JWConner Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) Over the past week, Veritas Aequitas has come under attack by some old "friends" from our earliest days in existence. For those of you who don't know the beginnings of Veritas Aequitas, we are a splinter group from the Confederation of Organized Nations. I, along with 6 others, broke away in September of 2007 to create Veritas Aequitas. Here's where our nuclear rogues have come into play. They are former CON government officials who would like clarification on issues that they deem I need to make ammends for. So here we are, 2 years later, but I'm happy...well, not happy, but willing to do so to end the hostilities and move on from where we are. First of all, when VA broke away from CON, I made the mistake of messaging friends of mine within CON to join me and the others in VA. At the time, I didn't consider it recruiting from my former alliance, just asking old friends if they'd like to join me in my new home. In retrospect, it was deemed as an act of recruitment by those that I messaged, and I apologize. Although I only messaged my friends and not the alliance as a whole and I never offered cash or government positions to entice their membership, it was still wrong, and I apologize to all those that I served with in CON and held as friends. Secondly, after VA split from CON, the Unjust War broke out. As I was the Head of Military in CON, and 2 of the other original members of VA were military staff, CON was in need of assistance in helping coordinate their efforts. I, along with some other VA members (honestly don't remember who, it's been over 2 years) helped organize the CON military from outside of CON as friends to our old alliance. I've stated on some occasions that I led CON's military, but in all reality, there was no true leader that took control. I worked hand-in-hand with CON leadership and assisted them from the outside. I was happy to help my old alliance any way I could, feeling guilty for leaving their military in the shape it was at the worst of possible times. So, that's pretty much it for why they did what they did. Now onto what will be done from here on out. As we are in agreement that hostilities should end, these are our agreed upon terms: 1) The nation of Voldorish (known as xXNationReaperXx to some) shall commit himself to zero infrastructure (ZI). Once he has reached ZI, he will begin sending installments of $3 million aid packages to the nations that were involved in these attacks, totalling the amount of $75 million. 2) Voldorish will be required to make a public apology for his actions against VA in regards to the act of espionage and joining VA under false pretenses, among other crimes. Said apology is required to be made within this [ooc]thread[/ooc] in a timely manner after the OP has been made. 3) Once Voldorish has made said apology the nations of Brotherhood of Kane, Jadesville and Veldspar are welcome to join any alliance they choose. 4) The nations of Brotherhood of Kane, Jadesville and Veldspar agree to not take military action against Veritas Aequitas anytime in the future, unless during alliance-wide conflict. Said nations are also restricted from creating an alliance for the sole purpose of engaging in such conflict. Signed for Veritas Aequitas, Erixxxx of Procrastinatoria - Lord Protector of Veritas Aequitas JWConner of Fah Que - Il Duce of Veritas Aequitas Signed on behalf of the rogue nations, Brother Kane of Brotherhood of Kane **In related news, VA would like to thank our allies and friends for their assistance during [ooc]the weekend[/ooc] when many of our members were unavailable for support. -Our allies in MA and 57th stood by our side and offered their continued support, yet thankfully it was not needed. -Our friends in NEW were selfless and quick to react on our behalf and we thank them greatly. -And to a special someone who happened to tech raid one of the rogues, you will always have a special place in my heart **EDIT: Removed alliance restrictions once Voldorish has made his apology. Edited November 12, 2009 by JWConner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Glad to see you apologize for past transgressions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 huh, you're restricting their movement for what reason? I think they should each pick one alliance they're not supposed to join, and join out of spite. That would be pretty funny, just to see what you would do, which is probably nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackSkellington Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) It's interesting that you won't allow them to go to MA, one of your allies. Edit: I agree with AJ. I don't like any term that restricts someone from joining an alliance and/or said alliance's gov. Edited November 12, 2009 by JackSkellington Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remaliat Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 1) The nation of Voldorish (known as xXNationReaperXx to some) shall commit himself to zero infrastructure (ZI). Once he has reached ZI, he will begin sending installments of $3 million aid packages to the nations that were involved in these attacks, totalling the amount of $75 million. Really? You want him to head to ZI and then pay reps? I don't even want to mention whats wrong with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 huh, you're restricting their movement for what reason? I think they should each pick one alliance they're not supposed to join, and join out of spite. That would be pretty funny, just to see what you would do, which is probably nothing. Personally I find it wrong as well. And you just prohibited them from even joining some of **your own allies** because of that term. Bad show on that one, VA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWConner Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 It's interesting that you won't allow them to go to MA, one of your allies. Why would we want nations that rogued us to join our allies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 It's just an honor to be nominated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Kane Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 +1 victory Just another stat in the wall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWConner Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Really?You want him to head to ZI and then pay reps? I don't even want to mention whats wrong with that. No, that wasnt our choice. We proposed him to pay higher reps but he chose to ZI himself instead. So since he chose to ZI himself, and considering he has a hefty warchest, it was agreed he'd pay a minimal fine instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackSkellington Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Why would we want nations that rogued us to join our allies? So you'd prefer them join your enemies? It's arguable obviously, it really matters on just what you prefer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWConner Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Personally I find it wrong as well. And you just prohibited them from even joining some of **your own allies** because of that term. Bad show on that one, VA. Again, why would we want nations that went rogue on VA joining our allies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Why would we want nations that rogued us to join our allies? Why would you want to restrict their movement at all in the first place? What purpose does it serve, especially considering that you've sentenced one of them to ZI already. Is it only because you can? It serves no purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigelopisan Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) Glad to see this peace. I personally agree that above terms are very hard-to-see. But considering this rogue action, it come in sense. Those who have dealt with rogue should know this better, despite of why it happen. Edited November 12, 2009 by sigelopisan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Bad Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 All I know about CON is that they tried to get me roll VA when they formed so I of couse I gave VA a protectorate instead. Then I think I several of them nuke rogued me later but, to be honest it was hard to keep track of whom was nuking me week to week. Anyway good show VA as always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) Well, seeing as you seem to have prevented your "friends" from joining alliances at random (I'm guessing out of spite), the Moralist Front would like you clear up whether or not they'll be allowed to join us, or any of our allies for that matter. Edited November 12, 2009 by Vilien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWConner Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 So you'd prefer them join your enemies? It's arguable obviously, it really matters on just what you prefer. Yes, we would prefer they join our enemies. They left their alliances to go rogue on us for a purpose. Allowing them to return to the places they left would be condoning what they did. As for restricting them from RIA, well that can be discussed in private. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remaliat Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 The only thing you will do by implementing terms like that is to ensure that those nations hold a grudge until they feel they have satisfied it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackSkellington Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Again, why would we want nations that went rogue on VA joining our allies? Well if he joins one of your allies, that ally can keep watch over him as well as be more then capable of helping you if said rogue attempts to conspire and/or attack you again. Where as someone who wasn't on friendly terms with you could possibly attempt to shelter him...etc. It's also possible the rogue could grow to appreciate and/or like you more as he stays in the alliance you are allied to longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Well, seeing as you seem to have prevented your "friends" from joining alliances at random (I'm guessing out of spite), the Moralist Front would like you clear up whether or not they'll be allowed to join us, or any of our allies for that matter. It's not my place, but I invite every one of those nations to join CSN. I don't agree with restricting movement of nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWConner Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Why would you want to restrict their movement at all in the first place? What purpose does it serve, especially considering that you've sentenced one of them to ZI already. Is it only because you can? It serves no purpose. As stated earlier, Voldorish chose self-imposed ZI over paying reps. And we restricted where they could join because we were not imposing other penalties on them. Most nuke rogues pay reps and incur ZI, the only reason Voldorish is getting ZI'd is because of his spying. Not the nuke rogue attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackSkellington Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 As stated earlier, Voldorish chose self-imposed ZI over paying reps. And we restricted where they could join because we were not imposing other penalties on them. Most nuke rogues pay reps and incur ZI, the only reason Voldorish is getting ZI'd is because of his spying. Not the nuke rogue attack. It IS possible to show mercy and just give peace if they are willing to accept it. A show of compassion can go a long ways toward how they feel about VA in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) As stated earlier, Voldorish chose self-imposed ZI over paying reps. And we restricted where they could join because we were not imposing other penalties on them. Most nuke rogues pay reps and incur ZI, the only reason Voldorish is getting ZI'd is because of his spying. Not the nuke rogue attack. So you're just seeking to control them even though they're not in your alliance. You want some measure of victory over them, because you were unable to do it militarily, so you're hoping that this will be the next best thing. Why not let them go where they wish to go? You're making no sense in your reasoning for implementing that restriction upon them. edited. Edited November 12, 2009 by astronaut jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Bad Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Personally I find it wrong as well. And you just prohibited them from even joining some of **your own allies** because of that term. Bad show on that one, VA. I have a great deal of expience with rogues, I can not imagine why, and they tend to join ones allies to build up then rogue again, so they feel like they sticking it to the man twice bye using your allies aid to hit you again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWConner Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 It's not my place, but I invite every one of those nations to join CSN. I don't agree with restricting movement of nations. Its up to those nations to choose their path. The nations in question agreed to these terms instead of paying reps. They were nuclear rogues. If they didn't agree with the restrictions, they were fully capable of rejecting terms. So, instead of calling us out on the terms, why not question their reasons for accepting them? 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.