powers to be go one step beyond and "step all over PC" . I'd love to see some more KARMA in action.

[HeinousOne]

If you want to complain about "e-lawyering" take it up with PC. They're arguing that their raid is legal because some nation bios used the word "was" rather than "is" and asserting that it's unrelated to them being at war with TPF.

As I said, I am not here defending their honor or even defending some of the silly and varied statements they made in defending this. I really do not know why they didn't just keep it simple and use the defenses I have put forward. It's a pretty simple defense.

So the just of this is that it has now become a discussion about shooting holes in PC's varied verbal defenses rather then allowing them sovereignty in how to act upon their charter and which actions to take which might require a change in the charter?

I hope that one day the powers to be go one step beyond and "step all over PC" . I'd love to see some more KARMA in action.

Hey, if PC's actions earn them such then that is on them and I would not argue against such feelings if they lead to war. If such feelings lead only to people coming here and trying to step all over them in order to get them to act "accordingly" then no I would not agree with that.

[bzelger]

Who is stepping all over them? They pulled a dick move and people are calling them on it. That's not a violation of their sovereignty. Nobody has threatened a police action. The only sovereignty that has been violated here is California's.

[Merrie Melodies]

As I said, I am not here defending their honor or even defending some of the silly and varied statements they made in defending this. I really do not know why they didn't just keep it simple and use the defenses I have put forward. It's a pretty simple defense.

So the just of this is that it has now become a discussion about shooting holes in PC's varied verbal defenses rather then allowing them sovereignty in how to act upon their charter and which actions to take which might require a change in the charter?

Hey, if PC's actions earn them such then that is on them and I would not argue against such feelings if they lead to war. If such feelings lead only to people coming here and trying to step all over them in order to get them to act "accordingly" then no I would not agree with that.

Some people use threads like these to high light how much of an $@! alliances can be, with future goals in mind. Plant a seed and watch it grow.

[JBone]

Ok, before I continue let me address the fact that I am not here to defend PC's "honor" in doing this. I do not really care about such. I do care about PC's sovereignty. That is what I see is truly being declared upon here.

Once again, the 15 member rule is for general raiding. It surely can be overridden for particular alliances. What is the point of having leadership if all you ever need to do is simply follow a piece of paper?

As far as attacking protected alliances, they should amend their charter to show that if they are at war with an alliance then all that alliance's protectorates are no longer under the status of "protected alliance".

I understand you are trying to protect California in the only way you can but this is has become a discussion on how to step all over PC's sovereignty.

I call BS.

If I wanted to step all over PCs sovereignty I would have allowed TPF to end them when we had the opportunity.

I'm calling them out on the fact that they did not have the stones to DoW....but hid behind a raid.

OH LOOK AT US....WER RADIN, ITS WUT PC DOES.

If that is the path they chose, then how can anyone be blamed for holding them to the rules they themselves put in place for such raids.

If it's a war, so be it, but don't try to tell the world your bored so you raid an 18 member, protected alliance, violating PC raiding rules....or requiring special government permission...whose only existing treaty just happens to be with the alliance you are at war with.

It's chicken!@#$.

[HeinousOne]

Who is stepping all over them? They pulled a dick move and people are calling them on it. That's not a violation of their sovereignty. Nobody has threatened a police action. The only sovereignty that has been violated here is California's.

Yes, but they have the right to pull a dick move. Others have the right to pull a move right back on them. I just disagree with how that is being done. By telling them they should pay reps because they did not follow their charter properly? I disagree with that. By telling them that they attacked a protected alliance? They are at war with their protector, why would they recognize that protected status? Thus I disagree with that too.

Did they pull a dick move? Maybe, but war in itself is a dick move. Isn't stopping the world.

Some people use threads like these to high light how much of an $@! alliances can be, with future goals in mind. Plant a seed and watch it grow.

Really? No...no one does that.

I call BS.

If I wanted to step all over PCs sovereignty I would have allowed TPF to end them when we had the opportunity.

I'm calling them out on the fact that they did not have the stones to DoW....but hid behind a raid.

OH LOOK AT US....WER RADIN, ITS WUT PC DOES.

If that is the path they chose, then how can anyone be blamed for holding them to the rules they themselves put in place for such raids.

If it's a war, so be it, but don't try to tell the world your bored so you raid an 18 member, protected alliance, violating PC raiding rules....or requiring special government permission...whose only existing treaty just happens to be with the alliance you are at war with.

It's chicken!@#$.

I have no argument about calling them out for not declaring. Problem is I would have no problem with them simply stating they are going to war pre-emptively with California due to their relations with TPF and not having relations with anyone else but many in the world would and once again we would probably have twice the e-lawyers calling them out on such. Either way they were going to have to face such so they simply did it how they saw fit to do it.

So in conclusion I agree with you, they chose the chicken!@#$ route instead of just declaring the war and dealing with the usual e-lawyers. They got the e-lawyers anyways right? Thing is, they made a sovereign decision and I understand why they would hit TPF's protectorates. It is that action that I would defend.

Edited May 23, 2009 by HeinousOne

[JBone]

Some people use threads like these to high light how much of an $@! alliances can be, with future goals in mind. Plant a seed and watch it grow.

MM, no one really needs to do that, PC is Johnny Farking Appleseed all by themselves.

I have no argument about calling them out for not declaring. Problem is I would have no problem with them simply stating they are going to war pre-emptively with California due to their relations with TPF and not having relations with anyone else but many in the world would and once again we would probably have twice the e-lawyers calling them out on such. Either way they were going to have to face such so they simply did it how they saw fit to do it.

So in conclusion I agree with you, they chose the chicken!@#$ route instead of just declaring the war and dealing with the usual e-lawyers. They got the e-lawyers anyways right? Thing is, they made a sovereign decision and I understand why they would hit TPF's protectorates. It is that action that I would defend.

Yes, a DoW would have been lovely.

E-lawyers blow, on that we agree.

In conclusion, Twist oops-ed, CTB will clean up the mess, he is smert.

[Kilkenny]

Yes, but they have the right to pull a dick move. Others have the right to pull a move right back on them. I just disagree with how that is being done. By telling them they should pay reps because they did not follow their charter properly? I disagree with that. By telling them that they attacked a protected alliance? They are at war with their protector, why would they recognize that protected status? Thus I disagree with that too.

Actually, their own charter, and the Tech Raiding Rules they wrote call for reps if a raid is against the rules. That is the point, they wrote it, are they going to follow it, or disregard it totally. They called it a raid, not us. We are just wondering if they are going to do what they always said they would.

[malazar]

Take that The AUT, Brandon Simonson, Rajistani, Alterego, Thom98, mhawk and malazar

I can't speak for the others but I never implied that this raid was Karma's fault. I just found the double standard applied by some posters to be interesting. Certainly others from Karma alliances already expressed their disapproval, so I would never paint the whole group of being guilty for the actions of one the misfits from Poison Clan. From what it seems like in reading the recent pages of post, it looks like Karma has handled the situation well if it is on its way to a resolution, so cheers to them on that.

[BikeCat]

I hope that one day the powers to be go one step beyond and "step all over PC" . I'd love to see some more KARMA in action.

To be quite honest, I imagine quite a few of your NSO members have some bad "KARMA" themselves. Teapot, quit calling the kettle black.

[Carter]

I disagree with tech raiding completely, and the target chosen by PC was quite obviously not a coincidence. If California was not involved in the conflict or had cancelled their protectorate, then they should have been left alone.

My sentiments exactly.

[TwistedRebelDB47]

I disagree with tech raiding completely, and the target chosen by PC was quite obviously not a coincidence. If California was not involved in the conflict or had cancelled their protectorate, then they should have been left alone.

I would like you to find an instance of an alliance that began without a protectorate that we did not raid.

(This is so that we can raid them now if they continue to not have a protectorate)

Nice classy and safe move jumping a protectorate in war time while their protector is fully engaged....but this seems to be a habit for you. Any threats sent to them about ZI if they attack back??? that is usually the next step. Of course will be interested in seeing what the reps will be for them to get out of the war/raid. For a war about change there doesn't seem to be any....except the names.

Fully engaged would be if you would stop hiding, Mr. Ihada$30warchest. Yes, that's $30. Enough for a sandwich bag, some rubber bands, a grilled cheese sandwich, and a pop gun. Congratulations on being quite possibly the worst Minister of War in Cybernations. By the way, how much aid have you received so far?

Because thats what terra prime and TSI got from you guys right?

Terra Prime disbanded before we even went into a room for deciding terms. It could have been $3m/50 tech to one nation.

Does PC regularly raid 3 v 1 ?

Sharing is caring.

Alright given the PC tech raiding rules in regards to alliances greater than 15, or are protectorates. Can we presume in accordance to your own rules full reps will be paid in addition to the revocation of raiding of the offending members for 30 days? Or is that little thing thrown out just because it's TPF's protectorate?

i am sure PC would have raided California a month ago.

so basically no one should sign any protectorates because when your on the losing side of a war you wont be able to defend them?

I'll just answer both with one statement.

If the statement that they "WERE" A TPF protectorate was pasted in half of their members' bios, then yes, we can raid them. Considering I like to keep tabs on most of the smaller alliances around for raiding and the text in their bios are fairly new, their bios clearly are more up to date information than any Wiki or Forum information. The bios were up to date as of 5/20/2009 from Velocity's screenshots. The forum post and Wiki edit for California are well over a year old. What information is most relevant and up to date? An old Wiki from a protector, or the brand new bios of the protected?

You would only stagger a raid if there was no intention of letting them peace out. Its a war with no DoW, even your protectorate is getting in on the war.

Trust me, it wasn't stagger so much as people getting on IRC late and hopping in to get raid slots.

[bbrownso]

Take that The AUT, Brandon Simonson, Rajistani, Alterego, Thom98, mhawk and malazar

I don't think I ever said it involved Karma. I think i said I wonder what action Karma would take, if any. I already knew that PC and it's allies/protectorates play a little hard and fast by the typically accepted rules. I mean we got declared on by DT, even though we made no move against PC as part of their protectorate or their MADP (I've heard both explanations). But then again, i could be wrong. I don't remember everything I write. (Maybe HeinousOne will now admonish me for writing so many statements that I can't back them all up or remember them all. ).

In fact, I'm still waiting on an answer on why DT, et al., declared on us according to their treaty with NV or PC or whoever. It was a stretch and I don't think I ever got an answer.

[TwistedRebelDB47]

Split in two posts cause too much quoted text:

So is the Bus Doctrine OK with raiding protectorates on Pink now?

The Bus Doctrine says nothing about preventing raiding on the Pink sphere. It only states that we will not tolerate the use of cruise missiles, aircraft, nuclear weapons, etc. on a raid for no reason, and we have not gone against that wording and done it ourselves. All members of Poison Clan have sent peace. If you want screenshots of their sent messages page, I'm sure it can be arranged assuming California nations haven't deleted any messages.

Also, just read iAlan's post stating that to his knowledge, all California nations have received peace.

They changed the bios AFTER you sent taunting PM's and raided them. Also, great job blackhorse and DT for trying to bandwagon.

No sir, I asked Velocity to take screenshots of every nation bio before beginning the raid. Proof is available in the screenshot he posted. Or I'll just pull logs from our channel about it, and you can all hoo and haw about how they are made up or something.

The only taunting PM's are to the cowardly TPF nations hiding in peace mode. Keep hiding, sista.

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

I guess when you deal with TPF, you need to imagine yourself speaking to a 2nd grader.

Here..

Look at the "Last Activity" field, and add the days inactivity to it to solve the puzzle.

The result should be 5/20 as the date of screenshots.

Then, please proceed to look up the dates/times that we raided.

Proceed to stick that foot.. well you know the deal.

Or do you need instructions for this as well..?

Do you plan on offering a temporary protectorate to California, then?

Sure would if they are interested. Its obvious TPF has no intentions of defending their protectorate.

Also from reading iAlan's responses, its clear that California are some good people.

Oh and hi Deathdread!

[zigbigadorlou]

The only sovereignty that has been violated here is California's.

Sovereignty? What makes sovereignty a worthy cause? People war regardless if people say "hey look I'm sovereign". Each nation is sovereign in its own right. This is no different. Sovereignty infringement is necessary for . AKA Sovereignty ought to be violated.

I must note that these statements seem to kind of make a satire of sorts. NPO attacked Ordo Verde with just cause! Let's Kill them! PC attacks a small unprotected alliance. Hm...wait...that's bad...right?