mhawk Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 7 nations have was. Even if it was copy pasted, they would be writing in in past tense. Eg. SRPN is protectorate of PC=/= SRPN was protectorate of PC. see the difference? How many typo's do you see in nation bio's and on these forums? How many times have you seen us cancel the protection of California? Yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mushi Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 How many typo's do you see in nation bio's and on these forums? How many times have you seen us cancel the protection of California? Yeah. Comeon mhawk, the "was" is no typo. How many times do we see TPF cancel protection on the forums? also why would small AA's even tell TPF they had protectorate with , that it was cancelled. I think it there is probably no diplomatic contact between you guys anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Blair Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 So an alliance known for aggressive raids are raiding. How exquisitely dishonorable, they are obviously JUST AS BAD AS THE HEGEMONY! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mushi Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 So an alliance known for aggressive raids are raiding. How exquisitely dishonorable, they are obviously JUST AS BAD AS THE HEGEMONY! Yeah, Down with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Comeon mhawk, the "was" is no typo. How many times do we see TPF cancel protection on the forums? also why would small AA's even tell TPF they had protectorate with , that it was cancelled. I think it there is probably no diplomatic contact between you guys anyways. I suppose us being in contact with them consistently pre war and during this incident just didn't happen because you saw a "was" and choose to ignore all the other nation bio's and the wiki. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mushi Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 I suppose us being in contact with them consistently pre war and during this incident just didn't happen because you saw a "was" and choose to ignore all the other nation bio's and the wiki. Only 1 nation bio against 7. We know how often Wiki's are updated, its never a best guide. If you were in contact pre-war the didnt decide to put thre pixels up for you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairman Cao Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 The rest of the bio on California member nations. Thus supporting Syrik's point. This is a raid. It is not a spiteful attack on TPF. TPF is giving us a good war for the most part and I hope it keeps up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Only 1 nation bio against 7. We know how often Wiki's are updated, its never a best guide. If you were in contact pre-war the didnt decide to put thre pixels up for you? They are a GP, not OPP. Y'all know that, twisted is the one that signed them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 This is a raid. It is not a spiteful attack on TPF. TPF is giving us a good war for the most part and I hope it keeps up. Hopefully you can see why tech raiding our 18man protectorate would be taken as "spiteful". Especially in the context of [22:40] <+Desperado`> syrik, raiding california? [22:40] <+Desperado`> wtf is up with that? [22:41] <+[syrik]> You guys are hiding in peace mode... had to attack something [22:41] <+Desperado`> pretty lame [22:41] <+[syrik]> The people of Schenanigans willed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorkingClassRuler Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mushi Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Hopefully you can see why tech raiding our 18man protectorate would be taken as "spiteful". Especially in the context of [22:40] <+Desperado`> syrik, raiding california? [22:40] <+Desperado`> wtf is up with that? [22:41] <+[syrik]> You guys are hiding in peace mode... had to attack something [22:41] <+Desperado`> pretty lame [22:41] <+[syrik]> The people of Schenanigans willed it. mhawk, you may not be around long enough, but most of the old TPFers know that syrik is sarcastic on IRC. Its near impossible getting a straight answer out of him. 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. According to their bio's they are no longer a protectorate and we raided them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 TPF protection is irrelevant at this point ... so, while I strongly disapprove of alliance level raiding and therefore I think this action is a disgrace, it is no worse than several similar occasions in the past, whether the protectorate has been formally dropped or not. Your protectorates are effectively independent alliances at this point since you can't protect them in any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otherworld Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Tech raiding is all well and good IMO....but this is obviously done just to spite TPF...if you can't see that you are most likely mentally impaired, in denial, blind or a combination between the 3. Also...why only have one person attack their top 5 nations...but have 3 attacking lower down nations at a time? Seems pretty cowardly to me imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairman Cao Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Also...why only have one person attack their top 5 nations...but have 3 attacking lower down nations at a time?Seems pretty cowardly to me imo. Because their top 5 nations have a whole 25 nukes total on top of a formidable 0 WRC, 0 AADN and 2 FAB! Damn right, we wouldn't dare touch that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mushi Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Also...why only have one person attack their top 5 nations...but have 3 attacking lower down nations at a time?Seems pretty cowardly to me imo. because we have more lower down nations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asdrubael Vect Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Perhaps they should have sought out an alliance that is actually capable to protect them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimaera Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Perhaps they should have sought out an alliance that is actually capable to protect them? They were highly capable of protecting them at the time it was signed, which was a very long time ago. Also, tech raiding a protectorate and established alliance? That's pretty low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix von Agnu Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) I think its sad that Poison Clans delusional anger is so deep that when they can't attack us they decide to attack one of our protectorates. Or maybe we fought back more than they expected, so they needed their precious pixels back. Seeing as they couldn't take them back from TPF, they decided to hit someone we protected. This entire action is despicable. Edited May 22, 2009 by Felix von Agnu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asdrubael Vect Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 They were highly capable of protecting them at the time it was signed, which was a very long time ago. Well, yes. But things changed, and they were just sitting there hoping for the best? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimaera Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Well, yes. But things changed, and they were just sitting there hoping for the best? Are you suggesting that whenever a protector is attacked, the protectorate should unilaterally end relations and try to find a different protector? Nobody in CN would stand up for people who are that quick to abandon those who have defended them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mushi Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Are you suggesting that whenever a protector is attacked, the protectorate should unilaterally end relations and try to find a different protector? Nobody in CN would stand up for people who are that quick to abandon those who have defended them. its called going to war with your protector, and in this war if you fought for 3-4 days small alliances are guaranteed white peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimaera Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 its called going to war with your protector, and in this war if you fought for 3-4 days small alliances are guaranteed white peace. So since they decided not to join in the war... You attack them anyway? That makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asdrubael Vect Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) Are you suggesting that whenever a protector is attacked, the protectorate should unilaterally end relations and try to find a different protector? Not whenever, but when the protector is likely to get pummeled into dust; and will not see peace in months to come (If I can get away with this assumption for the sake of the argument). Even after the war is over the protector is damaged so badly it wouldn't be able to offer any protection. Deducing from that it would not be illogical to seek protection elsewhere. Edited May 22, 2009 by Asdrubael Vect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorkingClassRuler Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 its called going to war with your protector, and in this war if you fought for 3-4 days small alliances are guaranteed white peace. No silly, the party line was that California were no longer under TPF's protection and this had nothing to do with TPF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimaera Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Not whenever, but when the protector is likely to get pummeled into dust; and will not see peace in months to come (If I can get away this assumption for the sake of the argument). Even after the war is over the protector is damaged so badly it wouldn't be able to offer any protection.Deducing from that it would not be illogical to seek protection elsewhere. If that was the case, perhaps. However, I feel that protectorates are, to some degree, a mutual pact, and that in your case, given that the majority of CN is honorable and doesn't randomly attack people in an AA (which, apparently, may no longer be true), the protectorate should help in the rebuilding of the protector. 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.