MikeTheFirst Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) Oops, I missed this line:I apologize. That changes things a fair bit and I wish I'd seen it in the OP. What was the compensation requested? We always ask for 300% compensation. If Jorost had been online, I'm sure things would've been solved quite easily. Amonra, as acting president, chose to refuse any kind of compensation and then left his alliance and told us to 'come get him'. Anyway, for us it's water under the bridge now and we wish Amonra good luck in the future. Edited October 21, 2009 by MikeTheFirst Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I would like to address the fact that this has nothing to do with FOK, its an iFOK situation, and I'm glad it got resolved. So you say FOK would act differently on the matter? See, you still provided the guns for this, and while i absolutely agree that one should stand to his allies, i dont think one shouldnt hold his allies accountable for their actions and question them when they seem doubtful. If you agree with the actions of iFOK, then the distinction isnt really necessary. It's clear to anyone watching on that Amonra was looking for conflict when he sought out a nation engaging iFOK to aid with $3mil. iFOK attempted to sort things diplomatically by requesting reparations for what was clearly an act against the iFOK nation.Amonra, by refusing the request for reparations (I believe 300% is standard for FOK, and likely their protectorate, as I had to deal with a tech raid from my old alliance on FOK a long time ago) and provoking iFOK members with messages in game has received the conflict he so desperately wanted. Maybe one day purple alliances will stand up and do something against these horrific acts of the Stickmen. Tech raiding, running for senate and I'm pretty sure they support ultraEZI+ too. 300% is pretty ridiculous. The gist of your argument (and of most Fokkers in this thread) is that they were trying to solve a conflict of equals which had been made unequal by the aid of Amonra. This argument fails on many levels, but mainly the following ones: - FOK did not answer with the same means as Amonra. They demanded pretty high reps and when they did not get them, they triple teamed. - The conflict was forced on the raid victim. While Amonra may have been out in search of trouble (which remains an unproven point), the ones that attacked in both cases were from iFok or Fok. The point is, you guys say this is a techraid. Why do 3m more money make a techraid less lucrative? Before you answer, yeah i know its cause of the damages. So this IS about taking less damage while techraiding? So you question the right of every defender to defend himself? FOK were the aggressors, turn it as you will. A techraid gone wrong doesnt justify political action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrnea Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I think you should've read the thread better, Penguin. iFOK asked some money as compensation, we didn't ask for anyone to be expelled. iFOK asked for more money than had been given to the nation they were at war with. Significantly more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTheFirst Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) 300% is pretty ridiculous. The gist of your argument (and of most Fokkers in this thread) is that they were trying to solve a conflict of equals which had been made unequal by the aid of Amonra. No, we were trying to solve the conflict that arises when someone helps the opponent of an iFOK nation. I'm sure you are aware there has been some tension between Invicta and Stickmen. Why would the acting president of Invicta choose to make it worse by sending out aid? You can go on and on about a techraid gone wrong (which it didn't), but this is not about 'helping poor defenseless nations'. Edited October 21, 2009 by MikeTheFirst Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrnea Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I'm sure you are aware there has been some tension between Invicta and Stickmen. Guess who initiated that tension? Stickmen Also this: No, we were trying to solve the conflict that arises when someone helps the opponent of an iFOK nation.is utter rubbish.You´re completely ignoring the fact that iFOK demanded an utterly unreasonable amount of reparations, backed up by the threat of armed retalition en masse if their demands were not met. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTheFirst Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 iFOK asked for more money than had been given to the nation they were at war with. We already established that, Arrnea. Maybe we should also point out to the neutral reader that you're a disgruntled ex-iFOKmember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrnea Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) Maybe we should also point out to the neutral reader that you're a disgruntled ex-iFOKmember. You forgot the part where I am not just an ex-member, but an ex-Triumvir of iFOK. I would be in a good position to know just what is (or was) going on at iFOK, especially with the matter of the move to Purple, which happened under my watch. Also, iFOK has well-earned my recent attitude towards them. Edited October 21, 2009 by Arrnea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimaera Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Wait, you're getting attacked for a week over 3 million dollars? That seems a bit excessive, doesn't it? Certainly the amount iFOK gains out of this will be significantly greater than any losses they have suffered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 300% is pretty ridiculous. The gist of your argument (and of most Fokkers in this thread) is that they were trying to solve a conflict of equals which had been made unequal by the aid of Amonra. This argument fails on many levels, but mainly the following ones:- FOK did not answer with the same means as Amonra. They demanded pretty high reps and when they did not get them, they triple teamed. - The conflict was forced on the raid victim. While Amonra may have been out in search of trouble (which remains an unproven point), the ones that attacked in both cases were from iFok or Fok. The point is, you guys say this is a techraid. Why do 3m more money make a techraid less lucrative? Before you answer, yeah i know its cause of the damages. So this IS about taking less damage while techraiding? So you question the right of every defender to defend himself? FOK were the aggressors, turn it as you will. A techraid gone wrong doesnt justify political action. Yeah, I felt 300% was pretty ridiculous too when I was dealing with FOK, but the thing is when you're in the wrong there's not a lot you have to argue your position. iFOK wasn't solely trying to re-balance the conflict. The policy of 300% (or even the 150/200% that most alliances use) is to ensure that the damage is covered, and that the person committing the wrong learns a lesson. Otherwise every alliance would just have 100% policy of reparations, no matter the situation. You can't prove that Amonra was out looking for conflict without reading his mind. Looking into the context of the situation though, a purple alliance member aiding someone in a conflict against Stickmen. Knowing the animosity between stickmen and other purple alliances it's highly likely it would cause problems, and given the position of the person aiding, it's clear that he knew this. Refusing to pay the standard reparations requested doesn't seem to give the impression of someone committed to avoiding conflict. Lastly the message he sent 'come and get it' is about as clear as it gets. There should be no doubt Amonra seeked this conflict. Lastly I'm not questioning his right to defend himself, but if he wants to bring 3rd parties into the equation you can understand why those 3rd parties are considered to be acting against iFOK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 You forgot the part where I am not just an ex-member, but an ex-Triumvir of iFOK.I would be in a good position to know just what is (or was) going on at iFOK, especially with the matter of the move to Purple, which happened under my watch. Also, iFOK has well-earned my recent attitude towards them. You as an ex-triumvir had the opportunity to change the techraid regulation of iFOK, including the 300% figure. You just showed you are a damn hypocrite. It is funny as well that you take the actions of one individual (namely: me) as the actions of an entire alliance. You have all the reason to loath/despise me, iFOK however did nothing to you that deserved this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrnea Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 You as an ex-triumvir had the opportunity to change the techraid regulation of iFOK, including the 300% figure. You just showed you are a damn hypocrite. When techraids were an issue, with Roeland´s regular raiding, you were also in the Triumvirate. Your pro-raiding stance would have made it impossible to do so. In fact, the idea of what to do about Roeland´s raiding was raised, but not acted on. The 300% figure is nothing that I saw when I was in there, simply because this kind of situation with iFOK demanding reparations for a nation aiding an enemy of iFOK did not arise while I was in the office of Triumvir. It is funny as well that you take the actions of one individual (namely: me) as the actions of an entire alliance. You have all the reason to loath/despise me, iFOK however did nothing to you that deserved this. It wasn´t only you that treated me like filth on my way out of that rathole of an alliance you call home. There were others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 No, we were trying to solve the conflict that arises when someone helps the opponent of an iFOK nation. I'm sure you are aware there has been some tension between Invicta and Stickmen. Why would the acting president of Invicta choose to make it worse by sending out aid? You can go on and on about a techraid gone wrong (which it didn't), but this is not about 'helping poor defenseless nations'. His motives dont really matter since all you can do is guess about them. I wouldnt base political decisions on guessing. Plus it wasnt me claiming this was a techraid, that was you. So i take it FOK saw it as a good opportunity to go against political enemies. Thats usually not how things are done. If you want to get someone, you should get him for what he did to you and your alliance and not for something you use as coverage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTheFirst Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 His motives dont really matter since all you can do is guess about them. I wouldnt base political decisions on guessing. Plus it wasnt me claiming this was a techraid, that was you.So i take it FOK saw it as a good opportunity to go against political enemies. Thats usually not how things are done. If you want to get someone, you should get him for what he did to you and your alliance and not for something you use as coverage. You are twisting my words, because you don't see it as a simple act of war. I do and I'm just giving you some background to the situation. Furthermore, you keep talking about this situation as if FOK had anything to do with it. They didn't, not 'til we asked some help because we had just one nation above 100k NS. If you have a problem with FOK, I suggest you take another route than the OWF as they are one of your closest allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Well i merely thought that iFOK was just the international wing of FOK and was under basically the same leadership, but i stand corrected on that one. Also im not trying to twist your words, i just want to see it as what it is. You said there were political reasons, i based my assumption on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrnea Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) If you have a problem with FOK, I suggest you take another route than the OWF as they are one of your closest allies. So now a person can´t have a beef with an alliance that just happens to be their ally? How far we have come... When did the terms of friendship change from being able to talk frankly to each other than doing nothing but pandering to each other? HellAngel, iFOK is the International branch of FOK, but the government is (technically) separate. (two of their Triumvirs are FOK members) Edited October 21, 2009 by Arrnea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaone Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 So now a person can´t have a beef with an alliance that just happens to be their ally? How far we have come...When did the terms of friendship change from being able to talk frankly to each other than doing nothing but pandering to each other? HellAngel, iFOK is the International branch of FOK, but the government is (technically) separate. (two of their Triumvirs are FOK members) Gentle person, Another route doesn't mean keep your mouth shut, it just means other route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTheFirst Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 So now a person can´t have a beef with an alliance that just happens to be their ally? How far we have come...When did the terms of friendship change from being able to talk frankly to each other than doing nothing but pandering to each other? Friends can say anything to each other. But they solve things differently, Arrnea, not by bickering in public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 HellAngel, iFOK is the International branch of FOK, but the government is (technically) separate. (two of their Triumvirs are FOK members) What makes majority of iFOK gov be controled for FOK... I would like to see what FOK/iFOK would do if the raided nation asked for 300% reps for being raided... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaone Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Gentle Persons, What makes majority of iFOK gov be controled for FOK... Both are Triumvirs of iFOK and as a member of FOK I can tell you I don't see Ikmark as a FOK-member but as an iFOK trium. The situation with Mike is somewhat more complicated, but double membership isn't unprecedented. I would like to see what FOK/iFOK would do if the raided nation asked for 300% reps for being raided... Depends, IRON has a similar policy for their protectorates and I know for a fact we paid that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix von Agnu Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I think you should've read the thread better, Penguin. iFOK asked some money as compensation, we didn't ask for anyone to be expelled. Amonra then made his own choice to leave Invicta and fight.edit: In the past there have been instances where iFOK or FOK members have done the same thing as Amonra. We always tried to reach some kind of agreement with the other party and we never had anyone overreact and leave the alliance. Compensation for what? A tech raid target getting a little assistance? That's a load of crap. I really don't see 3 mil making a difference. If the nation getting aided had less money than the iFOK nation, it would only even the odds a little bit. If they were even, I 3mil wouldn't really make much of a difference there. If the raided nation had more money, it wouldn't even matter. If iFOK truely doesn't mind a fair fight, this wouldn't be an issue. This is why nations who tech raid anger me. If they want to go out and attack another nation, they should take all the risk onto themselves. If they get triple teamed, too bad. A nation raiding should give up all claims of defense from the alliance when they attack another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) Depends, IRON has a similar policy for their protectorates and I know for a fact we paid that. As your statement is in context of tech raid in reply to : I would like to see what FOK/iFOK would do if the raided nation asked for 300% reps for being raided... 1. Regarding tech raids on IRON AA, its 3m (it can be more if you think you can tech raid + do significant damage to our nation) not 300% as per the policy, if it was 300%, it isn't since 12/22/2008. 2. Our policy does not provides insurance for Tech Raids, pls read below: Definitions:I. Offensive War: Any war declared by an IRON nation that is NOT ordered by a superior authority. II. Tech Raid: An Offensive War declared by an IRON nation with the purpose of stealing technology from an apparently inactive nation. .... 3. Nations are responsible for ALL consequences of their own offensive wars. Such consequences include, but are not limited to: (a) The other nation actually being active and fighting back. ( The other nation having allies who join in. ) © A third party taking advantage of the attacker deploying his troops to mount tech raids of its own on the IRON nation. The above are considered to be direct consequences which WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED had the original offensive war not been launched. As such, IRON WILL NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE NATION INVOLVED.. I hope its all clear. Regards, Edited October 21, 2009 by shahenshah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wu Tang Clan Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Compensation for what? A tech raid target getting a little assistance? That's a load of crap. I really don't see 3 mil making a difference. If the nation getting aided had less money than the iFOK nation, it would only even the odds a little bit. If they were even, I 3mil wouldn't really make much of a difference there. If the raided nation had more money, it wouldn't even matter. If iFOK truely doesn't mind a fair fight, this wouldn't be an issue.This is why nations who tech raid anger me. If they want to go out and attack another nation, they should take all the risk onto themselves. If they get triple teamed, too bad. A nation raiding should give up all claims of defense from the alliance when they attack another. ^ This. So you're mad becaue you may have lost a war that you went into unprovoked? That's very... dare I say, cowardly at best. You get exactly what you deserve. I really really really hope that's a two way street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scythegfx Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) It's more like Invicta has a tendency to aid the people who are in war with people they don't like. They mass aided the alliance Bel-air was in war with, they got away with it. And now the vice president aided someone who was in war with iFOK. It was a clear provocation. Oh god are you kidding me? You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. 1) It was Internet Superheroes not BelAir. 2)<33Belair 3) It was far and away not a "massive aid" dump. Please go back and check your facts, boy-o. No, in this case the 'little man' (who was the acting president of Invicta, mind you) chose to look for a confrontation. That's his choice and could've handled much easier so don't blame iFOK for that. We were willing to settle the matter in a reasonable way. You need to look up 'reasonable' in the dictionary, my good man I'm sure you are aware there has been some tension between Invicta and Stickmen. Why would the acting president of Invicta choose to make it worse by sending out aid? You can go on and on about a techraid gone wrong (which it didn't), but this is not about 'helping poor defenseless nations'. And why would the collective leadership of Stickmen choose to make it worse by repeatedly spurning our attempts to be friendly and instead spitting in our faces with their repetitive jabs at our alliance and its members? Wait, you're getting attacked for a week over 3 million dollars? That seems a bit excessive, doesn't it? Certainly the amount iFOK gains out of this will be significantly greater than any losses they have suffered. Chim, I almost picked out that costume too Another point, wouldn't the raided nation already be at a significantly lower NS than the raider? thus making up any difference the 3 million Amonra sent? Because I'm pretty sure any smart raider would pick a target near the bottom of its range. So the "unequal advantage" because of amonra's aid is obviously a bulls#$t argument. But I could be wrong, since I don't want to make a judgement on how smart the members of iFOK are. Edited October 21, 2009 by scythegfx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extraduty Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Oh god are you kidding me? You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. 1) It was Internet Superheroes not BelAir. 2)<33Belair 3) No monetary aid was sent to any nation on the CG AA Please go back and check your facts, boy-o. Just to clarify, Invicta did send aid to CG. I wouldn't have called it massive aid, but it was excess of 9 mil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scythegfx Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Just to clarify, Invicta did send aid to CG. I wouldn't have called it massive aid, but it was excess of 9 mil. You're right, I will change my post to reflect that, Thanks =) 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.