Brengstklau's Response to UCR

[Groucho Marx]

I'm gunna go ahead and take your side in this cause of your sick avatar.

4th edit: the situation isnt really worth taking sides for any real reason...

But you did take sides for the CG-IS conflict. I guess it just has to be an alliance you hate, right? Such bias.

[D34th]

do i smell hypocrisy?

Where? I can't smell it

[jer]

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.

I would continue attacking if I felt justice had not yet been done. A few days of retaliatory attacks is not justice, I'd want the full week.

I freely admit that I can only make judgements on what I see here. I'm sure you're a great leader generally but in this instance you seem to be somewhat over-sensitive to the fully justified retaliatory attacks (I assumed this was because the alliance retaliating was smaller and yet still had the gall to fight back which upset you... if there is another reason for your poor judgement please feel free to present it) and it is undoubtedly damaging your and your alliances reputation.

[karthikking]

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 would make you guys the bullies.

[2burnt2eat]

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

We didn't. I'm also in a position of knowing. If we're going to fight with opinion over this, then mine would have to be more creditable as I was there.

If the little guy is defending themselves from your attack, you've just become bullies. Congratulations.

K.

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.

We didn't attack a nation then ask for reps. Dasi's attack was not ordered by our government or anything. It was a misplaced raid made by a newbie, he paid the price for it. When they decided to milk this opportunity for all it's worth, they went way too far.

As for UCR's Charter and Ours, I have no problem with that. I pointed that fact out to them when they were using our own charter to justify their attacks, and how we couldn't legally get involved while they jaunted.

All I did was use the same Charter and point out the flaw all the while dismissing how they were misusing our Charter to justify their continued attacks.

[Itsuki Koizumi]

Where? I can't smell it

[ooc] my computer is just that 1337[/ooc]

[Itsuki Koizumi]

We didn't. I'm also in a position of knowing. If we're going to fight with opinion over this, then mine would have to be more creditable as I was there.

I actually was there! I saw this from the beginning tech raid all the way to right now. i was on their irc channel when they posted this.

[The Reccesion]

That would make you guys the bullies.

A raid goes from being bullys? OHHHHHH Reaallllllyyy???

[Groucho Marx]

A raid goes from being bullys? OHHHHHH Reaallllllyyy???

What exactly is your position on situations like this? It seems as if you've changed your outlook since the last time something similar to this happened.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Emperor Marx

[2burnt2eat]

I would continue attacking if I felt justice had not yet been done. A few days of retaliatory attacks is not justice, I'd want the full week.

I freely admit that I can only make judgements on what I see here. I'm sure you're a great leader generally but in this instance you seem to be somewhat over-sensitive to the fully justified retaliatory attacks (I assumed this was because the alliance retaliating was smaller and yet still had the gall to fight back which upset you... if there is another reason for your poor judgement please feel free to present it) and it is undoubtedly damaging your and your alliances reputation.

Well thank you for that, however when arguing with so many people, it's hard to get all the right words out to describe the situation.

And especially over such a heated topic!

The small alliance had the gall to provoke the fight, fight the fight, and continue the fight. We knew this going in led by someone like Slonq.

[The Reccesion]

What exactly is your position on situations like this? It seems as if you've changed your outlook since the last time something similar to this happened.

Care to explain? Are you referring to your IS-CG thing?

[Capitalistic Policie]

The GDA is currently in talks with both alliances in hopes of settling the issue swiftly. Thank You.

[The Big Bad]

The GDA is currently in talks with both alliances in hopes of settling the issue swiftly. Thank You.

See I knew GDA would be along to take care of things. Nice to see GDA, thank you.

[karthikking]

It does make them bullies if after the raid two alliance members attack to protect a member from a tech raid they start asking for reparitions. This is a violation of ICB charter because he should be on his own right now due to the raid presidentdasi or w/e his name was should be expelled along with 2burnt2eat for not leaving him on his own. I like the word expel right now...

[2burnt2eat]

It does make them bullies if after the raid two alliance members attack to protect a member from a tech raid they start asking for reparitions. This is a violation of ICB charter because he should be on his own right now due to the raid presidentdasi or w/e his name was should be expelled along with 2burnt2eat for not leaving him on his own. I like the word expel right now...

We didn't start asking for reparations after the first few rounds of attacks, when it hit day three and four, it got old pretty quick.

As stated before, he should be left alone with his raid target. This isn't the case with these extra attackers attacking in 'retaliation' despite President Dasi halting all attacks. These continued far past punishment. A bad-placed for a raid, isn't worth a sentence for ZI, especially when the member complies.

[karthikking]

Since when does the attacker decide whats enough punishment? And its not ZI its a 7 day war most likely.

[The Reccesion]

Since when does the attacker decide whats enough punishment? And its not ZI its a 7 day war most likely.

Since when he takes orders if hes in an alliance.

[Dochartaigh]

this is sooooooo funny. Frankly, the ICB nation got his butt handed to him but only he was attacked by 2 other UCR nations. ICB then goes on to target members of UCR that were not one of the 3 nations involved in war against their member. This is where ICB goes wrong. This is why ICB is in the wrong. This is why ICB should be paying reps.

[slonq]

As much as I would like to see the UCR get reps, if the ceasefire was delayed for reps to be negotiated for, or if the war escalated to force ICB to somehow pay the reps, the damage that would be done to UCR would be too much to recover. Currently I'm sure that there is nothing that can't be fixed soon enough.

[Heft]

Everyone did get the part where UCR continued launching attacks while in negotiations that they presumably agreed to be in? That UCR singled their intent to have a peaceful resolution, and that ICB didn't renege on that, but UCR did? UCR had every right to manhandle the nation that attacked them, but that doesn't mean they can simultaneously negotiate a peaceful settlement while continuing the war (especially when he was no longer fighting back).

[Infidel Israeli]

Everyone did get the part where UCR continued launching attacks while in negotiations that they presumably agreed to be in? That UCR singled their intent to have a peaceful resolution, and that ICB didn't renege on that, but UCR did? UCR had every right to manhandle the nation that attacked them, but that doesn't mean they can simultaneously negotiate a peaceful settlement while continuing the war (especially when he was no longer fighting back).

Are you not allowed to attack while in peace negotiations? Isn't it all fair game until there is peace?

[xR1 Fatal Instinct]

Poor show UCR.

[Schattenmann]

Everyone did get the part where UCR continued launching attacks while in negotiations that they presumably agreed to be in? That UCR singled their intent to have a peaceful resolution, and that ICB didn't renege on that, but UCR did? UCR had every right to manhandle the nation that attacked them, but that doesn't mean they can simultaneously negotiate a peaceful settlement while continuing the war (especially when he was no longer fighting back).

Thannnnnk you.

I rail against techraiding as much as the next Walford closet-case, but UCR's actions in the matter are inexcusable.

While growing, my own alliance Cult of Justitia has been the target of oops-raids on three occassions. In each case, I refused peace, held fire, went to the alliance at fault and told them what was up, and let diplomacy work its magic. Why would I not return fire? Because if I want my money, tech, and land back, then I can't wreck the attacker's stuff. Retaliatory attacks automatically render your demands for resititution null and void--you've gone on a course of forcefully taking it back.

When UCR sent more nations into the fray, they nulled reps demands--they got their stuff back with guns.

When UCR attacked during negotiations, they violated the trust that negotiations put in them. If I had put two more CoJ nations on my LOUD attacker in the middle of talks with them a few weeks ago, LOUD would and should have laid the smack down on me.

When your political leanings keep you from rational thought, you're a fanatic and useless. While the attacker was wrong, UCR's bad faith war has turned them into the bad guys whether your personal opinions about techraiding prevent you from seeing that or not.

Are you not allowed to attack while in peace negotiations? Isn't it all fair game until there is peace?

I guess someone missed the Karma War.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Schattenmann

[Heft]

Are you not allowed to attack while in peace negotiations? Isn't it all fair game until there is peace?

I suppose you can, though it's generally frowned upon (Karma war etcetc). At the very least, you can hardly complain about being attacked back if you do so, much less expect some sort of restitution.

In any case the incident seems to be more or less over and done with, so I guess I'll try and let it die. A pity I missed all the action.

[Chalaskan]

I do claim that attacks from two additional nations, and the attacked nation for the next four days despite ICB government imploring UCR to stop, to be far above a back-fired raid. This was UCR trying to flex muscle. They decided that snubbing ICB four times, even with a warning of 24 hours of what was to come, was the best course.

And I'm not upset about anything, I'm too mellow.

Still love ya' RV

Raid any sanctioned alliance and you would probably get the same reply. Kudos to this alliance for standing up for their member who you AGGRESSIVELY attacked, and then asked for reps?

LOL