kulomascovia Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 OOC: That's why IC exists, and that's why it's different to OOC. [ooc] The definition of an alliance is different in IC and in OOC? Can you please refer me to the rules that assert this distinction? [/ooc] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacapo Saladin Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 CM's destroy infra, which reduce the number of citizens in a nation, which reduce the number of soldiers/tanks one can purchase, which makes the tech raid easier. Great logic, Except for the fact that the initial raid for stealing tech will not be affected by CMs or air raids except for a few destroyed tanks... Using those weapons showed clear intent for make this a large full war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 he states tech raid in his DoW and???? his own members have stated he wanted vengeance against RV. so his reason for war can be anything. i could DoW you and state that "IAA defense" when your nor any of your alliance mates attacked IAA. He said he was tech raiding. Have you absolutely any evidence to suggest otherwise? Also, if he wanted to tech raid someone, picking someone you already don't like seems to be a good choice. If it was a tech raid why did he use tech-destroying weapons like cruise missiles?? I have not seen any indications that he did so. If he did, was it before or after RV counterattacked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 CM's destroy infra, which reduce the number of citizens in a nation, which reduce the number of soldiers/tanks one can purchase, which makes the tech raid easier. So you're just dandy if someone nukes your members to make their tech easier to steal? Nukes are just big CMs, after all. Why don't we sanction them as well? Or maybe we can cut the crap and admit, as Sorum has, that this wasn't a tech raid but an aggressive attack perpetrated over a personal vendetta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemfailure Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 i think we are all forgeting how annoying RV is and how awesome Sorum is. i for one welcome this war and hope that it can push the GRL back up to a respectable number Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 I have not seen any indications that he did so. If he did, was it before or after RV counterattacked? Why does it matter in the slightest? And it was in RV's original thread, first post. CMs and aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 How long are the people defending Sorums initial action going to continue the nonsense argument that it was a tech raid. He switched out military improvements, bought CMs, and I will presume, since he admitted to doing air strikes, that he also had to buy aircraft since no nation that size would be wise to keep aircraft on hand.....Going on the basic premise that a tech raid is meant to be profitable, and adding to the fact that he received $3 million just prior to the raid and yet RV got next to nothing from him on a ground assault victory....one can effective surmise that he spent....in the neighborhood of $3 million to make a "profit" on a raid? Either he is the WORST tech raider EVER....or he clearly had the destruction of RV's nations in mind. Couple that with the unwavering support expressed by every member of The Family in the original thread, no REASONABLE human being can either a) excuse this as a raid or B) believe that The Family REALLY viewed this as a raid. As to the peace agreement....I saw Tanis state in the log that he and Blackjack were the only 2 to speak on behalf of tF in that channel. It was NOT objected to by Blackjack, so ANYONE with one IOTA of commone sense can decipher from that that.....zOMG Tanis was speaking for tF. An agreement was reached. You renegged on it. The ball is now in the court of Sparta and MHA, and I truly hope they can get together with all involved parties and settle this peacfully. Regardless, tF has acted poorly from the inception of this incident. Now, do the world a favor and do what is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 (edited) Doesn't matter anymore, peace is about to be declared. Thank god this train wreck is over with. Edited August 10, 2009 by Sargun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 He said he was tech raiding. Have you absolutely any evidence to suggest otherwise?Also, if he wanted to tech raid someone, picking someone you already don't like seems to be a good choice. I have not seen any indications that he did so. If he did, was it before or after RV counterattacked? No he didn't. He, and multiple tF members stated that it was out of vengeance. Only now it became a tech raid. "counterattacked"?Hahaha. So you saying that one doesn't expect to be attacked when attacking an active nation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 CM's destroy infra, which reduce the number of citizens in a nation, which reduce the number of soldiers/tanks one can purchase, which makes the tech raid easier. I did say Id call you out for being a liar, didnt I Sileath? http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1754236 Here, Blackjack, Godfather/Head of tF admits that any alliance that backs up FAIL against the tech raid comitted by Sorum would be retaliated against by tF members, regardless of what happens. And if possible, theyd drag in their own allies playing the defensive card. Again we see the selective treaty activation. Permanent MADP partners in trouble, not helping. MDoAP partners who are aggressively waging war against a 2 man alliance, HELL YES! SIGN US UP!Also: FAIL does have treaties with military clauses. (Quoted post)I would hope not. Like I said, all actions have consequences. If their treaty partners retaliate, IF they have any, the Family will have to defend against them, and the attackers will have to defend against tF's allies. (Post quoted by Blackjack as response to M-D's query)This^GDI could have jumped Sorum, but instead you chose to attack other tF nations. You made this an alliance war, not us. (sileath claiming that this wasnt an alliance-wide issue)RV, your beef is with us, not MHA.(Blackjack, claiming MHA has nothing to do with this after hiding behind them in the previous post)That's up to Sorum whether or not he wants to pay reps to RV. The nation with protectors could have taken it up with the person who attacked them - as it was a tech raid, we would not have get involved. The argument that tF supported this tech raid is flawed - if you thought that, GDI would have attacked Sorum, and you would have seen that we would not have defended him. Instead, you attacked uninvolved nations to guarantee we would defend our comrades then tried to play it off as us setting up Sorum to start an alliance war. (Sileath blatantly lying about what Blackjack had clearly already said)Sileath, you are a liar. And an absolute tool. And frankly, I hope GDI burns tF to the ground. With a leader like Blackjack, you have nowhere to go but down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemfailure Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Doesn't matter anymore, peace is about to be declared. Thank god this train wreck is over with. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Please clarify what your definition of "ignorance" is if it is not to "speak without knowing the facts." if you are attempting to imply i do not know the "facts" then please do not be so coy. fact 1) Sorum attacks RV out of vengeance for RV insulting Sorum/tF. This has been stated by Sorum and tF members. fact 2) Sorum attacks using CMs and air raids, not just GAs. CMs and air raids are typically only used in wars since the whole point of a tech raid is to attack using GAs to gain tech/land and then gain peace so that the raider does not lose any tech/land. thus, this is far more than a tech raid. fact 3) FAIL had a treaty with GDI. fact 4) FAIL/GDI did not see this as a tech raid and instead as an DoW on FAIL supported by tF since it was a gov member doing the attack and gov backing him. fact 5) peace talks were underway but tF seemed to only send members who thought they had authority but actually had none. Seems that if the members thought they had authority someone in gov had to state as much, i doubt that tF is made up of only fools who know nothing of how to operate an alliance. Thus, either Tanis should never have been in the peace talks, since he had no authority to do anything and thus was utterly useless in anyway or he had authority, which his presence in the room where talks were held would suggest (since really i do believe that almost every alliance sends only authorized members to peace talks unless they are made of complete fail), and now tF is lying about Tanis having authority. either way, does not look good for tF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 No he didn't. He, and multiple tF members stated that it was out of vengeance. Only now it became a tech raid. You can't tech raid someone you don't like? "counterattacked"?Hahaha. So you saying that one doesn't expect to be attacked when attacking an active nation? No. What gave you that thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I am sorry for your loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sileath Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 To assist in the peace process for tF, I have resigned. All you haters, you have a problem with me? Come get some! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 He said he was tech raiding. Have you absolutely any evidence to suggest otherwise?Also, if he wanted to tech raid someone, picking someone you already don't like seems to be a good choice. I have not seen any indications that he did so. If he did, was it before or after RV counterattacked? you do not pay attention much do you? or do you selectively read the posts on the forums as to ensure you only stick with whatever conviction you have? and RV is allowed to defend himself against any and all attacks. yet another might makes right philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 fact 4) FAIL/GDI did not see this as a tech raid and instead as an DoW on FAIL supported by tF since it was a gov member doing the attack and gov backing him. Then they still acted stupidly. If they thought it was an actual DoW, they should've waited for tF to attack the GDI nations attacking Sorum. Now that GDI officially made it an alliance war, it looks really bad for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 (edited) To assist in the peace process for tF, I have resigned.All you haters, you have a problem with me? Come get some! I did say Id call you out for being a liar, didnt I Sileath?http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1754236 Here, Blackjack, Godfather/Head of tF admits that any alliance that backs up FAIL against the tech raid comitted by Sorum would be retaliated against by tF members, regardless of what happens. And if possible, theyd drag in their own allies playing the defensive card. Again we see the selective treaty activation. Permanent MADP partners in trouble, not helping. MDoAP partners who are aggressively waging war against a 2 man alliance, HELL YES! SIGN US UP!Also: FAIL does have treaties with military clauses. (Quoted post)I would hope not. Like I said, all actions have consequences. If their treaty partners retaliate, IF they have any, the Family will have to defend against them, and the attackers will have to defend against tF's allies. (Post quoted by Blackjack as response to M-D's query)This^GDI could have jumped Sorum, but instead you chose to attack other tF nations. You made this an alliance war, not us. (sileath claiming that this wasnt an alliance-wide issue)RV, your beef is with us, not MHA.(Blackjack, claiming MHA has nothing to do with this after hiding behind them in the previous post)That's up to Sorum whether or not he wants to pay reps to RV. The nation with protectors could have taken it up with the person who attacked them - as it was a tech raid, we would not have get involved. The argument that tF supported this tech raid is flawed - if you thought that, GDI would have attacked Sorum, and you would have seen that we would not have defended him. Instead, you attacked uninvolved nations to guarantee we would defend our comrades then tried to play it off as us setting up Sorum to start an alliance war. (Sileath blatantly lying about what Blackjack had clearly already said)Sileath, you are a liar. And an absolute tool. And frankly, I hope GDI burns tF to the ground. With a leader like Blackjack, you have nowhere to go but down. Sileath, you fail at failing. I say you bring it. Edited August 10, 2009 by Chron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 You can't tech raid someone you don't like?No. What gave you that thought? When you attack someone you don't like because you don't like them it's called war, not tech raiding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Then they still acted stupidly. If they thought it was an actual DoW, they should've waited for tF to attack the GDI nations attacking Sorum. Now that GDI officially made it an alliance war, it looks really bad for them. not really. it still only looks bad for tF. more people are supporting GDI than tF and some of those, like myself, did not much like GDI or RV prior to this. so the fact that people who have called for the heads of either RV or GDI or both, are now supporting them, should tell you and tF something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanGDI Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 To assist in the peace process for tF, I have resigned.All you haters, you have a problem with me? Come get some! No, you didn't resign. You got ejected from the alliance as per the upcoming peace terms. Nice try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sileath Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Slots full. Damn that was fast! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Then they still acted stupidly. If they thought it was an actual DoW, they should've waited for tF to attack the GDI nations attacking Sorum. Now that GDI officially made it an alliance war, it looks really bad for them. Then Blackjack shouldnt have made a threat he couldnt cash in on. Sorry, but its not a crime to call someone on their bluff. Especially when the bluffing party is head of the alliance. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...p;#entry1754236 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 To assist in the peace process for tF, I have resigned.All you haters, you have a problem with me? Come get some! You! Stop making trouble! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Stranger Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 (Quoted post) (Post quoted by Blackjack as response to M-D's query) (sileath claiming that this wasnt an alliance-wide issue) (Blackjack, claiming MHA has nothing to do with this after hiding behind them in the previous post) (Sileath blatantly lying about what Blackjack had clearly already said) Sileath, you are a liar. And an absolute tool. And frankly, I hope GDI burns tF to the ground. With a leader like Blackjack, you have nowhere to go but down. Sileath, you fail at failing. I say you bring it. If you fail at failing, does that mean you win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts