Jazzy95 Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 I can not take either side of this situation because in both of your DoW/Story you both act as if you are each angels. A member that has been in an alliance for 18 days SHOULD know the alliances charter and rules. BUT, UCR should not have given a green light until diplomacy was discussed first. UCR's excuse of attacking back, "No, I did not attempt to diplomatically solve the issue because I checked their raiding policy and saw that the nation was on his own and would not be supported by his alliance" is contradicted itself. How do you not try diplomacy? Regardless if their alliance doe not support it. UCR is not helping itself either by saying, "He attacked him because he is communist" and that gets a big WTF by me. In the end, a Brengstklau member went against his alliances rules, UCR responded in a disrespectful way and the rest is in thin air because no one has SHOWN logs of discussions except for Brengstklau's first PM. As long as GDA doesn't get involved via aid or soldiers then I'm fine with them. Brengstklau- F- UCR- F- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 So you consider an attack on one member an attack on them all, but get outraged when another alliance does the same? He is not outraged at all, he is replying to UCR comments, nothing else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slonq Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 The only reason that the fourth nation joined is because the UCR was attacked by your alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Bad Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 He's away. Naturally he'd get beat-up after four days of attacks by three nations. And another joined in today.And he has paid the price. Four days at war with three nations... and today it's five days with four... Hermmm.. Nope! This raid should be treated with ZI! Humble as ever, RV He did not attack you. You do not decide when he has had enough. They do. The only thing you decide is if you want to keep such a person as a member once he has been punished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) The only reason that the fourth nation joined is because the UCR was attacked by your alliance. You attacked the alliance's member, which he is protected in. You get what you ask for. words Edited September 16, 2009 by The Reccesion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2burnt2eat Posted September 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 No this is your member attacking another alliance and paying the price. He attacked them and broke your rules. You don't warn them. You tell them to teach him a lesson and say your sorry he has anything to do with you. The destruction of a nation over a raid that he stopped attacking in on day one is paying the price? Oh yea, that's totally paying the price. What's a guy get that goes rogue? Burnt, You know we got your back Thanks If I or anyone else attacked a sovereign alliance, counterattacks should be fully expected, and without a doubt completely warranted. What makes your member (and by extension all of your alliance) any different? I wasn't aware that you were special. But no, the consequences must be accepted. By sheltering him you are only preventing him from learning the lesson that is due to him, and thus encouraging him to become a repeat offender. The damage he's already sustained has been more then enough. We did expect counter-attacks. We were okay with it. When UCR continued to attack him after already waay more damage has been done despite ICB telling them enough was enough multiple times, they decided to attack anyway. And we haven't 'sheltered' him for the last 4 days, what would exactly be enough to satisfy you for his 'consequences'? Zero-Infrastructure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) You attacked the alliance's member, which is protected. You get what you ask for. And they first attacked UCR. They got what they asked for. The damage he's already sustained has been more then enough. I had no idea that the offender got to dictate his own punishment. When did that become the new rule of Bob? Edited September 16, 2009 by Rebel Virginia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylar Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) by the looks of things you hit first so id say this is your fault but im sure the commies could have negotiated something better both sides could have done things better im sure GDA will handle this accordingly. but i did not read all this !@#$ so yeah and PS im a little to righty to support the commies sorry Edited September 16, 2009 by Sylar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 You attacked the alliance's member, which he is protected in. You get what you ask for.words An ICB member attacked a person protected by an alliance. He gets what he asked for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendoftheSkies Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 I can not take either side of this situation because in both of your DoW/Story you both act as if you are each angels. A member that has been in an alliance for 18 days SHOULD know the alliances charter and rules. BUT, UCR should not have given a green light until diplomacy was discussed first. UCR's excuse of attacking back, "No, I did not attempt to diplomatically solve the issue because I checked their raiding policy and saw that the nation was on his own and would not be supported by his alliance" is contradicted itself. How do you not try diplomacy? Regardless if their alliance doe not support it. UCR is not helping itself either by saying, "He attacked him because he is communist" and that gets a big WTF by me. In the end, a Brengstklau member went against his alliances rules, UCR responded in a disrespectful way and the rest is in thin air because no one has SHOWN logs of discussions except for Brengstklau's first PM. As long as GDA doesn't get involved via aid or soldiers then I'm fine with them.Brengstklau- F- UCR- F- This is pretty much a perfect analysis of the situation based on what I read. Looks to me like both sides really $%&@ed this up. Oh well, hopefully this'll make for a good show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxfire99 Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 He is not outraged at all, he is replying to UCR comments, nothing else. They considered it a declaration of war and demanded reparations for it. They seem at least a tad miffed to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 And they first attacked UCR. They got what they asked for. It was a raid, he peace'd out until he was attacked by others. That is UCR's fault, nobody else asked for them to attack but they did. You get what you ask for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 An ICB member attacked a person protected by an alliance. He gets what he asked for. Well then why is UCR crying now? They did what they had to do, and now they should get bashed for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Litler Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Frankly, I find it abhorrent that you went around me and did this yourselves. Never mind respect, I'm asking for some common courtesy here. The commies were mine. Congratulations though. You're doing us all a service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Bad Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 You attacked the alliance's member, which he is protected in. You get what you ask for.words He attacked them. They defended their member. Come on folks this is not that hard to follow. He attacked them, they punish him as they see fit and his alliance then decides if he is worth keeping as a member. This all real easy. Anyone who is still having trouble figuring out how this should have gone come see me and I will explain it further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 They considered it a declaration of war and demanded reparations for it. They seem at least a tad miffed to me. They considered, they should have made sure it was. Assumptions arn't a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Well then why is UCR crying now? They did what they had to do, and now they should get bashed for it. So people should get bashed and extorted for protecting their members? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slonq Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 The UCR happens to have a policy that it defends unaligned communist nations that are attacked. (by unaligned nations) There, we do not stop our attacks until peace has been declared with the victim of the attacks. Errodeme asked for peace on the very first day he was attacked, but he was not granted peace. In fact, when the war began, one of the nations that attacked Errodeme (the victim of the raid), demanded that he leave his alliance in order to have peace. I can clearly see that peace was not declared with Errodeme by any nation, and it seems as though it would have been reasonable of me to demand that the raider leave his alliance, since an ICB nation demanded so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 He attacked them. They defended their member. Come on folks this is not that hard to follow. He attacked them, they punish him as they see fit and his alliance then decides if he is worth keeping as a member. This all real easy. Anyone who is still having trouble figuring out how this should have gone come see me and I will explain it further. I agree with you, but hell why not argue. This is probably one of the most interesting things that will happen in the next couple of weeks/months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 So people should get bashed and extorted for protecting their members? No, they shouldn't declare war on an alliance, instead get reps which were going to be paid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2burnt2eat Posted September 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 No, I read the whole thing. You cannot pick and choose which part of your Charter to follow based on whichever action will benefit you the most. Doing that makes the whole thing null and void. I did not pick and choose what parts of my Charter to follow. It says if the RAID goes wrong. A raid on one nation upon another. Clearly, a raid includes only the raider and the raided. It says if the raid BACKFIRES then we won't take action. These continued attacks by others are not apart of a "raid". If you don't like the wording, I'll put in an amendment for you! So you consider an attack on one member an attack on them all, but get outraged when another alliance does the same? I'm not outraged. But, we do have a problem where you continue to attack an alliance knowing full-well what the consequences would be and then go play the poor, defenseless victim, all the while trying to provoke an alliance to attack you. He did not attack you. You do not decide when he has had enough. They do. The only thing you decide is if you want to keep such a person as a member once he has been punished. I'll stick my neck out for members that have behaved, or made a mistake. As the leader of my alliance, I'm pretty sure I do have a say in how far you decide to take attacks on members of my alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 So people should get bashed and extorted for protecting their members? I think that is what they're to say. Well, not outright. They just want to portray UCR as the bad guys here so that they can give to the world and explanation for their beat down. Just enough of one to silence the masses, or at least get them to ignore the incident, so that ICB can satisfy its own blood lust. This is what this is all about. ICB is larger than UCR, and protected enough so that they can be shielded from the consequences of unprovoked attacks on the underserving. We have seen this before, and history does repeat itself. I warned that this would happen, that this is what our brave new world would come to. Unless we rise up as one. One voice, one mind, one body, and effectively deal with these hooligans and all future ruffians. Lest we forget what the world once was, and what caused it: indifference from uninvolved parties. Well, rest assured friends, if this is allowed to continue you will not find yourself safe and uninvolved much longer, and no, there will be no voices clamoring for justice on your behalf. You will be quite alone. This must end now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2burnt2eat Posted September 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 He attacked them. They defended their member. Come on folks this is not that hard to follow. He attacked them, they punish him as they see fit and his alliance then decides if he is worth keeping as a member. This all real easy. Anyone who is still having trouble figuring out how this should have gone come see me and I will explain it further. We're clear on that. He did attack a member, which they decided to defend. However, their retaliation went WAY above what was called for. Apparently if I'm not in a position to judge what's the right punishment, you shouldn't either. We don't have a problem with the initial counter-attacks on Dasi. We do have a problem when you continue them for days on end only to aggravate our government. And it's all shocking what happens when we've had enough, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) "We apologize in advance, we didn't want to post such a small alliance matter on the OWF, but you can thank Slonq for that.." So, small alliances shouldn't be allowed to post on the OWF in these situations? The court of public opinion is only in session for large groups? I think not. Your piece is otherwise well written. Brengstklau still should not have backed the attacker here. I get that new people make mistakes. We've had our fair share of new people violating our policy (which is "do not attack ANYONE without permission from White Chocolate or Necroseer"- you'd think that would be simple enough to follow). However, if you really do not want to look the "evil oppressor" here, you need to fix this (even if it means paying reps) and fast. If you don't care - happy hunting... Edited September 16, 2009 by White Chocolate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Bad Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 We're clear on that. He did attack a member, which they decided to defend. However, their retaliation went WAY above what was called for.Apparently if I'm not in a position to judge what's the right punishment, you shouldn't either. We don't have a problem with the initial counter-attacks on Dasi. We do have a problem when you continue them for days on end only to aggravate our government. And it's all shocking what happens when we've had enough, isn't it? He broke your rules and attacked another alliance. You don't get to decide. 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.