CptGodzilla Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Technically you are right. But I think we all know the deal as well. It would be silly for NPO to get away from this as only a repulsed attacker. I do not think it is silly for IRON to get lenient terms as they did. Not to stress the past, but movement such as Vox Populli and karma as a whole stressed the "goodness" of the Karma side. Fighting for a better world. A nicer world. We all know that's propaganda. But, in order for propaganda to work you have to follow through to some degree. Given that there's really no reason to crush Iron through reps but simple greediness, its actually a good move to let them off easily so you can save up the heavy !@#$ for the real enemy. Especially as IRON didn't really want to fight. IRON didn't want to fight, but they did. I can sure as hell tell you that RoK didn't want to get attacked by an alliance 2x their size, but they did. No reps would hurt the victor (RoK) and reps hurt the loser (IRON). Do the math here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogeWilliam Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) IRON didn't want to fight, but they did. I can sure as hell tell you that RoK didn't want to get attacked by an alliance 2x their size, but they did. No reps would hurt the victor (RoK) and reps hurt the loser (IRON). Do the math here. I'm not disagreeing. Reps are being paid are they not? If you mean something else by "do the math", then I'm lost. On a side note, there's only 1 problem that I have with the OP. This could have been done in private. 1upping war allies on a public troll board is poor style and speaks against the "friends" in superfriends. Edited May 30, 2009 by DogeWilliam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptGodzilla Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 I'm not disagreeing. Reps are being paid are they not? If you mean something else by "do the math", then I'm lost. [OOC]Alcohol + Class in 3 hours + papers due + 5am = lack of reading comprehension [/ooc] I leave this topic wishing good luck to my friends in RoK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daemon Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 On a side note, there's only 1 problem that I have with the OP. This could have been done in private. 1upping war allies on a public troll board is poor style and speaks against the "friends" in superfriends. I disagree. This was rumour control and the best way to addres the spread of rumours and gossip is to shine a very bright public light on them and clear the air instantly. Imagine if this issue had gotten out of control over the next week what damage could have been done and how distracting it could potentially have been if unanswered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Lightning Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Could somebody please explain why RIA could reasonably expect us to go out of our way to take nukes on their behalf? It's not that I have anything against them, I rather like their culture for that matter, I just wouldn't take a bullet for them and don't understand why I'd be expected to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rishnokof Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 I'm not disagreeing. Reps are being paid are they not? If you mean something else by "do the math", then I'm lost.On a side note, there's only 1 problem that I have with the OP. This could have been done in private. 1upping war allies on a public troll board is poor style and speaks against the "friends" in superfriends. I don't think you quite comprehend the point of the thread. This was needed, because what was done in private wasn't good enough. Anyway, I think this whole issue was put to bed on page one, so I shall take my leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Could somebody please explain why RIA could reasonably expect us to go out of our way to take nukes on their behalf? It's not that I have anything against them, I rather like their culture for that matter, I just wouldn't take a bullet for them and don't understand why I'd be expected to. I would say you're expected to because you are fighting alongside us, making us all allies of sorts. Ya know, instead of jumping into wars that are full on nuclear, taking up a defensive slot, and not really contributing as much as you think you do. In the end, TOP is a sovereign alliance, and can do as it pleases. I'm sure plenty of alliances understand this, and I'm sure plenty of alliances now will never "take a bullet" for TOP. That's the way the world works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der_ko Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Could somebody please explain why RIA could reasonably expect us to go out of our way to take nukes on their behalf? It's not that I have anything against them, I rather like their culture for that matter, I just wouldn't take a bullet for them and don't understand why I'd be expected to. Any respectable alliance will not go out of their way to maximize damage on their war time allies. If you were uncomfortable being war time allies you should have stayed out of the war as you've done many times in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Technically you are right. But I think we all know the deal as well. It would be silly for NPO to get away from this as only a repulsed attacker. Quite frankly, I love the idea that NPO is a repulsed attacker, because the bottom line is that's exactly what happened. They rolled their tanks expecting to walk through OV as so often happens in the past, but instead a bunch of people went "lol no" and kicked them in the nuts while NPO tried finding the 'undo' button. So, whether or not IRON was targeted or not is no issue. Their reps should not have been based on that, nor is that argument valid as to whether or not IRON deserved to get off light or heavy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Seriously guys, its not about repayment, its about the 'right' amount of repayments..and all that has been discussed here in much more details. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=58312 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boscher Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Get off your high horse TOP. All I have to say after 27 pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) When you tell your opponent that if they don't nuke you, you won't nuke them, and you are TOP, they will then avoid nuking you and instead send all of their nukes against the rest of us. And using up spy slots for things other than spying away nukes because you weren't engaged in a nuclear war with the nations in question was really appreciated by those of us who were eating nukes, let me tell you. Are you kidding me? Wow... And there goes the last bit of respect I had for that piss poor excuse for an alliance. Wasn't our nuke fight, chief. It sure was. When you decide to enter the war it automatically becomes your nuke fight, man. Yea, this thread is clearly TOP's fault. A lot of the facts that have been brought forward in this thread is clearly TOP's fault. Seriously, you should make an apology to try and save some of the dignity you have left. I've said it before. You're definitely not the white knights you portray yourselves as. And the more I see from you the more disappointed I am. Edited May 30, 2009 by SpiderJerusalem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buller Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Are you kidding me? Wow... And there goes the last bit of respect I had for that piss poor excuse for an alliance. We don't care about your respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon De Montfort Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 To all the people complaining about the level of assistance we gave them in the war, I can assure you that you won't have to worry about that ever again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 We don't care about your respect. Another one saved for my scrapbook To all the people complaining about the level of assistance we gave them in the war, I can assure you that you won't have to worry about that ever again. I find it Ironic that you have a video of "TOP's nuclear thunder" in your sig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) Where has all this nonsense about TOP being war-time allies with RIA and GOD come from? The fact that we're fighting the same people does not mean that we're suddenly bosom-buddies or de facto treaty partners or whatnot. We went weapons-free to help our MDP'd friends in Umbrella and nuked those who nuked us first, a policy which has pretty much been par for the course throughout the history of Planet Bob. Since when did "no first-strike" nuke policies become immoral? Edit: Correction. Edited May 30, 2009 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buller Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 I find it Ironic that you have a video of "TOP's nuclear thunder" in your sig Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Since when did "no first-strike" nuke policies become immoral? So if I were to attack someone who nuke rogued TOP, but made a "no nukes" agreement with them (neither myself nor the nuke rogue would nuke each other), you would be a little upset I would imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Where has all this nonsense about TOP being war-time allies with RIA and GOD come from? The fact that we're fighting the same people does not mean that we're suddenly bosom-buddies or de facto treaty partners or whatnot. We went weapons-free to help our MDP'd friends in Umbrella and nuked those who nuked us first, a policy which has pretty much been par for the course throughout the history of Planet Bob. Since when did "no first-strike" nuke policies become immoral?Edit: Correction. You decided to fight alongside RIA and GOD. It's expected that you actually fight instead of thinking more about your precious infra. But I guess we cannot expect very much from TOP now that your eyes are fixed at the #1 spot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Why? Because that's exactly what we didn't see much of in this war... Duh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) So if I were to attack someone who nuke rogued TOP, but made a "no nukes" agreement with them (neither myself nor the nuke rogue would nuke each other), you would be a little upset I would imagine. Alden, I'd certainly welcome your help irrespective of whether you nuked or not. Your nation is a behemoth. Edit: Or it was, last time I checked. Also iirc, you're damn good at wrecking other people's nations Edited May 30, 2009 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon De Montfort Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 You decided to fight alongside RIA and GOD. We're sorry we won't do it again. But I guess we cannot expect very much from TOP now that your eyes are fixed at the #1 spot And so it begins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dan Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) I'm a bit baffled as to how these things come to focus on us when neither of the complaining grievances we're responsible for. The OP and subsequent claim of a "secret deal" have been taken care of. There was no mystery as to our policy (ie, those we were fighting alongside knew) about the no-nuke first strike (this was on 3/5 alliances, mind you). I don't see how Alliance Politics is the place to debate our contribution to the war vs. our "whiny" demeanor. Delta, please quantify the amount of hatred you have for this demeanor so that I might accurately compare it to our NS destroyed. (Haha, j/k, stemming from an earlier argument ). Edit: Should clarify, policy was in place for all, but BAPS and OMFG straight out said we're nuking you. Edited May 30, 2009 by Dr. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) If one has a problem with how the war was conducted..then make up a list of clauses and sign a goddamn treaty..and maybe call it KARMA MADP?...until then, people are free to fight as per any set of conditions they have set upon themselves in prior...such as 'No-first strikes'. TOP being criticised for following its own internal policy is plain funny...they are under no obligation under any treaty to trump the No-first strike policy. They went in to help Umbrella, if Umbrella has no problems with it, then thats about it, if you have any problems regardless, go complain to your HQ. I am sure they are aware of the military policy of the strongest military alliance fighting on Karma side. Karma being an ad hoc setup has its advantages and disadvantages, if you're willing to benefit from this, be prepared to accept the downsides too. Edited May 30, 2009 by shahenshah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Alden, I'd certainly welcome your help irrespective of whether you nuked or not. Your nation is a behemoth. But that's not the point. By attacking, I would be ensuring that TOP members ate more nukes than would have been expected otherwise. Or, conversely, imagine that myself and two other people raided a guy who went rogue on three TOP nations. All of us make a similar pact - we won't nuke the rogue if he won't nuke us. Now the rogue clearly is going to be able to focus fire on the TOP nations, instead of being able to "spread the love." You can't honestly tell me that TOP would approve of that situation - myself and my two friends get what would likely be a free tech raid while the rogue rains nukes down on TOP members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts