Question to Poison Clan

[Newhotness]

So, basically PC is just having fun raiding. Thats what i got from this. TPF, if you are that upset about it...i dunno, bring your top guys out of peace and counter-declare war on PC for raiding your protectorate. Have 2 separate wars going on at once against the same alliance. EPIC!

[mhawk]

Is it possible that California may have no longer considered themselves protected by you? It just seems to me that that would be the only reason to put "California was protected by you" in every bio.

Have you read the messages they have been sending to pc nations? Read my post a few back, we both very clearly believe ourselves binded. PC is presenting a nation bio against our wiki, treaty, forums, and private comms. I'm asking pc recognize their mistake as it states in their own raiding rules and pay back reps to california in full.

[deerokus]

TPF need to man up.

[Haflinger]

Is it possible that California may have no longer considered themselves protected by you? It just seems to me that that would be the only reason to put "California was protected by you" in every bio.

I don't actually know if this is the case or not, but keep in mind the possibility for vagueness of tense here.

One can view the act of being protected as a continuing or a single act. You appear to view it as continuing. If it's a single act, though, then the meaning of the phrase X was protected by Y is that, at some time in the past, X became protected by Y. This state would continue until X is removed from Y's protection.

To be quite honest, I don't know why a former protectorate would mention in their bios that they were no longer protected. It seems more plausible to me that this is a bit of confusion over grammar.

Edit: lol, I made a grammar mistake; see if you can see it in the first quote

Edited May 22, 2009 by Haflinger

[Zoomzoomzoom]

And thus PC have returned to their position as teh ebil raiders.

The evil raiders that I love <3

But honestly?

No one should believe that PC raided California only in order to spite TPF. This was brought out just like any other tech raid that PC has launched in its past, nations were attacked, peace was sent, end. Not too much of a biggie. Whether California was affiliated with TPF or not, they would have still been hit.

The bolded section would be wrong I assume? That would break one of the ten commandments I believe.

[Masterof9puppets]

I don't actually know if this is the case or not, but keep in mind the possibility for vagueness of tense here.

One can view the act of being protected as a continuing or a single act. You appear to view at as continuing. If it's a single act, though, then the meaning of the phrase X was protected by Y is that, at some time in the past, X became protected by Y. This state would continue until X is removed from Y's protection.

To be quite honest, I don't know why a former protectorate would mention in their bios that they were no longer protected. It seems more plausible to me that this is a bit of confusion over grammar.

This is honestly puzzling me too, especially if what MHawk says about the convo's between them and California are true (I'm too lazy to go back a few pages )

I just don't see what the point would be of adding that to your profile

I doubt it was some confusion over grammar, someone in the entire would have (should have anyways..) realized that the description really, REALLY, made it appear as if they were no longer protected.

[Haflinger]

I doubt it was some confusion over grammar, someone in the entire would have (should have anyways..) realized that the description really, REALLY, made it appear as if they were no longer protected.

Well, on reading it you see, I thought the exact opposite. The people I was suggesting were confused by the grammar were PC, and now apparently you.

[Merrie Melodies]

Is it possible that California may have no longer considered themselves protected by you? It just seems to me that that would be the only reason to put "California was protected by you" in every bio.

Regardless of whether or not they were a TPF protectorate, they are a official alliance above 15 members which should have put them outside of PCs published tech raiding rules, furthermore its been quite awhile since I've seen 3 v 1 tech raids.

[fant0m]

Regardless of whether or not they were a TPF protectorate, they are a official alliance above 15 members which should have put them outside of PCs published tech raiding rules, furthermore its been quite awhile since I've seen 3 v 1 tech raids.

Why, have you been living under a stone? Are you going to try and get me warned for saying that? I heard that's what you like to do for fun.

[Banslam]

Regardless of whether or not they were a TPF protectorate, they are a official alliance above 15 members which should have put them outside of PCs published tech raiding rules, furthermore its been quite awhile since I've seen 3 v 1 tech raids.

Try reading our raid rules before you comment?

Our raid rules don't say we can't raid alliances over 15 members. They simply state that if the alliances is over 15 members we need the approval of The Toad (CTB) or The Master Killer (Twisted) first.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Banslam

[Merrie Melodies]

Why, have you been living under a stone? Are you going to try and get me warned for saying that? I heard that's what you like to do for fun.

The citizens of my nation do many things for fun, that which you speak of isn't one of them.

I don't live under a stone and this action against California sure don't look like a tech raid.

[fant0m]

The citizens of my nation do many things for fun, that which you speak of isn't one of them.

I don't live under a stone and this action against California sure don't look like a tech raid.

Seriously, you should look at what Banslam just posted.

And no, this certainly isn't a tech raid. We haven't only used ground attacks and certainly have not all sent peace offers immediately after doing so. This is clearly a full scale nuclear assault which will end in us demanding the disbandment of California. (Yes, I just used sarcasm on the internet)

[HeinousOne]

All this is, is proof that some alliances sign way too many protectorates. They think that their name alone should grant the protected micro alliance immunity from attacks. Well when you sign a protectorate it is all about being able to protect them from attacks, if all you have are insults on a forum to protect them with then you Fail and you seriously need to look over your treaty signing policies. You are way too overextended TPF and insults do not count as defense.

Still waiting to see some responsibility claimed by TPF for foolish treaty signing policies. Oh yeah...that's right you dont mind the damage done to the microalliance because its giving you awesome PR against PC. California is treatied only with TPF right? That basically makes them an extension. I do not know why PC didnt just declare on them pre-emptively. It wouldnt be the first such declaration during this war.

I have a feeling we wont see any responsibility shown from the hegemony side of this as this is just too good of a chance to snag some much needed PR. Look at all the guys trying to take shots at Karma over this. Very obvious folks, very obvious.

[Alterego]

ok now i wanna fight you, and nuke you...

Grow up.

[Thom98]

edit: the post below were quoted from pc's open fourm rules on tech raids

please note the dates

Sep 28 2008, 04:57 PM

Post #1

Couped by Chinatownbus

***

Group: The Snake

Posts: 937

Joined: 12-May 08

From: Iceland

Member No.: 2

Alliance: Poison Clan

Nation Link: Schenanigans

QUOTE

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.

For raids done just before server update time, you may employ the quad attack during your raid and must then offer peace to your target. All raids done at least two (2) hours before server update time, you must offer peace after your initial two (2) ground attacks.

Chinatownbus

Rating: 0

View Member Profile

post Apr 12 2009, 09:59 PM

Post #1

The Toad

***

Group: The Toad

Posts: 687

Joined: 13-May 08

From: New York, NY

Member No.: 3

Alliance: Poison Clan

Nation Link: NY2BOSTON $15

Only nations whose AA is set as "None" are to be considered raid targets.

Well I did as was suggested to me and went to your forums and it seems that you are following outdated "rules" set forth in your own forums. Thank you for having all of this in open forums.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Thom98

[Kilkenny]

Is it possible that California may have no longer considered themselves protected by you? It just seems to me that that would be the only reason to put "California was protected by you" in every bio.

not every bio, 7 of 18.

California has chosen not to activate the Optional Defense portion of their protectorate agreement with TPF. If you have any questions, PM VenetianBlind. --- Farming the Uberness until eternity. Looking for a stable tech trade partner - message me up

That is the bio from the 2nd from the top nation in California, nothing said about was or not protected by us, just a statement that they are not exerciseing the optional portion of the protectorate agreement. and of course they could have PM'd VenetianBlind like the bios stated to clarify. Fact is they are claiming to still be protected by us in talks, see mhawk above.

[fant0m]

not every bio, 7 of 18.

That is the bio from the 2nd from the top nation in California, nothing said about was or not protected by us, just a statement that they are not exerciseing the optional portion of the protectorate agreement. and of course they could have PM'd VenetianBlind like the bios stated to clarify. Fact is they are claiming to still be protected by us in talks, see mhawk above.

Ok, so TPF is protecting them. When will we see TPF actually doing any protecting?

[HeinousOne]

not every bio, 7 of 18.

That is the bio from the 2nd from the top nation in California, nothing said about was or not protected by us, just a statement that they are not exerciseing the optional portion of the protectorate agreement. and of course they could have PM'd VenetianBlind like the bios stated to clarify. Fact is they are claiming to still be protected by us in talks, see mhawk above.

They decide not to activate the only defensive treaty that they hold? Talk about class. I think they deserve to get smacked around. Fact of the matter is you probably told them not to so that they could help you rebuild. Now that PC is raiding them you fear that you will get that much less help in rebuilding. Sorry, but protectorate pacts should not be free and you no longer have Q to help you maintain an obese treaty policy.

It's true, Karma can truly be a !@#$%* sometimes.

Edit: Also, perhaps if you guys begin to lose your easy rebuild options (protectorates) perhaps then you will not be able to dictate when you accept terms.

Edited May 22, 2009 by HeinousOne

[Alterego]

When you read on it becomes clear the protectorate agreement is still in operation.

California was a protectorate of TPF. We have chosen not to activate the optional defense clause of our protectorate treaty, and thus are neutral in this conflict.

It was a badly worded opener to a statement about the Karma war. Not activating their optional defense clause would be an odd thing to say if the treaty no longer existed. (unless this is new and related to the PC issue) in which case ignore me...

Ok, so TPF is protecting them. When will we see TPF actually doing any protecting?

You broke your own rules.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Alterego

[Felix von Agnu]

All this is, is proof that some alliances sign way too many protectorates. They think that their name alone should grant the protected micro alliance immunity from attacks. Well when you sign a protectorate it is all about being able to protect them from attacks, if all you have are insults on a forum to protect them with then you Fail and you seriously need to look over your treaty signing policies. You are way too overextended TPF and insults do not count as defense.

Still waiting to see some responsibility claimed by TPF for foolish treaty signing policies. Oh yeah...that's right you dont mind the damage done to the microalliance because its giving you awesome PR against PC. California is treatied only with TPF right? That basically makes them an extension. I do not know why PC didnt just declare on them pre-emptively. It wouldnt be the first such declaration during this war.

I have a feeling we wont see any responsibility shown from the hegemony side of this as this is just too good of a chance to snag some much needed PR. Look at all the guys trying to take shots at Karma over this. Very obvious folks, very obvious.

All of our current protectorates were signed at a time where we could protect them with military force. I'm not slinging anything at Karma, because I know that a) Karma is only a loose federation, and B) a lot of people disagree with PC's actions.

I will have you know, I don't give a damn who is attacking them, just the fact that they are being attacked at such a time is what angers me. PC has raiding rules, and they obviously broke them. It seems their raid was based on either one word, or hating TPF. I'm not quite sure.

I'm also sure that you may notice we could not defend any other treaty partners should they be attacked. This is clearly a sign of our poor treaty signing as well then, right? Would you rather have us cancel all treaties whenever we enter a war, should we be unable to honor them to our fullest extent?

[Fort Pitt]

they could just as easily say TPF cant do anything more then they are already doing since they are already at war

ill admit, it was a low blow by PC, but it isnt the end of the world... the biggest problem is there are too many eLawers...

[Felix von Agnu]

Ok, so TPF is protecting them. When will we see TPF actually doing any protecting?

Would you like us to declare war on you?

[HeinousOne]

All of our current protectorates were signed at a time where we could protect them with military force. I'm not slinging anything at Karma, because I know that a) Karma is only a loose federation, and B) a lot of people disagree with PC's actions.

I will have you know, I don't give a damn who is attacking them, just the fact that they are being attacked at such a time is what angers me. PC has raiding rules, and they obviously broke them. It seems their raid was based on either one word, or hating TPF. I'm not quite sure.

I'm also sure that you may notice we could not defend any other treaty partners should they be attacked. This is clearly a sign of our poor treaty signing as well then, right? Would you rather have us cancel all treaties whenever we enter a war, should we be unable to honor them to our fullest extent?

It certainly is a sign that signing far too many treaties in the first place is a bad move. Just curious, have you ever counted them all up?

[Trigger]

Even if this was just a tech raid, who rolls an entire alliance "because [their] top nations are bored"? Not exactly great sportsmanship there.

Who got rolled? Seriously. Raid commenced with peace offers sent. Everyone needs to just stop with the killing an alliance junk.

[bbrownso]

It certainly is a sign that signing far too many treaties in the first place is a bad move. Just curious, have you ever counted them all up?

Yes they have. They used to have a little chart for these types of things (protectorate announcements) for people that have short attention spans. Apparently, it wasn't enough for some.