Question to Poison Clan

[Fenix]

PC - Weak move at best

I thought we were supposed to be the evil war mongers!!

o/TPF

[Haflinger]

So since they decided not to join in the war...

You attack them anyway?

That makes sense.

Hey, it's the logic that was applied to BLEU last year.

[Asdrubael Vect]

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.

Then from what you are saying: "the protectorate should help in the rebuilding of the protector" - that would give PC a reason to engage in a pre-emptive strike, to eliminate a potential aid influx (purely from a strategic standpoint the tactic is viable). Granted, it's all highly unconventional for CN standards.

[bzelger]

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.

I agree. I don't see what difference it makes whether or not they're a protectorate; it's a jerk move either way. They just waited for a low-risk moment as is tech-raiders eternal wont, PC protestations to the contrary. I don't like tech raiding, and I really don't like tech raiding alliances, but the community has never moved against it in a meaningful way before, and I don't see this as a special case.

Edited May 22, 2009 by bzelger

[WalkerNinja]

Huh? How are any of you surprised at this?

If (as the Poison Clan has repeatedly asserted)

Tech Raiding = Honor + Fun

Then the only thing protecting alliances from tech raiding is the ability to intelligently defend themselves. Since California is very small and has no protector, they make a perfectly legitimate target for the Poison Clan. Thugs and thieves are thugs and thieves regardless of how they style themselves. Success will only make them bolder.

EDIT: And while I cannot condone (or even respect) their motives in this instance, I can hope that their rampant asshattery will eventually reduce the rapidly proliferating number of micro alliances on this Planet. In Francoist Philosophy, they are the drawbacks of the International Anarchy personified.

Edited May 22, 2009 by WalkerNinja

[nadabethyname]

thugs and thieves indeed. this will come back to bite you PC

[bbrownso]

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.

so you went for an easy target? Sure doesn't sound like the usual PC bravado and swagger. Leads me to two conclusions or a mixture of the two. 1. PC is hurting and needed a nice easy target. 2. PC is so consumed with hatred for TPF that they felt the need to taunt and mock TPF by attacking California.

As someone who stood up for PC before, I find it reprehensible that PC decided to attack a General's Protectorate.

[Rajistani]

Like TSI said.. Ball's in Karma's court now, I, for one, can't wait to see how it ends.

[bzelger]

Like TSI said.. Ball's in Karma's court now, I, for one, can't wait to see how it ends.

Karma is not Poison Clan's mother (nor California's). It's not our job to protect TPF's protectorate.

[Un4Gvn1]

Poison Clan, you've done this in the past ... 3 on 1 is not a tech raid, especially when you're attacking the entire alliance.

Along with taunting PMs to TPF nations I have to agree this is a move to up the ante on the taunts to TPF.

Poison Clan, you are right about one thing (I'm referring to the fact that some of you wanted TPF to be forced to remove all former Elysium gov and be ruled by one of you for a month as part of surrender terms) -- the gov is different than the TPF gov of a year ago; it is mainly former Elysium nations in gov -- but you are missing an inmportant point here. TPF is made of different people than the TPF you were a part of. The bulk of gov is different. A huge number of members are different.

Say, would you all be appeased if a few old-time TPFers came out to play in your sandbox exclusively? You could hold the old-timer volunteers down to ZI as long as you need to be satisfied?

[HeinousOne]

TPF has several classes of protectorates. OPP is a pseudo MDP bloc and is the only one that has engaged in warfare. OPP i believe was the force that attacked STA and soldier that you are alluding to.

There are then Full protectorates that operate like all other protectorates. One way.

Then there are General Protectorates that are under our protection, but without a cancelation clause that is binding like the Full protectorates

See, this just signifies the problem. You have Three types of protectorates. If you have to have three different groupings of them because you have so many then you are doing it wrong mhawk. This war is proving you cannot possibly protect them all at all times. You have chosen to honor your defensive treaties above all others and that is honorable but that makes it pretty damn difficult to protect all those alliances doesn't it? You guys should probably find them some other protectors that will either need to buy their tech or buy tech from them due to being decimated.

You're confusing the OPP with TPF. While TPF did have protectorate agreements with the members of the OPP, the OPP asked to be involved in the Polar war. As VP of a OPP alliance at the time, I should know. We wanted to fight. Is STA still angry about that?

Bolded portion - that makes no sense. So by your standards, the protectorates should come to the aid of the protector in a war? That seems to fly in the face of protectorates which are typically one-way (Protector --> Protectorate). Well, then those propaganda pieces with all the alliances should be amended because Atlantis has another reason to not be included on their as a victim of the "Hegemony." In fact, going by your apparent standard, there disbandment might have just been karma.

Get off the STA bit. I was not in STA at the time, this is about my own personal beliefs about these massive protectorates that some alliances build up. My opinion TPF being the worst at it.

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.

All very true. It comes off as irresponsible to think that in the worst situations that you will still be able to protect all these protectorates Plus all of the alliances that they hold defensive treaties with. This is Karma as well folks. It's just that its not very pretty to see so some folks are up in arms about it.

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.

So what? Is there some rule in the game that says you cannot raid a protectorate if you feel like it? No, there isn't. You might get attacked back for it but that is what a protectorate is all about. There is no longer a threat of reprisal from TPF and quite honestly war is sometimes hell. There is no love lost between PC and TPF so is it really a surprise that PC is trying to show how pointless those protectorates are now?

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.

I think some folks are getting all tied up in all this honor and fair play talk. While its good to see these aspects to any war it is still war and they do not happen all that often. PC seems to have decided to prove just how much you guys are really not able to live up to all the treaties you have signed. In the end the responsibility is on your shoulders for signing too many treaties. You should not be attempting to shame them when much of the shame is upon you.

[Velocity111]

If we were attacking California for anything other than a tech raid, we probably would've done more than sent 2 ground attacks and then sent peace. No cruise missiles, air attacks, or naval attacks (or nuclear strikes) were used. As far as I'm concerned, we've done nothing more than raid them. Are we discriminating by raiding California? I got out of anarchy 4 days ago. Since then, I've done 30 ground attacks in raids. Only the last few were from California. Honestly, I could care less about California's connection to TPF. They had tech and land, they were unprotected (according to their bios, or, if their bios were lying, then they were unprotected in that TPF couldn't protect them), so I raided. I have sent peace, and if they choose not to accept peace (apparently TPF messaged them telling them not to attack back or accept peace), then that is their choice.

[Heracles the Great]

Yeah but anyways its kind of tacky to raid someone whos protector is under siege. Proves Cowardess, But no disrespect to PC.

So is it "tacky" that everyone is raiding red now that NPO is under seige?

[bzelger]

So is it "tacky" that everyone is raiding red now that NPO is under seige?

Yes. And not everyone is.

[pooksland]

That PC wouldn't have done this if California wasn't connected to TPF.

I am too lazy to read the next couple of pages, but you are completely wrong.

I wasn't involved in this as I have been completely inactive lately, but it was just nations searching for a tech raid and stumbling upon this small alliance. How is this any different from people raiding red? Are they just raiding red to mock NPO, or is there an added benefit in reaping the rewards of tech raiding.

Yes PC may not be fans of TPF, but guezz get off your high horse. Not everything PC does is related to TPF, we don't care for you that much.

[Otherworld]

In the end the responsibility is on your shoulders for signing too many treaties. You should not be attempting to shame them when much of the shame is upon you.

I think TPF could easily enforce the treaties if you know...weren't being attacked by a force x times larger.

So it is not a case of TPF having too many treaties, it's just they aren't in the best situation to keep to them. Would be nice to a sanctioned alliance tech raid PC...

[HeinousOne]

I think TPF could easily enforce the treaties if you know...weren't being attacked by a force x times larger.

So it is not a case of TPF having too many treaties, it's just they aren't in the best situation to keep to them. Would be nice to a sanctioned alliance tech raid PC...

Well then perhaps you guys signed way too many treaties huh? You don't think that is the reason why you are fighting so many? You signed way too many protectorates, so many that you had to make three classifications for them and now it is being proven that you cannot always protect them all due to your methodology towards treaty signing. You shame yourselves by not owning up to this mistake.

This is not me condoning PC's actions, I am simply talking about the actions of TPF.

[Un4Gvn1]

I am too lazy to read the next couple of pages, but you are completely wrong.

I wasn't involved in this as I have been completely inactive lately, but it was just nations searching for a tech raid and stumbling upon this small alliance. How is this any different from people raiding red? Are they just raiding red to mock NPO, or is there an added benefit in reaping the rewards of tech raiding.

Yes PC may not be fans of TPF, but guezz get off your high horse. Not everything PC does is related to TPF, we don't care for you that much.

"High Horse" must be the buzzword of PC:

To: Peggy_Sue From: Energizer Date: 5/21/2009 8:54:10 PM

Subject: bio

Message: my my peggy sue, all this time and still on your high horse? Well I hope you dont stop there cause I mean, after all the happy train has yet to get rolling

but seriously, how you doen so far? Heard you ran outta cash, gatta suck.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Peggy_Sue

[Velocity111]

I think TPF could easily enforce the treaties if you know...weren't being attacked by a force x times larger.

So it is not a case of TPF having too many treaties, it's just they aren't in the best situation to keep to them. Would be nice to a sanctioned alliance tech raid PC...

Fact of the matter is, TPF cannot enforce the treaties. You cannot say "if there was peace, they could enforce these treaties" because there isn't peace. The possibility of actually going to war and needing to enforce treaties must always be considered when signing them. Cleary, TPF has too many treaties if they cannot enforce them.

If you think raiding an alliance with active/enforceable treaties and lots of nukes, high military readiness, and an itch for war will be profitable... well, there's nothing within the mechanics of the game that can prevent you from declaring on us (aside of being out of our range, or if peacemode is involved). Maybe you'll get a couple posts on the boards calling you hypocrites or something, I don't know. But whatever the case may be, the raid will not be profitable. We will make sure that your raid is not profitable.

[Velocity111]

"High Horse" must be the buzzword of PC:

You shouldn't be accusing us of anything just because your horse is high >_>

[bzelger]

I think TPF could easily enforce the treaties if you know...weren't being attacked by a force x times larger.

So it is not a case of TPF having too many treaties, it's just they aren't in the best situation to keep to them. Would be nice to a sanctioned alliance tech raid PC...

As long as we're on the subject of treaties, if TPF has any standing treaties with allies that aren't demilitarized and forbidden from declaring war then they could actually be activated in defense of their protectorate here since it's been made very clear that it's a separate conflict. Not going to happen, but it would be pretty funny.

[Un4Gvn1]

You shouldn't be accusing us of anything just because your horse is high >_>

LOL!

Oh, come on. Take me up on my offer to be a ZI punching bag for PC.

[Kilkenny]

Well then perhaps you guys signed way too many treaties huh? You don't think that is the reason why you are fighting so many? You signed way too many protectorates, so many that you had to make three classifications for them and now it is being proven that you cannot always protect them all due to your methodology towards treaty signing. You shame yourselves by not owning up to this mistake.

This is not me condoning PC's actions, I am simply talking about the actions of TPF.

You don't understand what he is saying or how the system is set up. The 3 levels have nothing to do with the number of alliances, but the development level of those allainces. GP= small newly formed alliances and is designed to give them a leg up and a chance to get going. OPP- more developed and growing allainces, almost ready to run on their own with regards to FA. Protectorates- ready to go, and the last step before they are on their own as far as FA and runnign everything.

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.

[BamaBuc]

I've never been anti-raiding, but alliance raiding ain't cool, and neither is 3 attackers per target. I don't know if this was done to spite us or not, but it's low either way.

-Bama

[mushi]

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.

Read the thread, we say accept that peace and move along. simple