Brengstklau's Response to UCR

[Schattenmann]

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

Did you skip all the long parts? Once UCR lied about peace and started tag-teaming the Brengstklauer because they read Brenk's charter and thought to themselves they could get away with it, they became the ones that owed somebody something. And that's what it boiled down to--UCR thought they could dictate Brengstklau's actions based on their foreign (and, by the way, incorrect) interpretation of Brengstklau's charter.

You can't ask for reps AND counter-attack and expect that you're going to walk away. UCR is lucky that Brengstklau let them fool around as long as they did.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Schattenmann

[ZeroRemorse]

So you consider an attack on one member an attack on them all, but get outraged when another alliance does the same?

I sent an message to the attacker asking why he attacked and that he should have declared peace. Then when the war started I kept pushing for peace. But they still attacked. I have the letters if you need proof.

[nippy]

This is why I fight. Because lesser men everywhere support attacks of bullying and oppression on the weak, and insult and demean those who possess the strength of character to stand for what is right. I deplore these acts, and that is why I have become the hero this world so desperately needs. I shall triumph.

Hey baby, oppression is our middle name.

I love me some RV grandstanding.

[President S O]

This is why I fight. Because lesser men everywhere support attacks of bullying and oppression on the weak, and insult and demean those who possess the strength of character to stand for what is right. I deplore these acts, and that is why I have become the hero this world so desperately needs. I shall triumph.

Simply

Truthfully... Both parties are at fault. I think everyone should just walk away from an already bad situation no reps having to be paid to either side.

xR1 Fatal Instinct don't get involved, please for your own sake.

[President S O]

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

Leadership.

[slonq]

UCR did not knowingly attack during negotiations, we didn't even completely know that negotiations were taking place. Our foreign affairs minister was inactive and our CPUCR Chairman was discussing peace with the ICB, but most of us weren't too sure if this was going on or not.

[President S O]

UCR did not knowingly attack during negotiations, we didn't even completely know that negotiations were taking place. Our foreign affairs minister was inactive and our CPUCR Chairman was discussing peace with the ICB, but most of us weren't too sure if this was going on or not.

Seems like your trouble there, was a lack of communication.

[juanveldez]

as far as I can see UCR was defending their member and now you cats are trying to look good in all of this. its the same if anybody raids any member of any alliance, that alliance has every right to defend their member and themselves.

[Dochartaigh]

in my opinion, i hope that an ICB member attacks an aligned nation in a larger alliance so that all of ICB can be attacked in response, since it seems ICB does not think that an alliance is not allowed to defend their member from aggression. and yes, ICB's member was the aggressor.

[Heft]

It's almost like people just refuse to read.

[Dochartaigh]

It's almost like people just refuse to read.

if you are responding to me, we have ICB stating they ordered their nation to stand down but we have no clue if that nation actually gave peace. There is proof that the ICB nation tried to extort tech.

[Heft]

Not just you, but all of us those acting hysterical about this issue.

[Banned]

The best way to resolve this conflict is to merge your alliances into one another.

[Mussolandia]

We stand with brown. Good luck to you and your alliance.

Our foreign affairs minister was inactive and our CPUCR Chairman was discussing peace with the ICB, but most of us weren't too sure if this was going on or not.

Ah, a textbook example of "lolcommies" if there was ever one.

[Chalaskan]

Did you skip all the long parts? Once UCR lied about peace and started tag-teaming the Brengstklauer because they read Brenk's charter and thought to themselves they could get away with it, they became the ones that owed somebody something. And that's what it boiled down to--UCR thought they could dictate Brengstklau's actions based on their foreign (and, by the way, incorrect) interpretation of Brengstklau's charter.

You can't ask for reps AND counter-attack and expect that you're going to walk away. UCR is lucky that Brengstklau let them fool around as long as they did.

Problem is the aggressor asked for the reps...not the UCR. Couple that with the simple fact that Brengstkau was the aggressor...and well yes. I did read the long parts.

I don't believe they lied about the tag teaming, I believe they simply stood up for their nation.

Isn't that what an alliance is supposed to do?

The charter is pretty concise, and I believe they were correct in their assumption.

[2burnt2eat]

Problem is the aggressor asked for the reps...not the UCR. Couple that with the simple fact that Brengstkau was the aggressor...and well yes. I did read the long parts.

I don't believe they lied about the tag teaming, I believe they simply stood up for their nation.

Isn't that what an alliance is supposed to do?

The charter is pretty concise, and I believe they were correct in their assumption.

We asked for reparations after they continued attacking, despite us. You know how being attacked by 3 people for 4 days is ridiculously much for one day of attacks on one person? Along those same lines.

As for our Charter, the only way you can make the contradiction is if a backfired raid includes every attack AFTER that raid by ANY and EVERY kind of nation. I thought I was pretty concise in what I meant when I wrote the thing. It's sad that we'll probably have to end-up revising the thing to stop the e-lawyers.

And I love how people only focus on this, and I have barely seen any coverage over the rest of the issue.

Let's face it, attacking after receiving a message that ICB would take action if you did is just plain silly by anyone's standards and by whatever you're doing. The fact that they did this three times before is even sillier.

And let me clear up another lie

UCR did not knowingly attack during negotiations, we didn't even completely know that negotiations were taking place. Our foreign affairs minister was inactive and our CPUCR Chairman was discussing peace with the ICB, but most of us weren't too sure if this was going on or not.

Yes you did. In fact, you did it four times. In fact, RA2Leader sent you ALL of my messages.

And I know for a fact when you received our ultimateum that he read it in the early hours of that CN Day, posted it on your forums, and then you decided to attack in the late hours of CN after reading it.

Everyone was quite aware what was going on. What we didn't know was our badly you didn't want to get peace.

When we attacked, they finally got a wake-up call and started really negotiating, at least RA2Leader. This situation was being settled when Slonq decided to post his infamous fake expose on ICB. This shows another time UCR says one thing and does another.

If you want to blame it on no internal fluency, fine, fix it. However, I do know that you knowingly got our messages each time and did choose to attack.

[Starbuck]

Why on earth would you make a topic trying to defend yourself, you couldn't do it in the other topic's why would you think you could do it here, all this is, is bad RP for you and UPN

[Dochartaigh]

Not just you, but all of us those acting hysterical about this issue.

heh. not sure on the others, but i am not hysterical in the least over this issue.

[In Spades]

Yeah... this is getting really really stupid. People have taken this "being oppressed" thing way too far.

[Heft]

heh. not sure on the others, but i am not hysterical in the least over this issue.

No, you're not the worst by far, but statements like "it seems ICB does not think that an alliance is not allowed to defend their member from aggression" are certainly an overreaction and pretty blatant mis-characterization of ICB's behavior and statements.

[Dochartaigh]

No, you're not the worst by far, but statements like "it seems ICB does not think that an alliance is not allowed to defend their member from aggression" are certainly an overreaction and pretty blatant mis-characterization of ICB's behavior and statements.

well lets see, we have the fact that an ICB member attacked a UCR member. We have 2 UCR members attack said ICB member in defense of their alliance mate. We have ICB then attack other members of UCR not involved in the defense. So, where is the overreaction and blatant mis-characterization of anything? Oh, this guy stating they ordered their member to declare peace? and then their member instead demanding tech? yes, you are obviously correct in how i am obviously making ICB look horrible because their alliance obviously did nothing wrong.........

[2burnt2eat]

well lets see, we have the fact that an ICB member attacked a UCR member. We have 2 UCR members attack said ICB member in defense of their alliance mate.

During Negotiations, which we decided to over look, until it became a common occurrence.

We have ICB then attack other members of UCR not involved in the defense.

You forgot the three other warnings we gave UCR over a four-day period in which Slonq decided to continue to attack in spite of this.

We began attacks on certain other nations in UCR as we had the foresight to expect a counter-attack. Although, a few nations of ours did not turn out for the attacks, which is disappointing.

So, where is the overreaction and blatant mis-characterization of anything?

The parts where you systematically keep omitting the fact that UCR continued to attack, lie, and buy time over a four day period. This is not a case of ICB pushing a little guy around because they can, it's a case of kicking a little guy back into place that thinks he's invincible and can do whatever he feels like without a repercussion.

Oh, this guy stating they ordered their member to declare peace? and then their member instead demanding tech?

I have no idea who you're referring to, UCR or ICB in the first part. As for the second, why, yes, we did ask for reparations in the form of tech after FOUR DAYS of ATTACKS by THREE DIFFERENT NATIONS versus ATTACKS on ONE nation on ONE day. Especially when all wars and attacks were made after Dasi stopped attacking, there was no reason to do this whatsoever. Especially with negotiations.

There was no reason to continue to do this with four chances.

What is so hard about this concept? Especially when 100 tech is an extremely miniscule amount, especially with the high amounts of damage Dasi took.

How hard-headed can you be?

yes, you are obviously correct in how i am obviously making ICB look horrible because their alliance obviously did nothing wrong.........

Agreed. Go away. I don't know how "wrong" we can get with four opportunities we gave UCR to back out. Anybody could see a storm-coming, and the fact that they attacked anyway knowing this is quite entertaining.

[slonq]

The first information that was given to the general membership and government of the UCR was combined in one message- that ICB wanted us to stop attacking the nation and that it also wants reps.

They have told him to cease fire and have asked that we do the same.

They are also asking for reps.

This was posted on September 13th, and no information was released prior to that. Had reps not been demanded, the outcome would probably have been different. As attacks began on September 11th, we had only attacked for 2 days when reps were demanded.

I have no idea who you're referring to, UCR or ICB in the first part. As for the second, why, yes, we did ask for reparations in the form of tech after FOUR DAYS of ATTACKS by THREE DIFFERENT NATIONS versus ATTACKS on ONE nation on ONE day. Especially when all wars and attacks were made after Dasi stopped attacking, there was no reason to do this whatsoever. Especially with negotiations.

There was no reason to continue to do this with four chances.

What is so hard about this concept? Especially when 100 tech is an extremely miniscule amount, especially with the high amounts of damage Dasi took.

How hard-headed can you be?

The attacks by Dasi stopped because he was blasted back to the Stone Age for tech raiding an alliance member, he lost the capacity to fight and possibly was in bill lock.

100 tech? A minuscule amount? I think that you should really consider the size of the alliance and the size of its largest members before attempting to say that your attempt at extortion was small.

[Dochartaigh]

During Negotiations, which we decided to over look, until it became a common occurrence.

You forgot the three other warnings we gave UCR over a four-day period in which Slonq decided to continue to attack in spite of this.

We began attacks on certain other nations in UCR as we had the foresight to expect a counter-attack. Although, a few nations of ours did not turn out for the attacks, which is disappointing.

The parts where you systematically keep omitting the fact that UCR continued to attack, lie, and buy time over a four day period. This is not a case of ICB pushing a little guy around because they can, it's a case of kicking a little guy back into place that thinks he's invincible and can do whatever he feels like without a repercussion.

I have no idea who you're referring to, UCR or ICB in the first part. As for the second, why, yes, we did ask for reparations in the form of tech after FOUR DAYS of ATTACKS by THREE DIFFERENT NATIONS versus ATTACKS on ONE nation on ONE day. Especially when all wars and attacks were made after Dasi stopped attacking, there was no reason to do this whatsoever. Especially with negotiations.

There was no reason to continue to do this with four chances.

What is so hard about this concept? Especially when 100 tech is an extremely miniscule amount, especially with the high amounts of damage Dasi took.

How hard-headed can you be?

Agreed. Go away. I don't know how "wrong" we can get with four opportunities we gave UCR to back out. Anybody could see a storm-coming, and the fact that they attacked anyway knowing this is quite entertaining.

Lawlz. sorry but when your charter states that the tech raider is on his own and you decide to break your charter by helping him out, then yes you are wrong. and 100 tech to an aggressor is not miniscule as your ICB member should have paid reps not UCR since he was the one who initiated an attack on an aligned nation. So how about you stop overlooking those key facts yourself when trying to attempt to come up with a defense for what your alliance did. Just fess up to screwing up and you will look far better.

Dasi deserved to be attacked for attacking an aligned member. He deserved no reps due to the fact that he tech-raided an aligned nation (against your charter) and then you helped him out since he was counter-attacked (again, against your charter). so, no i will not go away simply because you state crap that truly does not matter. Negotiations mean little since your member demanded reps and from your post, you thought your member deserved reps. That to me looks like an attempt to extort a smaller alliance.

As for counter attacks from UCR- please. UCR only sent 2 guys against Dasi since Dasi attacked a UCR member.

[karthikking]

Lawlz. sorry but when your charter states that the tech raider is on his own and you decide to break your charter by helping him out, then yes you are wrong. and 100 tech to an aggressor is not miniscule as your ICB member should have paid reps not UCR since he was the one who initiated an attack on an aligned nation. So how about you stop overlooking those key facts yourself when trying to attempt to come up with a defense for what your alliance did. Just fess up to screwing up and you will look far better.

Dasi deserved to be attacked for attacking an aligned member. He deserved no reps due to the fact that he tech-raided an aligned nation (against your charter) and then you helped him out since he was counter-attacked (again, against your charter). so, no i will not go away simply because you state crap that truly does not matter. Negotiations mean little since your member demanded reps and from your post, you thought your member deserved reps. That to me looks like an attempt to extort a smaller alliance.

As for counter attacks from UCR- please. UCR only sent 2 guys against Dasi since Dasi attacked a UCR member.

I agree. he bit off more than he could chew. Now he is toast. Simple as that.