2burnt2eat Posted September 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 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. If we wanted to portray them as the bad guys, we would've posted on the CN forums before them. If we had a bloodlust, we wouldn't of negotiated other hot issues with other alliances. Let's stop the presumptions, but I am flattered that you take us as an example of how bad our CN world is becoming Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Your member raided an alliance and got his $@! kicked. That is as it should be. If he is that stupid then that is his fate. Your role in this should be only to to tell him he is an idiot and that once he has payed the price at hands of those he attacked then you will decide if he can even remain a member. I have to agree with this big bad man. You member raid you member pay the price, now your member can think how a raided nation feels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 However, their retaliation went WAY above what was called for. No it didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2burnt2eat Posted September 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 "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... I never said "the court of public opinion is only in session for large groups", or that small alliances weren't allowed to post on the OWF. Quit putting words in my mouth. We didn't want attention as we've always minded our own business, until UCR government made us have to choose whether we should risk stirring things up to defend our alliance's integrity from these multiple, and continued provocations, or get worm syndrome and bow out the door. But thanks for saying my piece is well-written! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 I stand by my comments in the other thread. GDA should have made this go away quietly. Oh well. FYI: Some might find it puzzling that an alliance would tell their people that if they raid someone and get in trouble that they are on their own, but then will attack anyone who "piles on" in a counter attack. It is a fairly common practice and its about member retention as anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrash Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 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. I think you're taking this a bit too far. This doesn't appear to be a planned "pick on the smaller aliance". It's just a tech raid gone bad. Stop feeding the fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2burnt2eat Posted September 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 I have to agree with this big bad man. You member raid you member pay the price, now your member can think how a raided nation feels. This is a repetition of an argument we keep getting. He deserves what he got coming because he attempted a raid. But yea, now he knows how all gang-banged raid targets with all-out strikes with everything feel! Oh wait, that's not a raid.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 We didn't want attention as we've always minded our own business, until UCR government made us have to choose whether we should risk stirring things up to defend our alliance's integrity from these multiple, and continued provocations, or get worm syndrome and bow out the door. If you want to hold on to any integrity at all I'd suggest that you stop referring to an alliance defending their member against a tech-raid as provocation. Lies aren't good for integrity, k? I think you may as well admit that the only reason that you see their defence as provocation is because you are the stronger side and you expect them to come sucking up to you for resolution, regardless of who is actually in the wrong. Unfortunately for you it looks UCR knows when it is right and the amount of NS doesn't factor into their decisions, and the end result is your alliance embarrassing itself on the world stage. Way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2burnt2eat Posted September 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 I stand by my comments in the other thread. GDA should have made this go away quietly. Oh well.FYI: Some might find it puzzling that an alliance would tell their people that if they raid someone and get in trouble that they are on their own, but then will attack anyone who "piles on" in a counter attack. It is a fairly common practice and its about member retention as anything else. Completely puzzling to think that we would say that our member would be on his own with the guy he raided, but then defend him from continued, daily attacks from multiple other nations! Our charter says we do not defend someone whose raid-target fought back. Of course that's rephrased. Its common for nations to be retaliated on that made a wrong target out of a nation. However, it's not common for retaliation to be taken to the extremes just to provoke the member's government. Along with their 'negotations' during the whole time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 If you want to hold on to any integrity at all I'd suggest that you stop referring to an alliance defending their member against a tech-raid as provocation. Lies aren't good for integrity, k? I think you may as well admit that the only reason that you see their defence as provocation is because you are the stronger side and you expect them to come sucking up to you for resolution, regardless of who is actually in the wrong. Unfortunately for you it looks UCR knows when it is right and the amount of NS doesn't factor into their decisions, and the end result is your alliance embarrassing itself on the world stage. Way to go. Getting embarrassed on the world stage doesn't change an alliance, and for who they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Completely puzzling to think that we would say that our member would be on his own with the guy he raided, but then defend him from continued, daily attacks from multiple other nations! Not multiple other nations?!! That is way over the top, they should've put a guy with half the NS of your guy in to bat. Stop being so ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Not multiple other nations?!! That is way over the top, they should've put a guy with half the NS of your guy in to bat.Stop being so ridiculous. So your syaing you raid someone in an alliance, and they jump you. STA won't support you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 So your syaing you raid someone in an alliance, and they jump you. STA won't support you? If you go around punching weaker kids, you deserve to get jumped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsuki Koizumi Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 So your syaing you raid someone in an alliance, and they jump you. STA won't support you? he's smart enough to know the consequences of his actions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 So your syaing you raid someone in an alliance, and they jump you. STA won't support you? That is exactly what I am saying. STA is good alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2burnt2eat Posted September 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 If you want to hold on to any integrity at all I'd suggest that you stop referring to an alliance defending their member against a tech-raid as provocation. Lies aren't good for integrity, k? I think you may as well admit that the only reason that you see their defence as provocation is because you are the stronger side and you expect them to come sucking up to you for resolution, regardless of who is actually in the wrong. Unfortunately for you it looks UCR knows when it is right and the amount of NS doesn't factor into their decisions, and the end result is your alliance embarrassing itself on the world stage. Way to go. I refer to attacking during negotiations multiple times over a raid, lying, and trying to e-lawyer the guy who wrote the charter over a six-month period as provocation. Please explain to me, why would you attack when you the alliance government told you enough is enough, if you carry this any further we will counter your attacks? But of course, I believe might makes right. Which doesn't explain why UCR had four.. or five chances to back out on good terms but rejected them all the same! A few frames of the film, and you judge my character to put out the cliche of how I think I'm right because our alliance is stronger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2burnt2eat Posted September 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 If you go around punching weaker kids, you deserve to get jumped. If you punch a bigger kid with friends, over and over, and are TERRIBLY SHOCKED to see yourself get punched back, you deserve what you get too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsuki Koizumi Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 If you punch a bigger kid with friends, over and over, and are TERRIBLY SHOCKED to see yourself get punched back, you deserve what you get too. that's if the bigger kid did nothing to provoke the smaller kid. Common sense shows no one will jump a larger alliance unprovoked alone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) If you punch a bigger kid with friends, over and over, and are TERRIBLY SHOCKED to see yourself get punched back, you deserve what you get too. If the little guy is defending themselves from your attack, you've just become bullies. Congratulations. Edited September 16, 2009 by Voodoo Nova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 This is a repetition of an argument we keep getting. He deserves what he got coming because he attempted a raid.But yea, now he knows how all gang-banged raid targets with all-out strikes with everything feel! Oh wait, that's not a raid.. If your member attack an nation who is part of an alliance what he should expect? Like you said: The ICB takes seriously its commitment to defend all members from attack. Any attack on any member is considered an attack on all members. And like your alliance, UCR takes seriously its commitment to defend all members from attack. Any attack on any member is considered an attack on all members. Your memeber started that and if you back him your alliance will be the agressive part of it. This is ridiculous, attack an nation for raid and then ask for reps when someone attack you back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Bad Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 If you punch a bigger kid with friends, over and over, and are TERRIBLY SHOCKED to see yourself get punched back, you deserve what you get too. You have summed up just how much fail is in your logic. GDA please get here and take of this mess before they dig themselves any deeper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsuki Koizumi Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 If your member attack an nation who is part of an alliance what he should expect? Like you said:And like your alliance, UCR takes seriously its commitment to defend all members from attack. Any attack on any member is considered an attack on all members. Your memeber started that and if you back him your alliance will be the agressive part of it. This is ridiculous, attack an nation for raid and then ask for reps when someone attack you back. do i smell hypocrisy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 I'm gonna end this kids stuff, big kids will win. Big kid wins one, little kids jump and win and then big boy gets his bigger buddies to whoop some $@!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsuki Koizumi Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 I'm gonna end this kids stuff, big kids will win. Big kid wins one, little kids jump and win and then big boy gets his bigger buddies to whoop some $@!. then you are an immoral fool that is blinded to the facts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 then you are an immoral fool that is blinded to the facts It was a joke. You hurt my feelings... 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.