Crimson Guard Edict #7: Declaration of Peace

[Jyrinx]

It's a sad day when an alliance who was so incompetent they couldn't get any treaties can order other people around when they get tech raided because of that incompetence. What a great precedent - As long as it's an alliance that's universally hated that hits you, you can do anything!

This is why maintaining good PR is crucial; something that IS hopefully now understands.

Best of luck to both parties. And yes, I really mean that: best of luck to you IS.

[Learz]

I can think of several Orange alliances that would have been able to just knock all the opposition that sprung up straight to hell, regardless of the CB.

(If you're being serious): And, what, that makes their actions right? Duhhh....

(If you're joking): Hehheh

[Alterego]

CG has smoldering nations and IS loses about a day's worth of staying at the slots...

It was worth it

The true cost to IS might not be that light and its not a financial price but a political one they might end up paying.

[generals3]

They did have a candidate to merge into, again as Fran has said on these boards. The candidate has not been named, but it is my understanding it's still in the works.

ok i might have made a slight mistake , they might have more friends than i thought but still. Don't you think there are some people who just supported CG because they hate lolpink? To my opinion everyone who said 'lolpink did it again' or something like that and suddenly supported CG were opportunists (maybe not all) . And most of those people wouldnt have given their moral support if it wasn't a pink alliance , because yes i'm 100% sure if it were an other colored alliance doing this they would have gotten less support . With which im NOT saying they wouldnt have gotten any but still less.

[JBone]

After all the tough talk, the disrespect, the utter contempt shown by IS, RAD, and even PC towards anyone who supported CG in this, they realized that they would have gotten the curbstomping they so rightly deserved, and backed down like the cowards they really are.

Where did greenie go? Next time you see him tell him I said hi.

It must be in the water on Pink, if your feet ever get held to the fire, you fold like a house of cards and run like a dog with your tail tucked between your legs.....god knows there's nothing else between them.

Although IS paying reps is certainly a lullzy ending, so congrats all around, ahahahahahahaha.

At first I laughed. Then I re-read the OP and subsequent statements, and laughed even harder.

Congratulations, CG.

That's two PWN members compelled to eat crow in the space of....what, a week?

Good times.

....They say good things come in threes. Keep your flippers crossed.

.......Diotzel

[ChairmanHal]

This is funny.

An alliance blatantly attacks another with no reason, lies about their reasoning, and gets served.

Then everyone is like "oh, that ONLY happened because they were pink."

It is helpful to understand that Pink was, for a very long time, the place you sent alliances and people you didn't like (particularly after surrender terms). As such, there was always a certain amount of prejudice against anyone on Pink, even if you didn't actually know them ("they must have done something wrong to be there").

Many Communist-based alliances called Pink home and they were routinely hit by the likes of NoR and others back in the day. Pink also served as a shooting gallery for any variety of alliances who wanted to raid. Some of my most epic raiding while I was at \m/ was done on unaligned nations in Pink and I certainly am not alone in that sentiment.

Pink Team is now the haven of lulz alliances, raiding alliances, and even some of the old Commie alliances that periodically get "re-born". If it still has a "certain reputation" it is because of this. How do you change that reputation? Warring Pink isn't the answer--that has been done to death (no pun intended)--the Pink alliances themselves need to work to improve Pink's image.

[Locke]

ok i might have made a slight mistake , they might have more friends than i thought but still. Don't you think there are some people who just supported CG because they hate lolpink? To my opinion everyone who said 'lolpink did it again' or something like that and suddenly supported CG were opportunists (maybe not all) . And most of those people wouldnt have given their moral support if it wasn't a pink alliance , because yes i'm 100% sure if it were an other colored alliance doing this they would have gotten less support . With which im NOT saying they wouldnt have gotten any but still less.

If people were in it for the lolpink pink hating, IS would have alliances rolling them right now. As it is, I think people are using lolpink because it's a funny, lighthearted term to rally under and lol*insert thing here* seems to be fairly popular around here. I won't pretend to know the internal motivations of any alliances who worked with us to get CG their peace, but from my observations I can't say a single one of them were in it for themselves or simply because it was pink at play.

[Master Hakai]

It must be in the water on Pink, if your feet ever get held to the fire, you fold like a house of cards and run like a dog with your tail tucked between your legs.....god knows there's nothing else between them.

lolwat? (seriously, I lol'd. as in like, laughing out loud. nice.)

[HeinousOne]

In the end, this is proof that individual tech raiding is much more profitable then organized tech raiding. Take this lesson to heart folks.

[ChairmanHal]

In the end, this is proof that individual tech raiding is much more profitable then organized tech raiding. Take this lesson to heart folks.

We agree on something.

Less complicated, less likely that people will get butt hurt and squawk on the OWF. If there is a downside from an alliance perspective, it is keeping track of individual raiders to make sure they aren't violating raiding rules can be time consuming and individual raiding doesn't tech coordination in combat.

Also, given the value of land is far more than it used to be and that you get more of it when you raid than you used to in the past, "tech" raiding is as much about land as tech, not to mention any cash you can pick up laying around. Therefore I generally just call it "raiding".

[generals3]

Pink Team is now the haven of lulz alliances, raiding alliances, and even some of the old Commie alliances that periodically get "re-born". If it still has a "certain reputation" it is because of this. How do you change that reputation? Warring Pink isn't the answer--that has been done to death (no pun intended)--the Pink alliances themselves need to work to improve Pink's image.

The problem is that you are labeling the entire pink team , while for instance TCB hasn't done anything wrong for a while now (i'm not sure about our far away past) and yet we are pink and because of all that 'pink' labeling it seems like we belong in the same pot as those other AA who ruins it for the pink reputation. And that is what bugs me.

[Learz]

The problem is that you are labeling the entire pink team , while for instance TCB hasn't done anything wrong for a while now (i'm not sure about our far away past) and yet we are pink and because of all that 'pink' labeling it seems like we belong in the same pot as those other AA who ruins it for the pink reputation. And that is what bugs me.

Leave pink

But honestly, if you are on a color, you will be associated with that color. If IS does something stupid, and you're on the same color, you will take flak, sometimes for nothing more then being part of the same color bloc as them.

In effect, by 1) being on pink, 2) not condemning IS/pink for their actions, 3) remaining allied to IS/pink, and 4) even defending them, you're going to be labeled as the same as them. As a result, it's "lolpink" instead of "lolIS".

(I don't think TCB deserves be take the pink shots any more then you do, but look at it from everyone else's perspectives).

[Sal Paradise]

The bawwwing in this thread is pretty funny. You thought CG was weak and unconnected, and that justified you in a better position to take advantage of them. Well, you were wrong. IS tried to play and they got served. The same thing you used to justify the tech raid (power) is what justifies your defeat. You can be whiny hypocrites all you like but... well... keep doing it because it's funny.

[Emperor Brutus]

The bawwwing in this thread is pretty funny. You thought CG was weak and unconnected, and that justified you in a better position to take advantage of them. Well, you were wrong. IS tried to play and they got served. The same thing you used to justify the tech raid (power) is what justifies your defeat. You can be whiny hypocrites all you like but... well... keep doing it because it's funny.

They are weak and unconnected (No Offence)... lol

Peace is just preferred over war, IS saw what it did wrong and took the consequences for their actions. How can they be hypocrites? nothing hypocritical at all here, they raided, turned into a war, peace was declared, reps being payed.

[Emperor Brutus]

Leave pink

But honestly, if you are on a color, you will be associated with that color. If IS does something stupid, and you're on the same color, you will take flak, sometimes for nothing more then being part of the same color bloc as them.

In effect, by 1) being on pink, 2) not condemning IS/pink for their actions, 3) remaining allied to IS/pink, and 4) even defending them, you're going to be labeled as the same as them. As a result, it's "lolpink" instead of "lolIS".

(I don't think TCB deserves be take the pink shots any more then you do, but look at it from everyone else's perspectives).

Lmao... Not at all! You don't accosiate problems with the color, well.. pretty much ever! Unless you look at Red way back. As for their allies, that too isn't a good generalization. You have to look past that and look at an alliances actions.

[Learz]

Lmao... Not at all! You don't accosiate problems with the color, well.. pretty much ever! Unless you look at Red way back. As for their allies, that too isn't a good generalization. You have to look past that and look at an alliances actions.

When a major alliance on a color does a certain action, it is expected that the alliance is backed up by not only their color but by their allies.

Case in point.... DoS's from other pink alliances. They supported IS even though IS was in the wrong, and, quite possibly, about to be rolled. That took guts, yes, but the fact is they backed up their treaty/color partner. In other words, pink* rolled together.

You can say IS doesn't represent the pink sphere, but honestly, they do. They have received support from pink, and no condemnation from pink. It seems pretty clear that IS and pink go hand in hand.

*at least, the major players on pink.

[Emperor Brutus]

When a major alliance on a color does a certain action, it is expected that the alliance is backed up by not only their color but by their allies.

Case in point.... DoS's from other pink alliances. They supported IS even though IS was in the wrong, and, quite possibly, about to be rolled. That took guts, yes, but the fact is they backed up their treaty/color partner. In other words, pink* rolled together.

You can say IS doesn't represent the pink sphere, but honestly, they do. They have received support from pink, and no condemnation from pink. It seems pretty clear that IS and pink go hand in hand.

*at least, the major players on pink.

There is still a difference, their actions were most defiantly not supported as some people stated, but the treaties would have been honored. THe only reason you are generalizing this sphere is because its so small, say IRON did something, would you blame TOP than Citadel? No, would you blame their allies? No not really.

[Neo Uruk]

but the fact is they backed up their treaty/color partner.

Since when did people stop bawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwing when people cancelled treaties when someone was about to get rolled?

Sure, IS was in the wrong, but I'd be fairly upset if RAD cancelled on a close ally for brownie points with the rest of CN.

[HeinousOne]

Since when did people stop bawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwing when people cancelled treaties when someone was about to get rolled?

Sure, IS was in the wrong, but I'd be fairly upset if RAD cancelled on a close ally for brownie points with the rest of CN.

Honestly I don't think anyone expected you guys to not be there for them and that is not me saying that you guys were ok with what they did. You might not have thought it was a big deal but that still is not tacit approval.

[Groucho Marx]

The bawwwing in this thread is pretty funny. You thought CG was weak and unconnected, and that justified you in a better position to take advantage of them. Well, you were wrong. IS tried to play and they got served. The same thing you used to justify the tech raid (power) is what justifies your defeat. You can be whiny hypocrites all you like but... well... keep doing it because it's funny.

They are weak and unconnected. People only came together to support them because it was Internet Superheroes who were throwing the stones. Which, is what happened. Really no way to dress it up.

Edited August 22, 2009 by Emperor Marx

[Sal Paradise]

Peace is just preferred over war, IS saw what it did wrong and took the consequences for their actions. How can they be hypocrites? nothing hypocritical at all here, they raided, turned into a war, peace was declared, reps being payed.

They are weak and unconnected. People only came together to support them because it was Internet Superheroes who were throwing the stones. Which, is what happened. Really no way to dress it up.

Ah, but we could dress it down a little.

IS played. They lost.

Seems simple and requires no bawwing.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

They are weak and unconnected. People only came together to support them because it was Internet Superheroes who were throwing the stones. Which, is what happened. Really no way to dress it up.

But of course that doesn't mean IS are the victim here. They were targetted for a reason.

[Learz]

There is still a difference, their actions were most defiantly not supported as some people stated, but the treaties would have been honored. THe only reason you are generalizing this sphere is because its so small, say IRON did something, would you blame TOP than Citadel? No, would you blame their allies? No not really.

Unless TOP, Citidal, et al, took steps to distance themselves from IRON, then yeah, I (personally) would.

This is the same kind of argument that has been going around for some time, the "is an alliance responsible for the actions of one of it's members?" argument. Only applied to color. In fact, IS is not the equivalent of a member of "pink" but is in fact an equivalent of a government member.

They are weak and unconnected. People only came together to support them because it was Internet Superheroes who were throwing the stones. Which, is what happened. Really no way to dress it up.

Already debunked.

In fact, I'd never heard of them until this incident. And TBH, this isn't doing much for my opinion of them.

[wickedj]

They are weak and unconnected. People only came together to support them because it was Internet Superheroes who were throwing the stones. Which, is what happened. Really no way to dress it up.

reverse the roles, CG raids IS and this goes to the OWF there wouldnt be a fraction of the drama, if any. hell PWN would probably PWN CG for their shens..

ah well, atleast we still have the many failures of purple to amuse up till the next Big One

[Kaiser]

Unless TOP, Citidal, et al, took steps to distance themselves from IRON, then yeah, I (personally) would.

This is the same kind of argument that has been going around for some time, the "is an alliance responsible for the actions of one of it's members?" argument. Only applied to color. In fact, IS is not the equivalent of a member of "pink" but is in fact an equivalent of a government member.

Already debunked.

In fact, I'd never heard of them until this incident. And TBH, this isn't doing much for my opinion of them.

No, you're wrong. Any alliance can start up on any colour, people that have no ties to them are not responsible for their actions if they are stupid. Just by being on the same colour as someone does not mean you are supporting their actions. If you are allied by a treaty to someone then, yes, you are supporting their actions, but the act of simply being on the same colour as someone does not imply that you are supporting their actions.

That's like saying that because a murderer lives in the same town as you, you support the act of murder, even if you've never had any contact with that murderer before.

Edited August 22, 2009 by Kaiser