Trigger Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 I was going to say the same could be said about imposing PC's raiding rules onto everyone else when it involves the Pink Sphere. I'm pretty sure the rules in question are fairly universal to most alliances that allow raiding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Houston Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Ugh. I feel stupid for posting this late in the game. Probably repeating many posts. But PC has always been known as the refiners of raiding. So they raid. Why didn't anyone do something about it beforehand? And when did raiding suddenly become "illegal?" And as for the "PC broke their own rules..." obviously, many are overlooking the rider in the charter. Let's get real here, people. (for the record, i have been party to at least two alliances that were raided, only to have good relations with the raiders after it was sorted out - might is right in most cases.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uaciaut Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 I don't get how california leadership allowed their members to wear "california was a TPF protectorate" in their bios while doing nothing about it. Seriously why exactly are they leading? That said i do think this was a rather poor choice in a raid and i find it especially odd it went on in the middle of a global war but i was never against raiding and raiding was never supposed to be nice from the start; neither are politics really. Anyway glad to see this solved peacefully and such. Also Why? Some alliances don't have aspirations to be large. There's nothing wrong with being a perpetual protectorate in those circumstances. lol no. I would not encourage stagnation ever and i wouldn't keep dead weight around myself forever. If you would - good luck with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taishaku Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 (edited) I'm pretty sure the rules in question are fairly universal to most alliances that allow raiding. Errr... I hate to nitpick a long-resolved issue, but according to your leadership: "Alliances of 15 members and under, if they have no protectorate agreements or outside treaties, are acceptable to be raided. Alliances over 15 members who have no protectorate agreements or outside treaties may only be raided after permission has been given by The Lizard (the leader) or The Toad (second in command) of the Poison Clan. If the leader and second in command are not available, authorization may be given jointly by The Snake (defensive war director) AND one other government member." California has both more than 15 members AND has long been known to be a protectorate of TPF AND has outside treaties. Regardless of the "was" typo (now replaced by the amusing "chosed" typo), the fact that our description also stated that we had an ODP with TPF should have been noticed. A simple forum or wiki search would confirm that all of our paperwork remained active. I don't get how california leadership allowed their members to wear "california was a TPF protectorate" in their bios while doing nothing about it. Seriously why exactly are they leading? Ah... because the leadership so happens to be our friends (IRL)? Honestly, most of us just do what we're told. I haven't been nuked yet, so whatever we're doing seems to be working. xD I'm fine with raiding inactive, unaligned nations. But not hitting a small alliance with visible signs of diplomatic relations. I mean, the fact that we all had mentions of protectorateship and optional defense clauses advises discretion. I'm sure though that this global conflict just discourages caution; I doubt PC would be as quick to attack anybody mentioning protectorateship with a Continuum alliance a month prior. Edited May 25, 2009 by Taishaku Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirreille Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 lol no. I would not encourage stagnation ever and i wouldn't keep dead weight around myself forever. If you would - good luck with that. Stagnation? I've seens more then a dozen AAs spring up, try to expand, expand, expand, and end up disbanding in the time that we have been here. (OOC: People play CN for lots of different reasons. /OOC) Just because our small communities don't have the same philosophies as yours, does not make us failures. If TPF chooses to protect groups like ours that is their business. I'm surprised they don't mention it more often, it's one of the nicer things they do for the community at large. I suppose you think groups like WTF,TDO and GPA are dead weight too? After all, they don't have any treaties to speak of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uaciaut Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Stagnation? I've seens more then a dozen AAs spring up, try to expand, expand, expand, and end up disbanding in the time that we have been here. (OOC: People play CN for lots of different reasons. /OOC) Just because our small communities don't have the same philosophies as yours, does not make us failures. If TPF chooses to protect groups like ours that is their business. I'm surprised they don't mention it more often, it's one of the nicer things they do for the community at large.I suppose you think groups like WTF,TDO and GPA are dead weight too? After all, they don't have any treaties to speak of. Yes and yes. And i'm not attacking this from a community-point of view, you can all be great guys and such, you're just staying in corner isolating yourselves from any political problems by throwing away your sovereignity, when i think the game is about expanding yourself in all matters; it's more challenging, sure, but at the end of the day i think it's much more rewarding. So yeah i think you are dead weight, but that's just me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Hakai Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Frankly, this thread should be closed by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VenetianBlind Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 I don't get how california leadership allowed their members to wear "california was a TPF protectorate" in their bios while doing nothing about it. Seriously why exactly are they leading? The fact that we chose not to activate our ODP means the ODP still exists...right? Otherwise we'd say, "we cancelled the ODP". But no more e-lawyering here. You're right, we should have spotted the mistake ourselves. The fact that we made mistakes was taken into account and we are actively working to resolve our leadership issues. lol no. I would not encourage stagnation ever and i wouldn't keep dead weight around myself forever. If you would - good luck with that. We have different philosophies to nation building, that's all. 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.