Infidel Israeli Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 :facepalms:Wow, Brengstklau screwed up here. Aren't people at a level where something so irrelevent dosen't have to cause such a big issue. I sincerely hope that you guys resolve this soon, for the sake of both of your alliances. GOOD NEWS! It's been resolved Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 What a bargain. I'll tell you what, if Brengstklau or GDA raids one of my guys they may not get the opportunity to apologize or pay reps. It's disgraceful they put you in that position. Do you live by the standards you set to other people? You did get something peace and respect. Alliances far larger than yours don't have that. Now don't blow it. Quoted for truthiness.Not only that, but now you've seen who has come to your side in this conflict. Always worth building relations with those of a like mind. Congratulations getting this resolved. Also quoted for truthines. Nicely done UCR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Oh, it's over? Well okay then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choader Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Do you live by the standards you set to other people? Was that intended as a snipe? I'd like to see you try to find an example of the us bullying a raid target. To save you the time, there aren't any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeroRemorse Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Glad to see that the world supports the UCR. I Comrade ZeroRemorse will be in talks with any alliance that wishes to make an embassy. So please come and we will welcome you with open arms and parades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Damn, my video didn't come on at 11 Anyway, yea for peace o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Howard Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 You did get something peace and respect. Alliances far larger than yours don't have that. Now don't blow it. What he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mongol-Swedes Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Outstanding work, UCR. You're always welcome to pop by and sample the forest. Cheers. Libertad o Muerte! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 The first people to go to if you have problem with some small bully alliance is the protector. Of course, spreading it out on the OWF damages their public image significantly, but also raises the chances of escalating the situation. Most protectors are senior alliance who know what they are doing and generally listen to people. I bet my hairy butt GDA would have just told your aggressors to declare peace and pay reps for what they have done. Nonetheless, thanks for the entertainment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix von Agnu Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Was that intended as a snipe? I'd like to see you try to find an example of the us bullying a raid target. To save you the time, there aren't any. One could argue the act of raiding is bullying. Glad things got worked out here. I wish UCR would have walked away with reps, though. At the very least something for the the nation who initially got raided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starbuck Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 I wanted to ask for reps..but certain people told me that the war would end up being very costly for my alliance. If you would provide me a link to the raided nation, I would be happy to help in this pathetic excuse for settlement. If your interested in a little more help pm me and we can talk more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBilly1 Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 wait is this war over allready damn o well if so congratz on peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBilly1 Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 damn damn damn my sexy soldiers were looking for something to do owell lol jkin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Congrats on peace. Now, I don't know if you do it differently, but if someone raids a GDA nation, I head on over to the offending party's IRC channel, let someone know about it, we discuss reparations, and we both go on our merry way. I do not send 3 nations to counterattack, because that just escalates the situation. Had the Brengstklau's initial aggressor offered peace to his victim I would agree that a wiser and fairer course of action of the UCR would have been to discuss peace and reparations (to be taken, not to be given of course). However, until the attacking nation sent peace, it was 100% correct to send "nations to counterattack": the UCR couldn't know if the Brengstklau's nation was going to withdraw and they had all the right to "remove" the threat it may have represented, as quickly as possible. That was a flawless military handling of a military issue: when one is the aggressor can't complain for the lack of bon ton in one's victim's reaction... (If the Brengstklau's nation had already offered peace, of course - and had they not forwarded their inexplicable request for reparations - I would on the other hand have found the UCR's behaviour to have been unreasonable and harmful.) The first people to go to if you have problem with some small bully alliance is the protector. Of course, spreading it out on the OWF damages their public image significantly, but also raises the chances of escalating the situation. Most protectors are senior alliance who know what they are doing and generally listen to people. I bet my hairy butt GDA would have just told your aggressors to declare peace and pay reps for what they have done.Nonetheless, thanks for the entertainment. GDA was (is) the protector of the aggressor... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentor Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 UCR should of looked for a diplomatic solution instead of retaliating to the original attack, so although the first attack was unjustified, most likely it had nothing to do with his alliance and was unauthorised. Either way, good luck in your war Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coven Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) Never much liked communist , but I do hope you guys find a peaceful end to this situation, and that you will be payed in reparations the damages you received, but none the less, until then, good hunting. EDIT: err.. just noticed wars over. lol Edited September 16, 2009 by Airikr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsuki Koizumi Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 wars over guys lol. read the posts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendoftheSkies Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 wars over guys lol. read the posts As if the fact that a matter is closed and resolved ever kept people from arguing and !@#$%*ing about it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreddieMercury Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Ah, this is an interesting debate on yet another "unsaid" rule of planet bob that I doubt has been touched for years. On one hand, a lot of raiding alliances do say to the raiders "you're taking a risk, if you get slapped around, that's your problem". But that comes with alot of implict meaning. Like, say someone like Poison Clan raids some random 6 member alliance, and forgot to do their research. Whoops, they were protected by TDO (lol). Now, if that guy who was attacked fights back with even a greater force, people generally say that's fine. But if TDO decides to ZI said raider, I doubt few would stand for that. Raiding policies would be more accurately tacked on with this: However, we won't stand for excessive retaliation. However the raiding policies need to sound tough and like a stern warning so, it's usually more of a silent understanding of the boundaries of that. And as for this case, bad PR move on GDA's protectorate. But sending 2 extra nations for retaliation is overly excessive. Wars/raids is all about losing pixels, and pixels can easily be repaired with 3 mil aid packages, not uh, escalating things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsuki Koizumi Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 And as for this case, bad PR move on GDA's protectorate. But sending 2 extra nations for retaliation is overly excessive. Wars/raids is all about losing pixels, and pixels can easily be repaired with 3 mil aid packages, not uh, escalating things. If you checked their AA, they have no large nations capable of sending a lot of 3mil packages Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slonq Posted September 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 For the person that asked for a link to the raided nation, here it is: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=292934 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Ah, this is an interesting debate on yet another "unsaid" rule of planet bob that I doubt has been touched for years.On one hand, a lot of raiding alliances do say to the raiders "you're taking a risk, if you get slapped around, that's your problem". But that comes with alot of implict meaning. Like, say someone like Poison Clan raids some random 6 member alliance, and forgot to do their research. Whoops, they were protected by TDO (lol). Now, if that guy who was attacked fights back with even a greater force, people generally say that's fine. But if TDO decides to ZI said raider, I doubt few would stand for that. Raiding policies would be more accurately tacked on with this: However, we won't stand for excessive retaliation. However the raiding policies need to sound tough and like a stern warning so, it's usually more of a silent understanding of the boundaries of that. And as for this case, bad PR move on GDA's protectorate. But sending 2 extra nations for retaliation is overly excessive. Wars/raids is all about losing pixels, and pixels can easily be repaired with 3 mil aid packages, not uh, escalating things. In my opinion, anyone raiding a nation should do so at their own risk. This means that their alliance will not involve itself in any way except for diplomatic solution. I have just started partaking in tech raiding and i was nuked twice by one of my victims. I personally laughed about it, chucked a couple of nukes back and had a nice conversation with my victim. I in fact even invited him to join IAA since i liked his spirit. Never once did i even take the matter of me being nuked back to my alliance until someone asked about it. ZI should never be a sentence for a raider who is just raiding. Though for a raider who extorts or breaks their own charter, harsher reprimands should be had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WcaesarD Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 -Snip-Now, I don't know if you do it differently, but if someone raids a GDA nation, I head on over to the offending party's IRC channel, let someone know about it, we discuss reparations, and we both go on our merry way. I do not send 3 nations to counterattack, because that just escalates the situation. And I think it's safe to say, about 90% of raids out there are simply nations who do not know the general rules of CN and have no other malicious intent. I have said I am working on a solution, and I am hopeful that this can resolve peacefully, as I have said before. For the last time (because someone will probably miss this part) the reparations asked by ICB are something I don't agree with. Now I don't know about YOU, but when a nation raids me, he's not getting away, he's getting attacked. The burden of peace here isn't on a nation and or alliance getting attacked; but on the attacker. Any and all alliances should be given a chance to defend their own from the start. That being said, I am glad to see you trying to solve the situation diplomatically. Good luck to both sides, and I'm glad to see some people standing up for themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NearX Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 I think it was completely neccessary for UCR to fight back, the raider needs to know of the consequences attacking a nation on it's own, especially if it is alligned Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejarue Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Now, I don't know if you do it differently, but if someone raids a GDA nation, I head on over to the offending party's IRC channel, let someone know about it, we discuss reparations, and we both go on our merry way. I do not send 3 nations to counterattack, because that just escalates the situation. And I think it's safe to say, about 90% of raids out there are simply nations who do not know the general rules of CN and have no other malicious intent. If someone raids me, they have precisely 24 hours from declaration moment to arrange reps before I launch. 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.