NAAC 'roach problem

[Blacky]

NAAC *cough Blacky cough* keeps trying to cast TF in a bad light, but he keeps forgetting that we radiate our own light...

All kidding aside, I want to set the record straight. TF leadership had absolutely NOTHING to do with these ROGUE attacks.

I spoke wth NeoGandalf initially in regards to the issue and he saw fit not to respond. He chose not to deal with the rogues, not to condemn the rogues, in fact he supported the rogues attacks as a part of the "good ol' king of the hill" giving his full support for the rogue attacks. Back tracking now and claiming TF leadership played no part in the rogue attacks is laughable. You supported them, legitimised them and even sought to benefit from them. If there are negotiations to be had then lets do them but we're not going to fall for the same trick pulled on us already.

TF has casted itself in a bad light due to it's actions.

[NinjaPirate]

I spoke wth NeoGandalf initially in regards to the issue and he saw fit not to respond. He chose not to deal with the rogues, not to condemn the rogues, in fact he supported the rogues attacks as a part of the "good ol' king of the hill" giving his full support for the rogue attacks. Back tracking now and claiming TF leadership played no part in the rogue attacks is laughable. You supported them, legitimised them and even sought to benefit from them. If there are negotiations to be had then lets do them but we're not going to fall for the same trick pulled on us already.

TF has casted itself in a bad light due to it's actions.

I could say exactly the same about DefCon? Why haven't you done anything about him?

Just yesterday his bio stated that he was a rogue? It's completely tolerable when YOU BENEFIT from rogue attacks, but it's completely "immoral, dishonest, and dishonorable" when someone else launches rogue attacks against you.

Good God, some people and their double standards...

[Lehran]

Enough of your sulking Blacky. The top nations will be hit towards the end of every round. Get over it, play the game and accept that your nations are never safe in TE. I'll bet you all cheered when we went to war because you wouldn't have caught us otherwise - what would you have done then? Conspired to get someone else to hit us probably or sat around hoping you could keep a low profile and someone else would do your dirty work? Because clearly hitting us yourself is something you would never have done since it is such an ethical issue for you...or maybe you just can't bare to lose your infra (to the extent that one of your offered SE cash to avoid an actual war - is that the type of negotiations you are talking about?)

I know for a fact that for anyone whose opinion I care about, it is not TF who is in a bad light after your political publicity nonsense. Let it go before I turn this into something other than a defensive war on our part, at which point I am certain you would find your internal popularity plummet.

And for the record, we didn't speak - you pmed me and I had other stuff to deal with at the time. Not that it would have made any difference, but don't imply a conversation took place when it did not.

I will say for the last time, this was not about TF and NAAC, it was about the nations at the top and a reminder of the name of the game: Tournament Edition.

Until your tune changes and you accept this for what it is, there will be no negotiations.

Oh, and what he said ^^

Edited June 14, 2009 by NeoGandalf

[NinjaPirate]

That's why TF didn't expel them or attack them for going rogue huh.

Two things.

One: mind your own business? You don't know nearly enough about the matter in the first place to be taking sides?

Two: it's 2009. If you don't like something, take a stand. Otherwise, shut your mouth and deal with it.

[Asriel Belacqua]

Two things.

One: mind your own business? You don't know nearly enough about the matter in the first place to be taking sides?

Two: it's 2009. If you don't like something, take a stand. Otherwise, shut your mouth and deal with it.

NinjaPirate: Here NAAC is, not liking something, here we are taking a stand, and here YOU are telling us to shutup anyway. Have a nice day, ok?

[NinjaPirate]

NinjaPirate: Here NAAC is, not liking something, here we are taking a stand, and here YOU are telling us to shutup anyway. Have a nice day, ok?

Hey... before you freak out, can you just take a moment and check who that was directed at?

[Bob]

I could say exactly the same about DefCon? Why haven't you done anything about him?

Just yesterday his bio stated that he was a rogue? It's completely tolerable when YOU BENEFIT from rogue attacks, but it's completely "immoral, dishonest, and dishonorable" when someone else launches rogue attacks against you.

Good God, some people and their double standards...

Can you even read?

Thanks for playing.

Go back to where I stated "Defcon is not endorsed by NAAC" aka Zoomx3 is not.

[NinjaPirate]

Can you even read?

Thanks for playing.

Go back to where I stated "Defcon is not endorsed by NAAC" aka Zoomx3 is not.

Uhm... what part of my argument wasn't clear to you?

Libnan: TF is bad because it hasn't done anything about the rogue attacks on NAAC.

Me: NAAC hasn't done anything about Defcon's rogue attacks on TF.

Libnan: That doesn't matter to me -- err I mean NAAC -- right now.

Me: Double standards much?

Clear enough? Good. Now take a seat.

[Bob]

Enough of your sulking Blacky. The top nations will be hit towards the end of every round. Get over it, play the game and accept that your nations are never safe in TE. I'll bet you all cheered when we went to war because you wouldn't have caught us otherwise - what would you have done then? Conspired to get someone else to hit us probably or sat around hoping you could keep a low profile and someone else would do your dirty work?

Had fun regardless because we did very well?

Or we clearly would have had someone else hit you because well, that's just how we are. Totally, mhm. You are a very intelligent person and have us all figured out

Because clearly hitting us yourself is something you would never have done since it is such an ethical issue for you...or maybe you just can't bare to lose your infra (to the extent that one of your offered SE cash to avoid an actual war - is that the type of negotiations you are talking about?)

Did anyone else get to this part and laugh? There's a difference between declaring war as an alliance and having two of your members attack us, attemping to bring us down without hurting yourselves. That is cowardice. What he is saying just that, that your actions were cowardice and in support of your own victory with no morals at all, and that's his problem with it, not the fact that it is a war.

And OMG THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE..ohwait it happens in every war in TE? There's always someone willing to offer SE cash to avoid a war, and I think if someone asked me for 3mil in exchange for avoiding a war I might do it if it was legal, because guess what? A war with someone bigger than me will cost me the fun of a war with someone around my own size, because I will be curbstomped. 3million or whatever is very little compared to the fun.

I know for a fact that for anyone whose opinion I care about, it is not TF who is in a bad light after your political publicity nonsense. Let it go before I turn this into something other than a defensive war on our part, at which point I am certain you would find your internal popularity plummet.

"I know for a fact" So you apparently have spies in your allies? Because if you know a thing about how alliances work, its that leaders are not going to tell their allies they are doing it wrong most of the time and just ignore it. The membership is who matter, and unless you have talked to all of them, you have shouldn't be using the general term "anyone" because that's crap, you don't know it "for a fact".

Oh, and now we go into threats. Lovely, flexing that thar muscle huh? And not really, I think our members have written off the round because of your rogues and decided to open up on you anyways, unless the attacks are not real and just fakes, in which case please report them for not attacking

And for the record, we didn't speak - you pmed me and I had other stuff to deal with at the time. Not that it would have made any difference, but don't imply a conversation took place when it did not.

So it wouldn't have made a difference. Got it. So the point of talking made no difference to you, and this would have worked out the same way. Glad to see how you act diplomatically

I will say for the last time, this was not about TF and NAAC, it was about the nations at the top and a reminder of the name of the game: Tournament Edition.

Because TF had nothing to gain from NAAC being taken down, and if you believe that I'm selling my heart on Ebay as well, only 5 dollahs!

Until your tune changes and you accept this for what it is, there will be no negotiations.

So Blacky, until you decide to lie and grovel for his mercy, there will be no negotiations.

I'll summarize. What this is about is differing morals. NAAC believes in honor, TF believes in victory without any thoughts in any other direction.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris

[Bob]

Uhm... what part of my argument wasn't clear to you?

Libnan: TF is bad because it hasn't done anything about the rogue attacks on NAAC.

Me: NAAC hasn't done anything about Defcon's rogue attacks on TF.

Libnan: That doesn't matter to me -- err I mean NAAC -- right now.

Me: Double standards much?

Clear enough? Good. Now take a seat.

Did you note that NAAC declared war on TF?

(it's like arguing with a brick wall)

Edited June 14, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris

[NinjaPirate]

Did you note that NAAC declared war on TF?

(it's like arguing with a brick wall)

Defcon's attacks came before that DoW?

[Bob]

Defcon's attacks came before that DoW?

This is a great argument, and you should definitely try to use it anywhere else. Have you not noted that early attacks/jumpers are quite commonplace?

In regards to his attacks on SWAT, which I consider to be the real problem here, I addressed it earlier on with a "His actions are not endorsed by NAAC etc etc" and if we were more organized right now, we would have a trial over it. Since we aren't, he has been privately disciplined by myself and told to not do it again. Since SWAT has not contacted me regarding it, I have not done anything more regarding it.

I suggest you continue to argue, you are looking very good here.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris

[NinjaPirate]

This is a great argument, and you should definitely try to use it anywhere else. Have you not noted that early attacks/jumpers are quite commonplace?

In regards to his attacks on SWAT, which I consider to be the real problem here, I addressed it earlier on with a "His actions are not endorsed by NAAC etc etc" and if we were more organized right now, we would have a trial over it. Since we aren't, he has been privately disciplined by myself and told to not do it again. Since SWAT has not contacted me regarding it, I have not done anything more regarding it.

I suggest you continue to argue, you are looking very good here.

Yeah, but there's a difference between 30 minutes and 24 hours?

Anyways, you really are missing the point here. Blacky's making a huge deal out of TF nations going rogue and TF "not doing anything" about it. What I'm saying is, why worry about TF when you have rogues of your own to deal with (namely, Defcon)?

Edited June 14, 2009 by NinjaPirate

[Bob]

Yeah, but there's a difference between 30 minutes and 24 hours?

But you really are missing the point here. Blacky's making a huge deal out of TF nations going rogue and TF "not doing anything" about it. What I'm saying is, why worry about TF when you have rogues of your own to deal with (namely, Defcon)?

...

Can anyone get something into his head?

Because you /attacked/ us? Because you attacked us for the sole purpose of having your nations win the game? While you may claim otherwise, its pretty obvious.

We are dealing with our rogue, and I told you exactly what had been done. Now, if you wish to contribute something constructive instead of forcing me to restate the same things over and over again because of your failure to grasp what I am saying, then please do. Otherwise, read the thread. What you are asking about has been answered a number of times, and your persistence at bringing it up is just ridiculous and accomplishes nothing other then making me quite fed up.

[NinjaPirate]

...

Can anyone get something into his head?

Because you /attacked/ us? Because you attacked us for the sole purpose of having your nations win the game?

Woah woah woah... when did it become a crime to attack a nation in TE with the "purpose of winning the game"?

Edited June 14, 2009 by NinjaPirate

[Bob]

Woah woah woah... when did it become a crime to attack a nation in TE with the "purpose of winning the game"?

I'm just going to assume that you haven't read a thing I've posted and ignore this comment, I already replied to this point in my reply to Dark Wizard.

[NinjaPirate]

Woah woah woah... when did it become a crime to attack a nation in TE with the "purpose of winning the game"?

Oh right! It never was! So stop making such a big deal out of it?

Edited June 14, 2009 by NinjaPirate

[Zoomzoomzoom]

My attacks upon SWAT were in no way by support of NAAC. My bio clearly claimed that I was in fact not supported by NAAC but still riding their AA to deter raiders. Your attempt to use my bio message against is wrong. Read the entire thing and then talk. Too bad I no longer have it up as I settled the issue. (see below)

You attacked us so I attacked 2 more of you. Simple enough right there. I was attempting to give blacky or SealClubber a chance at still winning the round. If you're trying to argue that then you're an idiot. It's not a rogue attack upon your nations when your leader clearly supports the attacks upon NAAC.

The attacks upon SWAT were of the same essence, but had nothing to do with NAAC. It was an attempt to help blacky and seal, but at my own discretion. Difference between NAAC and TF is that the NAAC was willing to discuss the issues. From my knowledge they talked to brian and I therefore decided to settle the issue myself with them. I then settled the problem in-game with Anubis and we're cool. Look at the wonders of diplomacy!

Edited June 14, 2009 by Zoomzoomzoom

[Blacky]

Enough of your sulking Blacky. The top nations will be hit towards the end of every round. Get over it, play the game and accept that your nations are never safe in TE.

TF once again shows it's true colours in supporting the rogue attacks.

I should get over our nations being attacked should I? That is the most ridiculous suggestion I have ever heard.

Of course considering it would have been in your favour for us not to post a DOW in response that makes sense.

I'll bet you all cheered when we went to war because you wouldn't have caught us otherwise

We would have caught you either way in my opinion.

In relation to both of our nations you would have been tied up in bills due to your beefed up military.

Smear tactics in 3... 2...

what would you have done then? Conspired to get someone else to hit us probably or sat around hoping you could keep a low profile and someone else would do your dirty work?

We have not conspired for anybody to attack you. We would not have endorsed another alliance attacking your top nations. We had decided to play a fair and clean round.

Because clearly hitting us yourself is something you would never have done since it is such an ethical issue for you...or maybe you just can't bare to lose your infra (to the extent that one of your offered SE cash to avoid an actual war - is that the type of negotiations you are talking about?)

If that took place it was not endorsed by the NAAC (I stress IF because I spoke with both of the rogues as this happened). We would not have endorsed the payment of any other worldly currency in exchange for a cessation of what was essentially rogue attacks.

I know for a fact that for anyone whose opinion I care about, it is not TF who is in a bad light after your political publicity nonsense. Let it go before I turn this into something other than a defensive war on our part, at which point I am certain you would find your internal popularity plummet.

Hyprocrisy at it's best.

"Stop defending your actions or we'll wipe you out".

I want you to think very carefully about this NeoGandalf because you've shown that for the most part you're incapable of dealing with any form of criticism of your character and of your alliance.

Threatening to wipe out an alliance 1/3 of the size of your own which has already looked you in the eye and called you out for what you were will get you no where. If you wish to defend your actions do so with a civil tone. Not with threats.

And for the record, we didn't speak - you pmed me and I had other stuff to deal with at the time. Not that it would have made any difference, but don't imply a conversation took place when it did not.

You refused to speak. I sent you a personal message notifying you of what had occured and also with the tone of my message indicating the urgency of the matter. You failed to respond even after having read the message and been online on atleast two other occassions and even reading the thread in which I announced rogue attacks had occured. The whole while you stood in solidarity with the members. You did not see fit to at any time (not even in this very post) condemn the actions of the rogues.

I will say for the last time, this was not about TF and NAAC.

You are wrong. TF members attacked NAAC members. We asked them to stop yet they continued to attack NAAC members. We let you know about it and you did nothing except support the nations. This has everything to do with NAAC and TF and TF's attempts to use their status as a larger alliance with allies over us so that we might back down.

Until your tune changes and you accept this for what it is, there will be no negotiations.

If they're anything like the negotiations which took place before this war actually kicked off we're better off without them.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Blacky

[NinjaPirate]

My attacks upon SWAT were in no way by support of NAAC. My bio clearly claimed that I was in fact not supported by NAAC but still riding their AA to deter raiders. Your attempt to use my bio message against is wrong. Read the entire thing and then talk. Too bad I no longer have it up as I settled the issue. (see below)

You attacked us so I attacked 2 more of you. Simple enough right there. I was attempting to give blacky or SealClubber a chance at still winning the round. If you're trying to argue that then you're an idiot. It's not a rogue attack upon your nations when your leader clearly supports the attacks upon NAAC.

The attacks upon SWAT were of the same essence, but had nothing to do with NAAC. It was an attempt to help blacky and seal, but at my own discretion. Difference between NAAC and TF is that the NAAC was willing to discuss the issues. From my knowledge they talked to brian and I therefore decided to settle the issue myself with them. I then settled the problem in-game with Anubis and we're cool. Look at the wonders of diplomacy!

Stop putting words in my mouth the same way you put false facts into your head.

Just as your attacks on TF were rogue, so too were the attacks on NAAC. Don't put words in my mouth, saying that we (TF) supported them because if you do, I can just as well say NAAC is fully responsible for your attacks on TF.

Are we clear now?

Edit: can you people condense your posts? I really don't want to read through a friggen novel each time I decide to respond to you...?!

Edited June 14, 2009 by NinjaPirate

[Blacky]

Just as your attacks on TF were rogue, so too were the attacks on NAAC. Don't put words in my mouth, saying that we (TF) supported them because if you do, I can just as well say NAAC is fully responsible for your attacks on TF.

I alerted TF leadership about the issue to no avail. In fact this thread in itself was a response to the attacks. The first response I got back from TF was NeoGandalf's post in this thread:

What can I say...our guys saw NAAC taking advantage of our war with MHA to run away with the round and obviously felt it prudent to hit you before you were out of range since nobody else seemed to be doing so. The same thing would have happened to me by now had we not DOWed MHA. It's nothing personal

Interesting that you would choose roaches though. What had the best odds of surviving a nuclear war? Roaches. With SDIs, we're basically super-roaches.

Interesting choice of words there. There is not one ounce of condemnation or regret over the attacks on NAAC. It was condoned fully by NeoGandalf who is the leader of The Fellowship. Again, backpedaling now will do you no good as it's all out in the open.

can you people condense your posts? I really don't want to read through a friggen novel each time I decide to respond to you...?!

I'll see if I can get it all down in one sentence.

NAAC declared war on TF after TF nations with the support of TF leadership attacked the NAAC.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Blacky

[NinjaPirate]

I alerted TF leadership about the issue to no avail. In fact this thread in itself was a response to the attacks. The first response I got back from TF was NeoGandalf's post in this thread:

Interesting choice of words there. There is not one ounce of condemnation or regret over the attacks on NAAC. It was condoned fully by NeoGandalf who is the leader of The Fellowship. Again, backpedaling now will do you no good as it's all out in the open.

I'll see if I can get it all down in one sentence.

NAAC declared war on TF after TF nations with the support of TF leadership attacked the NAAC.

So first you tell me that raiding is completely off limits in TE...

Now you're telling me that TF has to apologize for two attacks that were completely beyond its control?

Don't tell us what to do with our rogues. Show us. By doing something about your own rogue, Defcon?

[Blacky]

So first you tell me that raiding is completely off limits in TE...

So you're telling me defending your nations from raiders is completely off limits...?

Now you're telling me that TF has to apologize for two attacks that were completely beyond its control?

Initially in dealing with the rogue attacks I sought to establish whether they were being supported by TF as a method of securing the top spot. They assured me they were rogues. I spoke to NeoGandalf about the attacks to no avail. He sought not to respond infact his response was to support the attacks as part of "fair play" in turn endorsing the attacks.

I have not asked for an apology but if what you offer me instead is support for the rogue attacks expect to get some in return and then expect us to make a solid case for our declaration of war.

Don't tell us what to do with our rogues. Show us. By doing something about your own rogue, Defcon?

Have I stated that his attacks on TF as a retaliation were not sanctioned by myself? In fact not only were they sanctioned, they have my full support. He is not a rogue as far as TF is concerned in fact he has shown that he has foresight and good warfighting ability.

[Lehran]

"Hyprocrisy at it's best.

"Stop defending your actions or we'll wipe you out".

I want you to think very carefully about this NeoGandalf because you've shown that for the most part you're incapable of dealing with any form of criticism of your character and of your alliance.

Threatening to wipe out an alliance 1/3 of the size of your own which has already looked you in the eye and called you out for what you were will get you no where. If you wish to defend your actions do so with a civil tone. Not with threats."

What!? Threatening to wipe out an alliance who has declared war on my alliance!? Yes, that is ludicrous. "Civil"?! "Not with threats!?! YOU DECLARED WAR! I said we wouldn't DOW you, you DOWed us and now you try to make me look bad because I dare to talk about making this an offensive war on our part? I specifically DIDN'T threaten to wipe you out initially, and apparently that too was 'arrogance'. I say I won't wipe you out, I'm arrogant, I say I will, I'm arrogant - come on...enough with the spin.

I only scanned the rest because frankly I'm losing interest, but I think you have made yourself sound silly enough for both of us on this comment.

[Blacky]

What!? Threatening to wipe out an alliance who has declared war on my alliance!

Essentially what you said was: "Silence I keel you!" that was the reasoning behind your threat.

Yes, that is ludicrous. "Civil"?! "Not with threats!?! YOU DECLARED WAR! I said we wouldn't DOW you, you DOWed us and now you try to make me look bad because I dare to talk about making this an offensive war on our part?

The NAAC declared war in response to the attacks by rogues (I don't even know I can continue to call them that) which was supported (after the fact I believe) by yourself. ie; you threw the first blow.

I specifically DIDN'T threaten to wipe you out initially, and apparently that too was 'arrogance'. I say I won't wipe you out, I'm arrogant, I say I will, I'm arrogant - come on...enough with the spin.

I'm not spinning anything. The arrogance was in thinking that we would not take your alliances transgressions against our alliances sovereignty seriously. In effect impeding our ability to come out on top.

I only scanned the rest because frankly I'm losing interest, but I think you have made yourself sound silly enough for both of us on this comment.

If that's the best you've got I can understand why you would make threats in an attempt to silence us.