Alterego Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) YP.S. A raid and a tech raid are different things IMO. A tech raid is for profit. A raid is to be done when the interests of your alliance require you to do so, which is what they seem to have done here. Spying nukes away is never done to turn a profit. Edited August 20, 2009 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trace Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Actually, I didn't know. But that explains why MK had a PIAT, right? Bureaucratic oversight, I assure you. Unimportant things tend to get forgotten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodivine Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 You're clearly missing the point. Speaking your mind and openly working for the destruction of a group are 2 different things. I can say "I don't like you" but that is different than making a post that threatens to randomly attack a pink alliance and declaring openly a crusade against pink. If it is a joke, you should learn that jokes have consequences when the butt of that joke doesn't like it.At least RV follows through and accepts the consequences of his sporadic awesomeness. P.S. A raid and a tech raid are different things IMO. A tech raid is for profit. A raid is to be done when the interests of your alliance require you to do so, which is what they seem to have done here. Now there is a difference in what a war is and what a "raid" is? Come back down to reality. War = "Raid" Tech raid is either you profit if you do your homework or you pay some reps after words but you don't send your entire alliance out on another alliance. That is war not a "raid" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 So if TC protects their protectorate, your going to say that they have no reason to defend them and attack them? Fact of the matter is, Crimson Guard didn't have a protector when IS raided them. IS sent them peace after the raids, which CG accepted. Now that TC has offered to aid CG, they feel they can capitalize with that by demanding reps or there will be war. I'm telling you now, that won't work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Tolkien Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 How does this make their raid less legit? They attacked an alliance en masse and, as has be confirmed throughout this, quite frankly, stupid thread, was not meant as a tech raid, moreso as a war because of a joke topic made by Hellscream. If it were a tech raid, they would not have used spies, cruise missiles, aircraft, or naval blockades. If an alliance were subjected to such attacks, it is, quite frankly, a declaration of war. If you are going to make a declaration of war, at least post one, or at least have a valid reason for doing so. This whole affair is nothing more then blatant aggression on IS's part, and quite frankly, they deserve every bit of peanut gallery heckling they are getting right now. This ludicrous suggestion that "tech raiding rules" are subjective and thus what IS is doing is still a tech raid is, quite frankly, bull!@#%. If every alliance is allowed to decide what a tech raid is, then I say Greenland Republic is perfectly within rights to tech raid another alliance in an organized fashion, say IAA (Chim must burn!), and use all military options available, be they spies, naval blockades, cruise missiles, aircraft, and nukes, for a couple weeks; well, that's what a tech raid is in Greenland Republic. This of course barring the fact that Greenland Republic does not tolerate tech raiding, but I digress. This argument is rather fallacious as if taken seriously, every single war can be considered a "tech raid", if the aggressor alliance chooses to name it that way. Bad, horrible, mutilated logic must be put down. Wait? You mean that MK doesn't love its treaty partners? I love how you sold out your right to declare war on NPO for nukes. What are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Bureaucratic oversight, I assure you. Unimportant things tend to get forgotten. Except that in the treaty cleanup, RAD was discussed. Somehow, a PIAT was kept in place even though the MoFA voiced disapproval of the treaty. Why is this? What are you talking about? MK has a PIAT or ToA with RAD. I can't really remember because it's not like they actually care for it. Edited August 20, 2009 by Rey the Great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreddieMercury Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 What?! You guys didn't have a protectorate? I coulda sworn you guys did. I owe Francesca a favor or two, you know where to contact me. Heh, but IS, seriously? I mean besides the inane trolling on various threads like I knew you guys had a solid head. I mean you guys showed a good amount of mercy with the TSI reps after I talked with you guys to drop some of it. Bad show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Fact of the matter is, Crimson Guard didn't have a protector when IS raided them. IS sent them peace after the raids, which CG accepted. Now that TC has offered to aid CG, they feel they can capitalize with that by demanding reps or there will be war. I'm telling you now, that won't work. Just as IS has the right to bully an alliance that has no protections (on paper) other alliances have the right to protect said alliance being bullied (on paper or not) Just as RAD has the right to defend the bully, should things get too much for them i would guess that IF anything is being coordinated, it'd be behind closed doors. until anything DOES happen, it is posturing... on either side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druss the Legend Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Why can't you stop making up lies and stick to one story? Just please do that. And honor, that too, get some. How about you stop making up stories. CG accepted white peace when it was offered, but now that someone says they have your back, you want to get revenge on IS and get money. If your going to Demand Reps, at least don't lie about the Peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Fact of the matter is, Crimson Guard didn't have a protector when IS raided them. IS sent them peace after the raids, which CG accepted. Now that TC has offered to aid CG, they feel they can capitalize with that by demanding reps or there will be war. I'm telling you now, that won't work. We never accepted peace. President Kent and deSouza are not the Chancellor, they couldn't have accepted peace. When Francesca got on, she rejected peace. President Kent and deSouza cannot act against our charter. Kent and deSouza thought we will bend down, but we won't. Now, you, Emperor Marx, are supporting an attack on alliance because the attack is possible. An attack without a CB. That doesn't make you a very honorable person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Except that in the treaty cleanup, RAD was discussed. Somehow, a PIAT was kept in place even though the MoFA voiced disapproval of the treaty. Why is this? Way to talk yourself out of an ally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 So, let me see if I have this straight. On the one hand you have an alliance that has been less than cordial to us on numerous occasions and on the other hand you have basically the same thing, right? Two alliances fighting one another both of which seem to hate the NSO. On top of this there are calls from a dozen or so other alliances in this thread, many of which condemned our action against RAD and have had negative comments towards myself and my comrades for weeks now, for the NSO to step in on one side to fight against the other. It is a damned good thing I keep my own counsel close at hand when it comes to matters of state and don't listen to the whims of the fickle masses. Hypocrites. Or Ackbar. Either way, what a bunch of tools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Fact of the matter is, Crimson Guard didn't have a protector when IS raided them. IS sent them peace after the raids, which CG accepted. Now that TC has offered to aid CG, they feel they can capitalize with that by demanding reps or there will be war. I'm telling you now, that won't work. Looks like this'll get interesting then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trace Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Except that in the treaty cleanup, RAD was discussed. Somehow, a PIAT was kept in place even though the MoFA voiced disapproval of the treaty. Why is this? Clearly english isn't your best subject. Read what you just quoted. Sigh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
generals3 Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 We never accepted peace. President Kent and deSouza are not the Chancellor, they couldn't have accepted peace. When Francesca got on, she rejected peace. President Kent and deSouza cannot act against our charter.Kent and deSouza thought we will bend down, but we won't. Now, you, Emperor Marx, are supporting an attack on alliance because the attack is possible. An attack without a CB. That doesn't make you a very honorable person. Please stop always talking about honor. Your sig just shows you have none at all as well and this whole story im reading here is really a mess. Why dont CG and IS gather around a table talk it out and than come here with facts. Wether its a peace declaration or war but we are all wasting our time here . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Either way, what a bunch of tools. Look where you are. It should've been plain before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kroknia Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Now there is a difference in what a war is and what a "raid" is? Come back down to reality. War = "Raid" Tech raid is either you profit if you do your homework or you pay some reps after words but you don't send your entire alliance out on another alliance. That is war not a "raid" It isn't a classical tech raid, I agree. To me it looked like a punitive raid, or war if you prefer, that was meant to last for one update. Had they gained no tech, it still would have made clear that their alliances interests are not to be messed with. That is a profitable endeavor, but who decides if it was a just raid or a tech raid? To be frank, we haven't seen these tactics employed before, so who is to judge what it is called. If CB wants to make it a full scale war, yes, I agree. It is a war. Let me make this 100% clear again. if this was intended as a tech raid, I am fully against it, as I am all raids. I don't see that to be the case though. Why can't you stop making up lies and stick to one story? Just please do that. And honor, that too, get some. I have. Clearly a raid and tech raid are 2 different things to me. You're the one that says that you were speaking your mind and was attacked for doing so, followed by the circumstances being a joke rather than you speaking your mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 How about you stop making up stories. CG accepted white peace when it was offered, but now that someone says they have your back, you want to get revenge on IS and get money. If your going to Demand Reps, at least don't lie about the Peace. Only Francesca(Or myself, when she is absent)may approve peace. Francesca has not, deSouza and Kent acted against the charter. When Francesca came online, she declined the peace and proposed a cease-fire for discussion. You know this, so please stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 I find it hilarious to see people touting how raids have to be a certain way. Raids are done however the nations doing so desires, not according to some code. Your alliance leadership is among those people: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=52957 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. Once upon a time, there was an alliance called OV, which had some complaints and grievances about an alliance called NPO. Maybe you should actually read what I said. That is, in fact, what you said. RAD supports it's Allies. If someone wants to mess with IS. We will be there honoring our Friendship. I don't care if IS is doing something terribly evil, which they aren't. If someone attacks them, I'll be there besides them. So, you have an MADP with IS then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 So, you have an MADP with IS then? Excuse me, but what the hell are you trying to say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tron Paul Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Fact of the matter is, Crimson Guard didn't have a protector when IS raided them. IS sent them peace after the raids, which CG accepted. Now that TC has offered to aid CG, they feel they can capitalize with that by demanding reps or there will be war. I'm telling you now, that won't work. B...B...BUT IS ARE BULLIES AND LOLPINK AND I MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE TO ANALYZE THE SITUATION Good post Marx. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Stop saying we accepted peace, we never did. President Kent and deSouza are not Chancellor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodivine Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Excuse me, but what the hell are you trying to say? He's asking that type of treaty you hold with IS. And to help him get his answer it's actually a MDoAP Haflinger. Which gives RAD the option of not going to war, but seem to be posting a lot of support for IS's aggressive actions. Edited August 20, 2009 by Myworld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druss the Legend Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Only Francesca(Or myself, when she is absent)may approve peace. Francesca has not, deSouza and Kent acted against the charter. When Francesca came online, she declined the peace and proposed a cease-fire for discussion. You know this, so please stop. Keep on telling yourself that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendoftheSkies Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Well now, Pink has sure been doing a good job of keeping things interesting after the Karma War, that's for sure. 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.