Kroknia Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 IS's actions on CG are unacceptable by every standard of the raids and wars. Those want to take the side of IS in this, I thought better of you. There is no reason for IS to go out on a tech raid and go use everything they have on an alliance. All I can hope is that IS gets a taste of it's own medicine and gets rolled. They just might learn something from it. I don't stand by IS because this is a tech raid. I stand by them because this WAS and IS a military raid from my standpoint based on acts of war by Hell Scream. Did they post a DoW? No. Does that mean they're in the wrong for taking punitive action over overt acts of war taken by a government member of CG? Not in my opinion. To be clear, I am against tech raiding. I had hoped something like this would happen only it being a full scale PWN operation posted publicly against the offending alliance, CG. As for people having declared this a tech raid, a member of IS did say that it seemed like it was for the "lulz." Other PWN members have made it seem like it is a tech raid, but in no way has any top ranking government member, which made the decision to attack called this a tech raid. They have in fact implied otherwise. For people to condemn without an understanding of a situation is a mockery or any sense of justice. If this was for tech, I'd be entirely obliged to agree with the destruction of IS. Nothing coming from them has implied that was the purpose of this military action though. Until I see proof that it was, to change the abundant implications that it was not, I have to think this was not a tech raid. If others condemn without thinking or trying to make sense of a situation, I hope Karma comes and bites you in the bum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Your standards for tech raiding are you own. Just because you and others agree to the same style of tech raiding doesn't mean everyone has to. So, I heard that you set up some standards for tech raiding? Or am I wrong? You know, the ones that you impose on others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 I don't stand by IS because this is a tech raid. I stand by them because this WAS and IS a military raid from my standpoint based on acts of war by Hell Scream. Did they post a DoW? No. Does that mean they're in the wrong for taking punitive action over overt acts of war taken by a government member of CG? Not in my opinion. To be clear, I am against tech raiding. I had hoped something like this would happen only it being a full scale PWN operation posted publicly against the offending alliance, CG.As for people having declared this a tech raid, a member of IS did say that it seemed like it was for the "lulz." Other PWN members have made it seem like it is a tech raid, but in no way has any top ranking government member, which made the decision to attack called this a tech raid. They have in fact implied otherwise. For people to condemn without an understanding of a situation is a mockery or any sense of justice. If this was for tech, I'd be entirely obliged to agree with the destruction of IS. Nothing coming from them has implied that was the purpose of this military action though. Until I see proof that it was, to change the abundant implications that it was not, I have to think this was not a tech raid. If others condemn without thinking or trying to make sense of a situation, I hope Karma comes and bites you in the bum. I'm a government member of the IAA, I don't like you. Does that mean your going to attack me now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Honestly, the words "infringing" and "sovereignty" throughout this thread have been overused to the point where I never want to hear them again. The dilemma here though is there is no denying that IS's actions are ridiculous and uncalled for, but can anything really be done about it? And say, by some long shot, a 3rd party involves themselves in this affair and attacks IS. Would that attack be seen as an unwarranted offensive action (much like IS's actions at the center of it), and would IS's treaty partners be within their right to defend them? Fun thought provoking questions :x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 How does that infringe on IS's sovereignty in any way? It's just his opinion, even if he believes his opinion to be solid fact (which I disagree, I don't think you can really "define" tech raiding).-Bama Fairly sure all the chest thumping could get serious at any moment. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) No it is not. We do not sanction or condone the use of nukes, cm's, bombings, or navy's on a raid target. IS has clearly done that here. Which makes it not acceptable in my standards. Excellent. Your alliance does things differently, good to know. Doesn't have an impact on other alliances' policies though. Edited August 20, 2009 by Emperor Marx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 How does that infringe on IS's sovereignty in any way? It's just his opinion, even if he believes his opinion to be solid fact (which I disagree, I don't think you can really "define" tech raiding).-Bama Aren't these arguments a given here? noCB war: GGA/Val: Hyperion! you aided CZ knowingly!!! Hyperion: No, U! GGA/Val: NO, U! *BOOM* Karma war: NPO: OV, Sethb spiezed our infoz!!! OV: No, U! NPO: NO, U!!! *BOOM* whateveryouwanttocallthismess: *BOOM* CG: WTF, you attackz us, why? IS: Tech Raidz FTW! CG: No, U! IS: NO, U!!!! moar boomz? we'll see regardless, everyone has their opinion, every alliance has their "rules" and their version of what is "right." There will always, ALWAYS be [ooc]pixels[/ooc] spilled on the battlefield over these disagreements, that will not change. You cannot impose one alliance's rules/views onto another, it just doesn't work. All that can be done is to politically reach an understanding... or blow each other to pieces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) I hope Karma comes and bites you in the bum. The irony here is these guys and their allies were Karma. One rule for them and one for non Karma. Edited August 20, 2009 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kroknia Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 I'm a government member of the IAA, I don't like you. Does that mean your going to attack me now? No, are you going to openly organize to have me destroyed now? Commit yourself to ensure my destruction because we disagree? If so, I'll see what we can do, though I think at that point we're already in a state of war. I have always wanted to nuke compypoo so this could work out. Do you care to respond to any point I've made or just continue dodging the issues? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) No it is not. We do not sanction or condone the use of nukes, cm's, bombings, or navy's on a raid target. IS has clearly done that here. Which makes it not acceptable in my standards. Your standards are yours. How does that refute him at all? Edited August 20, 2009 by Rey the Great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weirdgus Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Poor show IS, I see of no reason why you wouldn't agree to pay reps after you cowardly and unprovoked attack on Crimson Guard. Give them hell CG and friends, show them the true meaning of "MAIM KILL BURN". Oh and to those claiming that Hellscream caused this somehow by making a joke thread about pink, isn't it odd that he wasn't attacked during the blitz ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Question: Did Hell Scream declare war on any pink nation. Answer: No Question: Was Hell Scream's critcism directed at IS? Answer: No, it was directed at Pink. Question: Was Hell Scream planning to declare war on 411nations(pink) Answer: No, Hell Scream was not planning to declare war on anyone. Question: Did IS declare war without a CB, and without posting a DoW like honorable people do? Answer: Nope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Question: Did Hell Scream declare war on any pink nation.Answer: No Question: Was Hell Scream's critcism directed at IS? Answer: No, it was directed at Pink. Question: Was Hell Scream planning to declare war on 411nations(pink) Answer: No, Hell Scream was not planning to declare war on anyone. Question: Did IS declare war without a CB, and without posting a DoW like honorable people do? Answer: Nope. How does this make their raid less legit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kroknia Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Poor show IS, I see of no reason why you wouldn't agree to pay reps after you cowardly and unprovoked attack on Crimson Guard.Give them hell CG and friends, show them the true meaning of "MAIM KILL BURN". Oh and to those claiming that Hellscream caused this somehow by making a joke thread about pink, isn't it odd that he wasn't attacked during the blitz ? The first post of that thread was "This is not a joke thread" and the assaults continue throughout the entire IC portion of this crazy place. That makes them IC attacks and they should be allowed to treat them as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druss the Legend Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 No it is not. We do not sanction or condone the use of nukes, cm's, bombings, or navy's on a raid target. IS has clearly done that here. Which makes it not acceptable in my standards. I highly doubt that IS seeks your acceptance with their Tech Raiding Standards. Actually, I'm 100% sure that they don't care what your alliance's standards are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 No, are you going to openly organize to have me destroyed now? Commit yourself to ensure my destruction because we disagree? If so, I'll see what we can do, though I think at that point we're already in a state of war. I have always wanted to nuke compypoo so this could work out.Do you care to respond to any point I've made or just continue dodging the issues? So then where did Hell Scream commit himself to the destruction of IS? Please answer me that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) The first post of that thread was "This is not a joke thread" and the assaults continue throughout the entire IC portion of this crazy place. That makes them IC attacks and they should be allowed to treat them as such. And yet is was locked by a mod because everyone with COMMON SENSE realized that it was a joke, much like if an alliance has a theme week. edit: by not as Edited August 20, 2009 by James Wilson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 How does this make their raid less legit? Why Do You Contradict IS ? IS said it's not a raid, already(After initially claiming it is. o/ Honor) The claims are now the war was started because of me. I have proven the claims obsolete. The first post of that thread was "This is not a joke thread" and the assaults continue throughout the entire IC portion of this crazy place. That makes them IC attacks and they should be allowed to treat them as such. Did I spy at IS? Declare war? I spoke my mind freely. I got a war. o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master-Debater Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 So as far as I am concerned, this is over. If you decide to attack Internet Superheroes for ignoring your complaints and grievances you will get to meet some pretty RAD people shortly after. You can count on it./zimmer So RAD supports an agressive war with no valid CB other than wanting tech? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 So RAD supports an agressive war with no valid CB other than wanting tech? Maybe you should actually read what I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 She did, too bad what you said doesn't make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodivine Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 I highly doubt that IS seeks your acceptance with their Tech Raiding Standards. Actually, I'm 100% sure that they don't care what your alliance's standards are. Well, since you're a member of PWN with IS then I would think that those within PWN would of prevented IS from attacking CG and also suggested possible changes to the tech raiding policy so a bloc of alliances were on the same page. But thinking in CN has gone out the window with the actions of a few alliances in CN as of late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Maybe you should actually read what I said. So if TC protects their protectorate, your going to say that they have no reason to defend them and attack them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jipps Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Poor show IS, I see of no reason why you wouldn't agree to pay reps after you cowardly and unprovoked attack on Crimson Guard.Give them hell CG and friends, show them the true meaning of "MAIM KILL BURN". Oh and to those claiming that Hellscream caused this somehow by making a joke thread about pink, isn't it odd that he wasn't attacked during the blitz ? His nation is too small for the active members of IS to attack him would be my guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 WhyDo You Contradict IS ? IS said it's not a raid, already(After initially claiming it is. o/ Honor) Pretty sure it's a raid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.