Itsuki Koizumi Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 wow, wasn't an ultimatum to iFOK made by you only a couple weeks ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 If I were looking for attention I would post a Decree of some sort condemning your actions instead of sitting going round and round like a bunch of 5th grade girls like we are. Fifth grade girls crave attention. We happen to be a two man army, thank you. If I was in range, I would be defending the emperor myself. Ooh, such daring! Also if it were a tech raid, you would grant him peace if he offered it. Unless your version of a tech raid is grinding someone into the ground. Has RV offered peace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWConner Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 (edited) [ooc] I'm afraid I don't understand. If someone is flying an AA, then that alliance exists... Is there something I am missing here? It doesn't matter how many alliances recognize you. As long as an AA exists within the game, the alliance exists. What more is there? [/ooc] Clearly there is something you're missing. Sure, the word exists. But it doesnt make it an alliance. SO you're telling me that there is an alliance called "Not Looking for an alliance" and "Not An Alliance"?? Who says that an alliance needs treaties to be an alliance? It's wise to have treaty partners, true, but treaties do not define an alliance. I never said they required to have treaties to be an alliance. I said, "And if he truly considered FAIL to be an alliance, I guess he should have been smart enough to have a military treaty partner." So,to reiterate, if FAIL was a real alliance, he should have known well enough that small alliances without military treaties shouldnt have their "leader" piss off the wrong people over and over and over. Edited August 7, 2009 by JWConner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 You really haven't been on the forums much, have you? Most alliances allow raiding of groups less than 5 people as they aren't considered legitimate alliances. Actually, I am aware of that. I'm not arguing about the fairness of the attack or anything but that RV is in a legitimate alliance [ooc] according to the game rules [/ooc]. I disagreed with the implications of your post; that other alliances don't consider 2 member alliances to be alliances means that that alliance does not exist. OOC: Just because it exists in-game doesn't mean it's recognized by other alliances as legit. I agree. However, the existence of an alliance does not depend on recognition from another alliance. Let's face the facts.Everyday someone from a micro-alliance gets attacked out there... and I don't see you caring. What makes RV the exception? Because he's loud? I actually have not said anything about caring about raids. Yes, micro-alliances get raided and it's fine. However, the point of my argument is that they exist as long as someone is flying the AA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 Our tech raiding guide, concerning the tactics employed by us during raids, is for members only. Then it's not a tech raid, plain and simple. Tech raids aren't something that's usually just defined individually by alliances, it's more of a world wide thing. It doesn't involve CMs or planes or anything like that, and in good tech raiding you always offer your target peace. This is no raid, and the more you try to pass it on as one, the worst your alliance looks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 Has RV offered peace? RV, have you offered peace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valtamdraugr Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 The number of people you have in your alliance does not matter. As long as someone is flying an AA, then that alliance exists. Also, I wonder why you find it acceptable for someone to attack a smaller alliance. It's ok because RV is defenseless? (as bolded) Exists...yes but, by many alliance charters, would not be recognized. I'm not an advocate of tech raiding, but one should exercise a little caution. A small alliance, with no protection? Shame on you RV, you're no novice... you know better. -Valt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 I never said they required to have treaties to be an alliance. I said, "And if he truly considered FAIL to be an alliance, I guess he should have been smart enough to have a military treaty partner." So,to reiterate, if FAIL was a real alliance, he should have known well enough that small alliances without military treaties shouldnt have their "leader" piss off the wrong people over and over and over. So by that definition Vox Populi and FAN aren't/weren't alliances, either. Here we go again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsuki Koizumi Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 (as bolded)Exists...yes but, by many alliance charters, would not be recognized. I'm not an advocate of tech raiding, but one should exercise a little caution. A small alliance, with no protection? Shame on you RV, you're no novice... you know better. -Valt Most small alliances that dare post their DoE without a protectorate will be immediately raided to the ground. :\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 Clearly there is something you're missing. Sure, the word exists. But it doesnt make it an alliance. SO you're telling me that there is an alliance called "Not looking for an alliance" (http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=346715) and "Not An Alliance" (http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=341152)?? Yes, there is an alliance called "Not looking for an alliance" and "Not An Alliance" [ooc] At the bolded part: The game rules disagree with you [/ooc] I never said they required to have treaties to be an alliance. I said, "And if he truly considered FAIL to be an alliance, I guess he should have been smart enough to have a military treaty partner." So,to reiterate, if FAIL was a real alliance, he should have known well enough that small alliances without military treaties shouldnt have their "leader" piss off the wrong people over and over and over. Yes, he should have been smart enough to have a military partner if he was going to be in a lot of trouble. However, treaties are not requirements for a "real" alliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 Has RV offered peace? While I currently do not know if he's offered peace or not, I do know that he's not required too. He's the victim, not the raider and was in an alliance when he was raided as well. I never said they required to have treaties to be an alliance. I said, "And if he truly considered FAIL to be an alliance, I guess he should have been smart enough to have a military treaty partner." So,to reiterate, if FAIL was a real alliance, he should have known well enough that small alliances without military treaties shouldnt have their "leader" piss off the wrong people over and over and over. I'm not quite sure how this conversation is going on, but FAIL does indeed have a treaty partner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 So by that definition Vox Populi and FAN aren't/weren't alliances, either. Here we go again. We don't need to start that argument again... Also, good luck, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 RV, have you offered peace? It wouldn't be very RV of him. I wonder how people would respond if this tech raid was on someone besides RV. Moral outrage? Unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 It wouldn't be very RV of him.I wonder how people would respond if this tech raid was on someone besides RV. Moral outrage? Unlikely. I have defended others in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karthikking Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 So by that definition Vox Populi and FAN aren't/weren't alliances, either. Here we go again. But they both had treaties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 So by that definition Vox Populi and FAN aren't/weren't alliances, either. Here we go again. "The Federation of Alliance Nations was sanctioned at one point, thus, you can't say they weren't an alliance. Also, Vox Populi was more band of brothers than anything else, yet they did in fact sign a treaty, that being The Pocahontas Accords." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 (as bolded)Exists...yes but, by many alliance charters, would not be recognized. I'm not an advocate of tech raiding, but one should exercise a little caution. Yep, I agree with this. A small alliance, with no protection? Shame on you RV, you're no novice... you know better.-Valt I don't think anyone would be willing to give RV protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernando12 Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 You really haven't been on the forums much, have you? Most alliances allow raiding of groups less than 5 people as they aren't considered legitimate alliances. Not that they aren't legitimate, I've been in a medium sized alliance and the reason was that it could provoke a larger war...meaning it's easier to prey on small alliances that haven't DoE'd or have Protectorate Agreements. If RV, was protected by a large alliance....well, you probably wouldn't consider his AA legit based on your statements, but no one would attack him besides noobs and rogues. A large alliance protecting RV would get an instant no from the raid requester's alliance government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorum Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 It's a raid and a war. Since it's both, why shouldn't I steal tech and flatten him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 But they both had treaties FAIL has treaties, they are just all optional. It's a raid and a war.Since it's both, why shouldn't I steal tech and flatten him? Then it isn't a tech raid. You are attempting to modify the common accepted definition of a tech raid to meet your own needs. Remember "It's not spying if we do it. It's information gathering." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 It's a raid and a war.Since it's both, why shouldn't I steal tech and flatten him? By definition of a tech raid, it can't be both. Tech raids require no CMs and no Plane attacks. They also usually require peace afterwords. This is no raid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWConner Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 So by that definition Vox Populi and FAN aren't/weren't alliances, either. Here we go again. Reading comprehension is a must. Please! Again, I said that he should have been smart enough to have a treaty partner as a small alliance with a leader who talks #@%&. I thought that was fairly easy to understand And to Nintenderek saying that FAIL does have a treaty...i've already said that if FAIL does have a treaty, that FAIL better hope that their partner has the cojones to live up to the treaty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted August 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 Oh right! That was it.@ RV: Get over it, it's a tech raid. Sorum has swapped improvements for guerrilla camps and barracks. That is not done for a typical tech raid. Its done when people have an axe to grind. To quite denying it. This isn't just a tech raid. This was quite deliberately planed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moridin Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 (edited) But they both had treaties Vox Populi had no treaties the first several months of her existence. You all need to give up with trying to subjectively define "alliance" to fit whatever is convenient for you at the time and realize that an alliance is quite simply multiple people flying the same alliance affiliation. There is no grey area and there is no requirement for having treaties just because you want an excuse to call it a tech raid instead of a war. Edited August 7, 2009 by Moridin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsuki Koizumi Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 By definition of a tech raid, it can't be both. Tech raids require no CMs and no Plane attacks. They also usually require peace afterwords. This is no raid. CM's and Airstrikes take out tanks, in his mind, he might think it helps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts