Peace for NONE

[Rooman33]

I'm not above admitting when I was wrong, and I was wrong to authorize the attack on NONE. I accepted as truth numbers which I should have verified myself as a basis for declaring war on an alliance that, as it turns out, is about 1/4 the UJA's size. I apologize to NONE - it was never our intention to curb-stomp a sub 20-man alliance. We sinscerely misjudged your alliance size, and I should have checked the numbers myself before authorizing war upon you. Curb-stomping isn't cool, and I'm sorry we put you through that.

That said, none of this would have happened if NONE were not abusing the AA glitch. With over 360 nations listed as "none" on Steve, it's not hard to see how something like this happens. It's unreasonable to expect everyone to thoroughly research everything there is to know about your alliance before they interact with you. If you were flying a normal AA, we would have known you only had <20 members and we never would have attacked.

Now, allow me to explain how the confusion arose. We didn't know NONE had a public membership list (though I've yet to see it). In earnest, we inaccurately (apparently) assumed that most/all "none" nations on the blue sphere were part of the NONE group. Why did we assume this? Well, for one because it's impossible to isolate a nation in "NONE" from a nation with an alliance listed as "None" in the game. So, we took what we knew of NONE (that it was blue and listed as "none") and targeted ~30 Blue, none nations. Of those 30, all ~16 of the NONE nations were targeted. Why? Because 1) We were at war with NONE (because we thought they were bigger than it turns out they are) 2) all the NONE nations are larger than most of the "None" nations

Here's a screen shot of our initial target list as proof that we assumed NONE encompassed all of the blue/none alliances:

*ModEdit*

As you can see, we were, by no means, under the impression that NONE is as small as it is. We also still think it's pretty ridiculous that if you want to know who's in NONE, you have to find someone who knows the link to their forum, go to their forum, register, wait for approval, find their membership list and then take them for their word that they've accounted for everyone. And then to have their leadership get indignant that others don't omnisciently know how many people are in their alliance is equally ridiculous.

We targeted an alliance we calculated to be roughly equal to us in size. We were wrong in our calculations, but if NONE weren't abusing the AA glitch, we wouldn't have had to calculate anything - let alone go on an exploration to find their self-produced member list. Nonetheless, UJA is opposed to curb-stomp wars/raids. That's not cool, it isn't fair and it isn't fun.

As such, I've ordered our alliance members to offer peace to all NONE nations immediately.

NONE, I hope you accept both my apology and my criticism in the intended spirit of honesty and openness. Your nations will not be fired on unless they continue to fire at us. If any of our guys fails to offer peace, please let me know immediately so that I can order them to peace out directly. Also, we have a list of nations we know for sure are in NONE... but if you could (finally) get me your public membership list so that I could show my guys who not to hit, that would be great.

Signed:

Rooman33, Speaker of UJA

Edited October 9, 2009 by Donnerjack
ModEdit: removed screenshots with IPs

[keenu]

An honest mistake.

o/ green team.

[President Gunn]

o/ Roo

o/ UJA

Its always great to see some one apologize when there wrong instead of arguing that there right.

You have earned more respect from me today.

[Folger Soldier]

Good man... I dedicate this beer to you.

o/ Roo

[Thomasj_tx]

I was the one that put together the target list after discussing the possibility of attacking the NONE, NoNe, NOne or NonE Alliance. I researched their website and learned that they are all Blue and allowed to use any of those AA designations.

As you know, AA searches are not case sensitive and there is no way to search Flags. So we targeted all none + Blue nations. That was over 70 nations. We knew well that not all of them were the "official" NONE, NoNe, NOne or NonE Alliance. But we also understood that we would be targeting some number of real "none" nations, thereby "spreading the wealth". We figured that there was no downside in that from a "moral" point of view.

We targeted a group of 70+ nations, that being "Blue + none" vs our 60ish nations. We felt that there would surely be some collateral damage, that being some level of truly unaligned "none" nations, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Did we set out for a curb stomp? Absolutely not! Did we randomly target nations? Absolutely not! Would we have DoW the "NONE, NoNe, NOne or NonE" Alliance had we know her actual size? Absolutely not!

We did not act dishonorably and I am sure NONE leadership and other observers now know that.

I look forward to the "NONE, NoNe, NOne or NonE" Alliance's response to our apology, both here and in game. And I am sad that Roo had to dance this dance today, beause he is an honorable man.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Thomasjtx

[Walford]

As I said, unconditional peace will be accepted if it is offered.

We could always revert to not distinguishing our nations from the other non-aligned, but would rather provide the means for those who wish to avoid tangling with us to do so -- and for other non-aligned to know that there is a haven for them should they abide for our policies of using our military capacity for defensive purposes only.

[The Wizard of Oz]

I applaud you Roo. This is an easy misunderstanding The strat of going unnoticed back fired for NONE in this case. Cheers to Walford for accepting..

[Thomasj_tx]

As I said, unconditional peace will be accepted if it is offered.

We could always revert to not distinguishing our nations from the other non-aligned, but would rather provide the means for those who wish to avoid tangling with us to do so -- and for other non-aligned to know that there is a haven for them should they abide for our policies of using our military capacity for defensive purposes only.

With all do respect, and I mean that sincerely, how do you define "non-aligned"? Are you saying that your "Alliance" is not aligned?

[Rooman33]

As I said, unconditional peace will be accepted if it is offered.

We could always revert to not distinguishing our nations from the other non-aligned, but would rather provide the means for those who wish to avoid tangling with us to do so -- and for other non-aligned to know that there is a haven for them should they abide for our policies of using our military capacity for defensive purposes only.

Cheers to unconditional peace then. All nations are to lay down their arms immediately. Please also note that any attacks by NONE nations on UJA nations after update will be seen as a rebuke of our peace offer to them and we will resume our attacks on those nations until they offer peace. Regardless of how small your alliance is, we can't give you a free pass on hitting our nations. We've heard of a few NONE nations threatening to hit UJA nations despite the accepted peace. If that happens, it will be very hard for me to keep the UJA nations from continuing their aggression. You are free to treat UJA nations in the same manner. As I said earlier - please inform me of any UJA nation who is unwilling to accept peace.

Walford, you are a steadfast leader. NONE is lucky to have you at the helm. Cheers.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Rooman33

[Thomasj_tx]

What he said ^2

[Dochartaigh]

As I said, unconditional peace will be accepted if it is offered.

We could always revert to not distinguishing our nations from the other non-aligned, but would rather provide the means for those who wish to avoid tangling with us to do so -- and for other non-aligned to know that there is a haven for them should they abide for our policies of using our military capacity for defensive purposes only.

i do actually like the concept of NONE.

[Thom98]

NONE? that leaves way to much room I am sure that this will not be the last time that mistake is made. Perhaps "other" but when you use a name that the game generates this will happen again.

[Walford]

Cheers to unconditional peace then. All nations are to lay down their arms immediately. Please also note that any attacks by NONE nations on UJA nations after update will be seen as a rebuke of our peace offer to them and we will resume our attacks on those nations until they offer peace. Regardless of how small your alliance is, we can't give you a free pass on hitting our nations. We've heard of a few NONE nations threatening to hit UJA nations despite the accepted peace. If that happens, it will be very hard for me to keep the UJA nations from continuing their aggression. You are free to treat UJA nations in the same manner. As I said earlier - please inform me of any UJA nation who is unwilling to accept peace.

As of this writing a NONE nation has declared war defending his comrades after your announcement. That nation has been instructed to withdraw.

A UJA aggressor has launched a barrage of post-announcement attacks upon a NONE nation that he had declared war upon earlier.

Withdrawals are not always clean. We will do our part to keep this from re-igniting the general conflict. If any UJA nations are entertaining the idea of getting in one last hit, then offering peace, it will not be accepted. There will be no new declarations on our part, but those who sustain further UJA attacks know that they are not expected to accept peace after an attack. They will counter-strike and await clean peace to be offered. Then it will be accepted.

Walford, you are a steadfast leader. NONE is lucky to have you at the helm. Cheers.

Make no mistake, there is considerable bitterness in our ranks that we have been beaten and robbed and are expected take this punishment with little consequence to the aggressor. But our policies are consistent: we will accept peace from an attacker if it is offered without condition.

Our honor dictates that we stick to that policy regardless of how we feel in a certain instance.

NONE? that leaves way to much room I am sure that this will not be the last time that mistake is made. Perhaps "other" but when you use a name that the game generates this will happen again

Let me attempt to once again explain what NONE is about. Originally, we displayed different flags, were on different color teams and did not change the capitalization of "None." We were indistinguishable from the other non-aligned.

And non-aligned we still are. We do not think that independent nations should not be allowed to meet in a central place [like our forums], exchange ideas, offer advice and defend each other if we CHOOSE to do so. No one is ordered into battle at NONE; that is an individual choice by each leader of his/her sovereign nation. Our only rules are that military capacity be reserved for defensive purposes. Independent nations that start wars are not welcome in NONE and not eligible for our protection.

NONE does not exist to eliminate tech-raiding. We exist to establish the sovereignty of the non-aligned. We will defend our right to associate with each other as we see fit with everything we have if need be.

Approval by others is not sought.

Don't start NONE, won't be NONE.

[Rooman33]

As of this writing a NONE nation has declared war defending his comrades after your announcement. That nation has been instructed to withdraw.

Yes, and attacked our nations after update as well.

EDIT: I might also add that there are only currently ~14 outstanding/active wars between us... two of which are the result of your guy declaring war on three of our nations well after peace was declared.

A UJA aggressor has launched a barrage of post-announcement attacks upon a NONE nation that he had declared war upon earlier.

I told our nations to cease fire and offer peace immediately. If they were attacked after update, I will not begrudge them a counter-attack.

Withdrawals are not always clean. We will do our part to keep this from re-igniting the general conflict.

Likewise.

If any UJA nations are entertaining the idea of getting in one last hit, then offering peace, it will not be accepted.

Perhaps you should remind your members that the same applies to them. If our nations are hit today, they will take their counter attacks. Had they been hit before update alone, that's a different story.

There will be no new declarations on our part

Aside from the three posted well after peace was declared...

but those who sustain further UJA attacks know that they are not expected to accept peace after an attack. They will counter-strike and await clean peace to be offered. Then it will be accepted.

No one from the UJA should be hitting anyone from NONE at this stage (and if they are, please let me know about it) UNLESS they, themselves, were hit after update. In which case, our policy is the same as yours regarding counter-attacks. Nations don't take kindly to offering peace upon orders, and then being hit repeatedly afterward. Especially when the governments have agreed to immediate cease fire. I myself took a barrage of attacks from NONE nations (before update) after having already offered them peace. I took it without retaliating, and accepted their ex post facto peace offers. Had they done this after update, I would have retaliated, and rightfully so.

Make no mistake, there is considerable bitterness in our ranks that we have been beaten and robbed and are expected take this punishment with little consequence to the aggressor. But our policies are consistent: we will accept peace from an attacker if it is offered without condition.

I can understand the bitterness, you guys got ganked. Hence why I apologized. But if not for your use of the AA glitch, this never would have happened. Putting yourself in a precarious situation, and then complaining when it backfires doesn't make a lot of sense.

Our honor dictates that we stick to that policy regardless of how we feel in a certain instance.

Good on ya. And I have stuck to our end of the agreement and done everything I could to make our withdraw as clean as possible (thus minimizing the destruction of your nations). I'm trying to be as cooperative and helpful as I possibly can... hopefully we can get your guys peaced out ASAP. But attacking our nations after update won't help their cause.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Rooman33

[Walford]

I told our nations to cease fire and offer peace immediately. If they were attacked after update, I will not begrudge them a counter-attack.

To name names, xtwox of NONE declared war on UJA nations after the withdrawal announcement. He has been instructed to offer peace, which has been accepted by some UJA nations so far.

That is not what I am referring to. Broere declared war on Zakalwe when the original sneak-attacks started and launched this amongst several other attacks well after the announcement was made:

To: Zakalwe From: Broere Date: 10/8/2009 8:44:38 AM

Subject: Battle Report

Message: You have been attacked by Broere. You lost 753 soldiers and 3 tanks. You killed 257 soldiers and 9 tanks. Their forces razed 1.143 miles of your land, stole 2.031 technology, and destroyed 10.689 infrastructure. Their forces looted $84.42 from you and you gained $0.00 in your enemy's abandoned equipment. In the end the battle was a Defeat. Any existing peace offers that were on the table have been automatically canceled.

So Zakalwe counter-attacked as is in keeping with our standard policy when dealing with unprovoked aggression:

To: Broere From: Zakalwe Date: 10/8/2009 9:24:53 AM

Subject: Battle Report

Message: You have been attacked by Zakalwe. You lost 1,097 soldiers and 93 tanks. You killed 314 soldiers and 11 tanks. Their forces razed 16.773 miles of your land, stole 2.021 technology, and destroyed 20.210 infrastructure. Their forces looted $1,087.24 from you and you gained $0.00 in your enemy's abandoned equipment. In the end the battle was a Defeat. Any existing peace offers that were on the table have been automatically canceled.

No one from the UJA should be hitting anyone from NONE at this stage (and if they are, please let me know about it) UNLESS they, themselves, were hit after update. In which case, our policy is the same as yours regarding counter-attacks. Nations don't take kindly to offering peace upon orders, and then being hit repeatedly afterward. Especially when the governments have agreed to immediate cease fire. I myself took a barrage of attacks from NONE nations (before update) after having already offered them peace. I took it without retaliating, and accepted their ex post facto peace offers. Had they done this after update, I would have retaliated, and rightfully so.

So we understand each other on this issue.

I can understand the bitterness, you guys got ganked. Hence why I apologized. But if not for your use of the AA glitch, this never would have happened. Putting yourself in a precarious situation, and then complaining when it backfires doesn't make a lot of sense.

No, actually had you not chosen to launch a war of aggression against a group of nations that did nothing to you, this never would have 'happened.' We are not exploiting a glitch, we are non-aligned. I understand that you and others don't agree that non-aligned are should be allowed to organize. We should instead be operating in isolation so those who hide behind alliances while victimizing independents can do so with no risk. We will associate with each other as we see fit and are prepared to fight to the bitter end to defend that right.

I'm trying to be as cooperative and helpful as I possibly can... hopefully we can get your guys peaced out ASAP. But attacking our nations after update won't help their cause.

I remind you again that you started this. We are withdrawing in a manner in keeping with our own sense of honor, not some arbitrary sense of chivalry devised by aggressors for their victims.

[Burning Glory]

No, actually had you not chosen to launch a war of aggression against a group of nations that did nothing to you, this never would have 'happened.' We are not exploiting a glitch, we are non-aligned. I understand that you and others don't agree that non-aligned are should be allowed to organize. We should instead be operating in isolation so those who hide behind alliances while victimizing independents can do so with no risk. We will associate with each other as we see fit and are prepared to fight to the bitter end to defend that right.

I remind you again that you started this. We are withdrawing in a manner in keeping with our own sense of honor, not some arbitrary sense of chivalry devised by aggressors for their victims.

Walford, you and i have had talks in the past as well as others in your AA that i have become to like and respect very much.

But this is something that i will have to disagree with you about. I have always thought that saying your unaligned yet organizing

as an alliance, makes you an alliance. Just because its listed as NONE doesn't mean that your not an AA.

Its like saying it looks like fish, smells like fish, taste like fish...But its a chicken.

See my point? You have all the structures of an AA such as policies, rankings, fourms, defense, embassies ect...There for just because you have NONE listed in your

alliance affiliation, it doesn't mean your unaligned. You just can't have all the enmities of an AA, yet claim to be independent.

Even if it were the case your are a pack/group with members, and regardless of your belief's you are open to attacks, this is why there is no peace preference in

the Edit page....Its a war game.

As for attacking the None, I've also said that this is TE, a WAR game. And while i agree that the attack was unprovoked and a curb stomp based on your actually

active/participating members, You can't play a war game and expect not to be attacked regardless of your AA name or lack there of.

It is a War game.

BG.

[Walford]

Walford, you and i have had talks in the past as well as others in your AA that i have become to like and respect very much.

But this is something that i will have to disagree with you about. I have always thought that saying your unaligned yet organizing

as an alliance, makes you an alliance. Just because its listed as NONE doesn't mean that your not an AA.

Its like saying it looks like fish, smells like fish, taste like fish...But its a chicken.

See my point? You have all the structures of an AA such as policies, rankings, fourms, defense, embassies ect...There for just because you have NONE listed in your

alliance affiliation, it doesn't mean your unaligned. You just can't have all the enmities of an AA, yet claim to be independent.

I would liken what we do to a civilian militia or a neighborhood watch as opposed to a formal government. Our membership is adamantly opposed to that. We have a ranking system that is based upon participation, but even at that, each nation has the option to say no. The only rule we have is to not start wars.

And I stress again, we hold that we shall play the game as we like and accept the consequences. We expect to be attacked more and are. We originally did not, but now have embassies and have made it so our nations can be distinguished from other non-aligned. That was to reduce the charge that we exist as a stealth organization meant to victimize wimps who hide behind alliances while attacking independent nations whom they expect to be defenseless.

Even if it were the case your are a pack/group with members, and regardless of your belief's you are open to attacks, this is why there is no peace preference in the Edit page....Its a war game.

As for attacking the None, I've also said that this is TE, a WAR game. And while i agree that the attack was unprovoked and a curb stomp based on your actually active/participating members, You can't play a war game and expect not to be attacked regardless of your AA name or lack there of.

It is a War game.

Who knows that more than we do? We are here to fight.

You know our history. My nation in Standard was been ZIed over a dozen times by groups who were hysterical that an organization such as ours existed there. Hundreds of players were driven from the game forever in the pursuit of forcing us to into the alliance system. So when I see wording like UJA's original declaration of war against us -- regardless of the intent -- it reads as yet another attempt at OOC Eternal ZI extermination.

War we accept, trying to drive players from the game because they won't play the way a group of bullies thinks we should, we cannot abide. [And I am not saying that was UJA's intent here. I take them at their word that this was some kind of frivolous attempt at a 1 on 1 one contest -- starting with a sneak-attack.]

We will fight until there is nothing left of our nations rather than bend to anyone's will. You know that about us also.

[Rooman33]

To name names, xtwox of NONE declared war on UJA nations after the withdrawal announcement. He has been instructed to offer peace, which has been accepted by some UJA nations so far.

He declared war on three UJA nations and hit them before and after update.

That is not what I am referring to. Broere declared war on Zakalwe when the original sneak-attacks started and launched this amongst several other attacks well after the announcement was made:

So Zakalwe counter-attacked as is in keeping with our standard policy when dealing with unprovoked aggression:

Me thinks you're incapable of answering simple questions... What I was asking is: Did your guy hit our guy after update? I know our guy hit your guy after update, what I needed to know is if your guy hit our guy after update first. Meaning, who launched the first attack after this past update? If it was our guy, he was in the wrong. If it was your guy, I don't begrudge our guy his retaliation.

You sent me the battle logs, and as I'm looking at them, it appears our guy struck first after update. He was wrong to do that. I'll be PMing Broere immediately to demand he peace out.

So we understand each other on this issue.

Yet you feel the need to have the last word by continuing to argue with someone you supposedly agree with?

No, actually had you not chosen to launch a war of aggression against a group of nations that did nothing to you, this never would have 'happened.'

We chose to launch a war of aggression on a group of comparable size to us. You wouldn't have been targeted had we known your actual size. We would have known your actual size if you weren't abusing the AA glitch.

We are not exploiting a glitch

Ok, please show me the in-game identification member list and analyzed stats of your alliance... oh wait, there isn't one, because you're exploiting a glitch.

we are non-aligned.

Lol, you can say that until you're blue in the face. You are an alliance called NONE. You function just like every other alliance except that you hide behind the AA glitch, and then whine when people target you, not understanding how your alliance functions.

I understand that you and others don't agree that non-aligned are should be allowed to organize. We should instead be operating in isolation so those who hide behind alliances while victimizing independents can do so with no risk.

Ok, I'm tired of listening to you play the martyr card. Get over yourself. Me, nor anyone in my alliance, cares about "non-aligned nations organizing." We targeted you because we thought you were equal to us in size. We thought you were equal to us in size, because it is difficult to surmise how many people are actually in your alliance without knowing several nuances about your alliance (which is a cross you voluntarily bare). It had nothing to do with you being "non-aligned." Lol, who cares?

Good grief Charlie Brown, could you have a larger sense of self? "Victimizing independents?" It's a war game. People war. Get off it.

We will associate with each other as we see fit and are prepared to fight to the bitter end to defend that right.

Slow clap. Great. Super. Swell. And... what's your point? What does this have to do with anything? You're just preaching a sermon that has no bearing on current events. We didn't issue any sort of ultimatum like "disband" or "change your alliance name." We merely took you to war, and you've been bawing ever sense, even though you were given peace 3/4 of a day after the declaration.

You want your cake and you want to eat it to. You want to use an AA that doesn't distinguish you such that your members can be identified in-game, yet you want to get indignant when an alliance declares on you because of a misunderstanding of your alliance numbers.

I remind you again that you started this.

Yes, someone has to start a war... that's generally how it works. I also ended it less than a day later.

We are withdrawing in a manner in keeping with our own sense of honor, not some arbitrary sense of chivalry devised by aggressors for their victims.

Oh yes, you're the only one with authentic "honor" here... We outnumbered you 70 to <20, and as soon as I realized that, I apologized for the misunderstanding and ordered my entire alliance into peace - essentially saving your alliance btw. And now you're provoking me in public, trying to smear my name and reputation whilst inflating your own. I'll not have it.

I accepted blame where the blame was mine to accept, yet you're posturing like your alliance has done nothing out of the norm to create this situation when the fact remains that if not for your abuse of the AA glitch, you wouldn't have been attacked by us. Period.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Rooman33

[AndrewC202]

Nothing need be said....

[Walford]

We don't owe anyone a target list of our membership. If someone wants to attack us, we will deal with it as we see fit.

We asked for no apology nor any mercy. We do not start wars, but if attacked, we will take on all comers, no matter how many.

Nobody can force us to change how we do things. Many have tried and here we still are.

[Rooman33]

We don't owe anyone a target list of our membership. If someone wants to attack us, we will deal with it as we see fit.

We asked for no apology nor any mercy. We do not start wars, but if attacked, we will take on all comers, no matter how many.

Nobody can force us to change how we do things. Many have tried and here we still are.

I don't care how you do things. Seriously. I don't care who you hang out with, what you call your alliance, how you run your alliance or any of that. I do not care. No one in my alliance cares how you do things. You're making way to much of this ~20 hour war...

All we're saying is that "how you do things" caused you to be targeted because, if you weren't using a glitched AA, we would have realized you were 1/4 our size and never attacked. It's as simple of that. It's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Rooman33

[Walford]

I don't care how you do things. Seriously. I don't care who you hang out with, what you call your alliance, how you run your alliance or any of that. I do not care. No one in my alliance cares how you do things. You're making way to much of this ~20 hour war...

You are not aware of a history that goes back to May 2007 when NONE was first created in Standard. Your original declaration of war read very much like many others that stated that NONE was to either conform to the traditional alliance paradigm or be driven from the game.

How you attacked us and the rhetoric of your original declaration evoked certain memories for us.

All we're saying is that "how you do things" caused you to be targeted because, if you weren't using a glitched AA, we would have realized you were 1/4 our size and never attacked. It's as simple of that. It's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact.

It is your opinion that there is any glitch. Implied in your assumption is that non-aligned MUST be isolated and dare not come to each other's aid. If they are presumptuous enough to band together in any form whatsoever, then they must create an alliance with standard AA so assessments can be made as to our strength, numbers, activity levels, etc. for the purposes of determining the feasibility of successful aggression.

We are not going along with that, sorry.

That being said, we originally were indistinguishable from the other non-aligned; we flew multiple different flags, were on different color teams and didn't change the capitalization of "None." Our diplomacy consisted of in-game PMs to aggressors warning them that their non-aligned victim had friends.

Now we have made it so we can be identified so those who wish can avoid us. That is as far as we will go.

If someone petitions Game Admins to make it so we cannot change the capitalization of "None" then we will revert to the old way.

Oh, well.

[Rooman33]

You are not aware of a history that goes back to May 2007 when NONE was first created in Standard.

I don't need to be aware of your history. We're talking about this conflict, right now.

Your original declaration of war read very much like many others that stated that NONE was to either conform to the traditional alliance paradigm or be driven from the game.

Lol If you didn't see the blatant humor in my post, you have no business on TE. Get a grip dude.

How you attacked us and the rhetoric of your original declaration evoked certain memories for us.

Whatever memories were "evoked" is your hang up, not ours. We issued you no ultimatums and could care less how you choose to function on Steve.

It is your opinion that there is any glitch.

No, it's a fact. It's a glitch. OOC; The game is incapable of detecting the difference between lowercase and uppercase letters, and therefore your <20 "NONE" members are lumped in with the ~340+ other "None" nations. That's a glitch.

Implied in your assumption is that non-aligned MUST be isolated and dare not come to each other's aid. If they are presumptuous enough to band together in any form whatsoever, then they must create an alliance with standard AA so assessments can be made as to our strength, numbers, activity levels, etc. for the purposes of determining the feasibility of successful aggression.

We are not going along with that, sorry.

Dude, seriously... get over yourself. You're not a martyr or a crusader. You have a vastly over inflated sense of self and worth. No one put that much thought into attacking you and you're straight up kidding yourself if you think we did. I could care less about "non-aligned nations." This was not a crusade on "non-aligned nations." This was intended to be an attack on the NONE alliance (yes, you are an alliance) because we thought you were equal to us in size. Why did we think that? Because you're hiding your size and members behind a glitch and we were forced to make an estimate - and our estimate was wrong.

That being said, we originally were indistinguishable from the other non-aligned; we flew multiple different flags, were on different color teams and didn't change the capitalization of "None." Our diplomacy consisted of in-game PMs to aggressors warning them that their non-aligned victim had friends.

Ok... and?

Now we have made it so we can be identified so those who wish can avoid us. That is as far as we will go.

Please point out to me where I asked you to do anything at all... I didn't. I wouldn't. I have no interest to.

But note this: you're the one's failing to clearly identify yourselves. So the next time a larger alliance declares on you - not fully knowing your actual alliance size, spare them the sanctimonious whining. You're choosing to put yourself into this position. Which is fine if that's what you want to do. But don't hide behind an AA that doesn't list your alliance size and then turn around and complain when a much larger attacks you not knowing your actual size.

We're not trying to tell you how to run your little group. We don't care what you do. We really don't. Don't kid yourself, you're not that important to us. You weren't even on our radar screen until someone suggested (24 hours before we declared) that we hit NONE as our next war. All we're saying is that "how you do things" caused you to be targeted because, if you weren't using a glitched AA, we would have realized you were 1/4 our size and never attacked. It's as simple of that. It's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact.

If someone petitions Game Admins to make it so we cannot change the capitalization of "None" then we will revert to the old way.

Oh, well.

Whatever. I'm unconcerned. Just don't whine when someone much larger than you hits you guys up because they don't know how big you actually are. You can't have it both ways, and that's what you've been trying to do in public. It's not going to fly. No one's buying it.

We were at war with your group for <24 hours. As soon as we realized we were 4x your size, we immediately offered peace and apologized for the initial curb stomp. HOWEVER, if your alliance size were clearly identified in-game we never would have attacked you.

I gotta say, the holier than thou bit is getting old and wearing thin. I've been bending over backwards to treat you guys right since learning that we outnumbered you 4:1 - a difficult finding caused by the AA glitch you choose to employ. And instead of saying, "Well, it sucks that you guys ganked us like that, had you done more research on us ahead of time we could have avoided all this - but we understand that the nature of our alliance puts us in these types of precarious situations, and realize you weren't trying to be malevolent" you're continuing to try to make this conflict bigger than it was, to make it into something it wasn't.

We very easily could have just continued hammering you into oblivion, but we're opposed to curb-stomps like that. They aren't cool, they aren't right and they aren't fun. When we realized what we were doing, we stopped immediately. That's the best we could offer. But it's laughable that you're trying to make this into some dramatic case-study of oppression when it was nothing of the sort. We couldn't give two rat farts what you call yourselves or how you run your alliance. Our DoW merely pointed out (in a humorous way for people with any sense) the truism that it's near-impossible to accurately identify your alliance in-game. We issued no ultimatums. We didn't tell you what to do with your alliance. We were merely looking for a fair fight. When we realized it was an unfair fight, we dropped it.

And instead of being understanding and/or cool about it, you keep trying to demonize us. I'm not going to let you do it. There are too many opportunistic revisionists floating around Steve...

OOC: And yes, now that you've pushed our buttons, we will be making an appeal to fix the AA glitch. We were willing to leave well enough alone, but don't like being spat on when we extend our hand in apology and friendship.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Rooman33

[Walford]

OOC: And yes, now that you've pushed our buttons, we will be making an appeal to fix the AA glitch. We were willing to leave well enough alone, but don't like being spat on when we extend our hand in apology and friendship.

You beat us up and are now being self-righteous about it, blaming us in fact for something YOU STARTED.

Nice friends.

We don't appreciate being knocked down, having teeth knocked out and our nations rifled for tech, land and cash, then being browbeaten ad nauseum that we are cheating.

We don't like being told that we as non-aligned may not organize w/o being forced [because you plan to whine to Game Admins] to either revert to being hidden indistinguishable amongst the other non-aligned again or having to create an alliance that the likes of you would approve of.

I don't think that others would appreciate having to deal with us being hidden again either.

I don't care if you don't like how we do our thing; we are not telling you how to do yours.

There is no amount of force, there are no walls of text that is going to bully us into bending to your will.

Enemies far more numerous, well-equipped and experienced have tried.

Your energies would be better expended on more productive concerns.

[Rooman33]

You beat us up and are now being self-righteous about it

No, we made a mistake, apologized, and YOU are being self righteous about it - trying to make us out to be something we aren't.

blaming us in fact for something YOU STARTED.

No one's blaming you for anything - get it through your head. I'm explaining why/how it was you came to be targeted by an alliance 4x your size.

Nice friends.

We don't appreciate being knocked down, having teeth knocked out and our nations rifled for tech, land and cash

Who does. You wouldn't have been hit by us if we could have accurately identified you in-game. It's a simple concept...

then being browbeaten ad nauseum that we are cheating.

I never said you were "cheating." I said you are employing the use of a glitch, and continually whining about the fact that we hit you. You can't have it both ways. You can't use a glitch that hides your numbers and then whine when an alliance 4x your size hits you because they didn't know your actual numbers.

We don't like being told that we as non-aligned may not organize w/o being forced [because you plan to whine to Game Admins] to either revert to being hidden indistinguishable amongst the other non-aligned again or having to create an alliance that the likes of you would approve of.

You can organize however you like. I've not told you to do anything.

I don't think that others would appreciate having to deal with us being hidden again either.

I think you're being disingenuous about why you fly the NONE AA. In truth, it probably has a lot more to do with you guys trying to deter attacks on your own nations, and a lot less to do with some benevolent attempt to "let people who want to avoid you know who you are." Nice try.

I don't care if you don't like how we do our thing

I could care less how you do your thing. Haven't I said this already...?

we are not telling you how to do yours.

And we're not telling you how to do yours. What's your point?

There is no amount of force, there are no walls of text that is going to bully us into bending to your will.

What will? I've not asked or demanded that you do anything. Good lord... you're starting to sound delusional.

Enemies far more numerous, well-equipped and experienced have tried.

We never intended to "bend you to our will." If we were trying to do that, the war would have lasted longer than ~20 hours home slice