Veritas Aequitas Announcement

[Dochartaigh]

You got us BJ. Can I call you BJ? Ok, good.

Listen BJ, as I stated, this topic doesn't concern you. All rogues are treated differently due to circumstances. That will remain to be our stance and as I stated, this issue is over. If that's not ok with you then I'm sorry I couldn't appease the all important BJ. Although most BJ's are welcome, and often bring interesting conversation, you, Mr. BJ, are just trying to cause issues, as you have done many times in the past.

So with that, Mr BJ, I'll bid you adieu.

i am gonna be honest here JW, this wannabe tough guy act is not intimidating in the least, nor is it truly warranted in this thread. i have not understood what the idea of posting something publicly for all of CN to see, then stating it does not involve all of CN.

unfortunately, VA involved a large part of CN by restricting alliances in the original terms, one of those alliances being TOP who is allied to Gremlins. yes, you lifted that term but fact is, it was done in the first place. Thus, that term put VA on the target (not war most likely but on the radar if you wish) list for many alliances; something that i doubt VA wanted over something such as this.

the continuing tough guy act done by you is laughable as all you are doing is taking what bit of good reputation you gained by retracting the alliance restriction term and throwing it down the drain faster than a drunk person paying homage to the porcelain god.

[Kzoppistan]

Wow, tough crowd tonight.

[NationReaper]

Well what they dont know yet..is tomorrow morning i wont be able to access CN for about 15-20 days...SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo they wont even start getting the payment for almost a month..

well i guess if they read this they'll know now.

[Mechanus]

From your same source. You know, the one you had to dig into for the most vague possibly accepted definition of spy that might possibly cover Reaper. Around these parts spying is very clearly defined and what he did was not spying. Try again!

You see, the beautiful thing about a language is that a word is defined by the context that it is used in. You tried to associate a definition to a word out of context of its use. However, the definitions provided by myself towards the word spying, when used in the context provided, quite clearly shows that the definition is exactly as is stated.

Just as a reminder:

2. I Apologize for joining VA under false Pretenses.

3. I apologize using the warchests i requested as LoAF to pick one of my targets.

Nice try.

*edited to help show clarification*

Edited November 13, 2009 by Mechanus

[Voodoo Nova]

You see, the beautiful thing about a language is that a word is defined by the context that it is used in. You tried to associate a definition to a word out of context of its use. However, the definitions provided by myself towards the word spying, when used in the context provided, quite clearly shows that the definition is exactly as is stated.

Just as a reminder:

Nice try.

*edited to help show clarification*

It was a forced apology that was approved by JWConner.

Nice try.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Voodoo Nova

[DirtDiver]

VA and these nations came to terms. How and why is their business. The End.

Now run along children. The grown-ups would like to talk and you're bothering us.

i could literally not have said it better myself. you sir have just won this thread

[Bob Janova]

Unless he was actually outright lying in that apology, that would come under spying by my definition too, even if he wasn't spying for anyone. It's pretty low level and an apology and reps for it is about right, but he did join an alliance with the intention of using internal information to harm the alliance.

[KahlanRahl]

I'm sure he would have attacked you whether you made him gov or not. It's not his fault VA is apparently so devoid of military leadership that a new member can just walk into gov.

I lol'd. Really hard when I read this.

Does it really matter if he was lying or not? You will never know. You can't expect someone to be telling the truth in an apology that was demanded as part of reps. Actually, chances are he WAS lying. Look back at the NSO Neutral Recruiting, where they apologized. I remember seeing them say they did not mean it. So, why argue over something that doesn't matter?

Also, do we even know yet why NationReaper did this? I'm interested to know and surprised no one else has brought this up. Seems to me really random and out of no where.

Edited November 13, 2009 by KahlanRahl

[Logan]

Wow, tough crowd tonight.

Sheesh no kidding. If I were told I couldn't accept a member that I wanted, I would have probably just ignored his wishes. But I guess its VA's week to get mobbed by the forum warriors.

[Qaianna]

Sheesh no kidding. If I were told I couldn't accept a member that I wanted, I would have probably just ignored his wishes. But I guess its VA's week to get mobbed by the forum warriors.

Personally, I would've looked into the why first. Just in case it was 'He's got a history of aid scamming' or 'He nuked government when we asked him what time it was out of spite'.

As far as folks accusing J W Connor of playing 'tough guy' ... looking at this wreck of a thread, I'd say it's more people just goading Connor for what looks like a naive decision. Not saying it's an excuse, but I'm seeing less 'tough guy' than 'guy who's just getting fed up with the tomatoes coming after he's conceded he was wrong'.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Qaianna

[Dochartaigh]

Personally, I would've looked into the why first. Just in case it was 'He's got a history of aid scamming' or 'He nuked government when we asked him what time it was out of spite'.

As far as folks accusing J W Connor of playing 'tough guy' ... looking at this wreck of a thread, I'd say it's more people just goading Connor for what looks like a naive decision. Not saying it's an excuse, but I'm seeing less 'tough guy' than 'guy who's just getting fed up with the tomatoes coming after he's conceded he was wrong'.

i understand this but stating what it looks like. simply put, JW, at least by this thread, has no grace under fire and since he was the OP and seems to hold some sway over the gov of his alliance, well his words are holding sway in this thread and not making VA look that good.

[astronaut jones]

i understand this but stating what it looks like. simply put, JW, at least by this thread, has no grace under fire and since he was the OP and seems to hold some sway over the gov of his alliance, well his words are holding sway in this thread and not making VA look that good.

He's pretending like he's walking around, carrying a big stick, thinking that he can get away with such a large amount of unearned swagger, yet he doesn't realize that the stick he's carrying was made by nerf. He can talk all he likes, act as though he's too important to explain himself and that the rest of us will just have to "deal with it" all he likes, but.... nerf. You get what I'm saying?

Edited November 13, 2009 by astronaut jones

[NationReaper]

He's pretending like he's walking around, carrying a big stick, thinking that he can get away with such a large amount of unearned swagger, yet he doesn't realize that the stick he's carrying was made by nerf. He can talk all he likes, act as though he's too important to explain himself and that the rest of us will just have to "deal with it" all he likes, but.... nerf. You get what I'm saying?

Even to carry a big stick made of nerf you need at least half a warchest..i know i could get away with not paying pretty easy...heck i could reroll and it not kill me..i dont care about my NS..its a pixel...just the more pixels and pixel money you have the more damage you can do..

and to answer your question i did this for many, many reasons..one of which being i dont care about my nation and decided it'd be fun to get an alliance apologize and admit they lie....2 rogues that can make an alliance do that? come on..what ISNT fun about that? not to mention made them fold on 4-5 different reps agreements in a two day period..what me and kane versed was a fluffy teddy bear without the fluff...we shouldnt have won a 6 to 1 war with me only having 350 mil warchest and 3700 tech at 60k ns <<that should have been curb stomped without much trouble...but it wasnt.

[Geoffron X]

Even to carry a big stick made of nerf you need at least half a warchest..i know i could get away with not paying pretty easy...heck i could reroll and it not kill me..i dont care about my NS..its a pixel...just the more pixels and pixel money you have the more damage you can do..

and to answer your question i did this for many, many reasons..one of which being i dont care about my nation and decided it'd be fun to get an alliance apologize and admit they lie....2 rogues that can make an alliance do that? come on..what ISNT fun about that? not to mention made them fold on 4-5 different reps agreements in a two day period..what me and kane versed was a fluffy teddy bear without the fluff...we shouldnt have won a 6 to 1 war with me only having 350 mil warchest and 3700 tech at 60k ns <<that should have been curb stomped without much trouble...but it wasnt.

Why do you... keep talking like.... this...? It makes it... really hard.... to read.

[Mechanus]

Even to carry a big stick made of nerf you need at least half a warchest..i know i could get away with not paying pretty easy...heck i could reroll and it not kill me..i dont care about my NS..its a pixel...just the more pixels and pixel money you have the more damage you can do..

and to answer your question i did this for many, many reasons..one of which being i dont care about my nation and decided it'd be fun to get an alliance apologize and admit they lie....2 rogues that can make an alliance do that? come on..what ISNT fun about that? not to mention made them fold on 4-5 different reps agreements in a two day period..what me and kane versed was a fluffy teddy bear without the fluff...we shouldnt have won a 6 to 1 war with me only having 350 mil warchest and 3700 tech at 60k ns <<that should have been curb stomped without much trouble...but it wasnt.

You do tell such lovely stories. Tell me another. Tell me one where the lone man rises up against the establishment and overcomes all odds.

[Penkala]

Unless he was actually outright lying in that apology, that would come under spying by my definition too, even if he wasn't spying for anyone. It's pretty low level and an apology and reps for it is about right, but he did join an alliance with the intention of using internal information to harm the alliance.

So treason, then? There's a reason there are a variety of terms - they allow us to specify an exact action with one word. Spying means gathering intelligence from one entity for another entity.

[Lord Derfel]

/sigh

As usual people have opinions on things absolutely nothing to do with them, what a suprise.

The parties involved accepted the terms, your opinions on the terms or those involved are irrelevant and really count for very little except to gratify your inflated sense of importance. Put the handbags away ladies...

But thanks, seriously, you gave me something to look at for 10 minutes.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Lord Derfel

[Mathias]

/sigh

As usual people have opinions on things absolutely nothing to do with them, what a suprise.

The parties involved accepted the terms, your opinions on the terms or those involved are irrelevant and really count for very little except to gratify your inflated sense of importance. Put the handbags away ladies...

But thanks, seriously, you gave me something to look at for 10 minutes.

If they didn't want their issues to be public, they wouldn't have posted them here for everyone to see.

Why don't people understand that? You can't announce something and then tell the people you announced it to it's none of their business.

[astronaut jones]

If they didn't want their issues to be public, they wouldn't have posted them here for everyone to see.

Why don't people understand that? You can't announce something and then tell the people you announced it to it's none of their business.

Alliances often think all they have to do is announce what they're doing, and that they're not accountable for their actions. As though once it's out in the open, whatever they have chosen to do, whatever treaty signed, or reparations given/accepted, or whatever terms that have been agreed upon between them and another party are completely set in stone. That's it, to them. It's out in the open, there may be questions (and lots of them), or concerns over what they've done, what precedent they're trying to set, but none of that matters because it's out there already.

They feel as though they're doing the world a favour.

That's why you get the indignation, the whole "it doesn't concern you, stop asking questions, peasant." attitude that was on display here. JWconner isn't the only one guilty of this.

[Lord Derfel]

Which I'm sure, warrants the 10 pages of "You suck!" "No, U!" but i digress...

Back to my point, The terms were accepted by both sides, so why continue to argue pointless corners when nothing is gonna change.

The terms may/may not have been harsh, but they were accepted. Wow. Exciting. Feel free to keep spitting at each other though, it was an amusing way to use up my time.

[Mathias]

Which I'm sure, warrants the 10 pages of "You suck!" "No, U!" but i digress...

Back to my point, The terms were accepted by both sides, so why continue to argue pointless corners when nothing is gonna change.

The terms may/may not have been harsh, but they were accepted. Wow. Exciting. Feel free to keep spitting at each other though, it was an amusing way to use up my time.

If you had actually read what transpired here, you would see that the terms were changed.

[Penkala]

/sigh

As usual people have opinions on things absolutely nothing to do with them, what a suprise.

The parties involved accepted the terms, your opinions on the terms or those involved are irrelevant and really count for very little except to gratify your inflated sense of importance. Put the handbags away ladies...

But thanks, seriously, you gave me something to look at for 10 minutes.

And what do you have to do with any of these peoples' interests? That means you yourself are getting involved with something that doesn't concern you.

And frankly, people are talking here. Your opinion on everyone else's opinions is irrelevant and counts for nothing.

If you had actually read what transpired here, you would see that the terms were changed.

Yes, if someone chooses to accept one set of bad terms over another clearly they are happy about the terms and we should not worry.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Penkala

[KahlanRahl]

Which I'm sure, warrants the 10 pages of "You suck!" "No, U!" but i digress...

You expect something more from the people of Bob? Have you been hiding under a rock? That is what half of these discussions are, my friend. Half, if not more, always degenerate into matches of who can say "No U!" and "You suck!" the best. That's kind of what happens when you announce something to the public.

Lesson here is: If you don't want people who have "nothing to do with it" involved, well hey don't publicly announce it! When you make it public you get everyone involved.

[Dochartaigh]

Which I'm sure, warrants the 10 pages of "You suck!" "No, U!" but i digress...

Back to my point, The terms were accepted by both sides, so why continue to argue pointless corners when nothing is gonna change.

The terms may/may not have been harsh, but they were accepted. Wow. Exciting. Feel free to keep spitting at each other though, it was an amusing way to use up my time.

actually the majority of the conversation that took place revolved around one specific term, that of alliance restriction. the reason for this was the fact that VA never once asked those alliances if this was okay with them. so yes, the rogues accepted it, but the alliances whose sovereignty was impinged upon by VA in that term.

so while a couple of pages were not about that, most were with a few hails running around. you forget that sometimes there are more than just the two sides who become part of the terms handed down.

[JWConner]

actually the majority of the conversation that took place revolved around one specific term, that of alliance restriction. the reason for this was the fact that VA never once asked those alliances if this was okay with them. so yes, the rogues accepted it, but the alliances whose sovereignty was impinged upon by VA in that term.

so while a couple of pages were not about that, most were with a few hails running around. you forget that sometimes there are more than just the two sides who become part of the terms handed down.

So while I said I wouldn't discuss this further...I'm going to make this exception:

As I've explained to the alliances involved, it was not meant to interfere with their sovereignty. If you claim to have read all 10 pages, then you will have read that part. I have spoken with a few of these alliances leaders/prominent members and have expressed this to them. It was an oversight on my part...albeit a very big oversight...that I was looking at it from the point of view of not the alliances involved, but the ones being restricted. Again, there's no reason to continue to beat a dead horse here.

People keep asking why I thought I could impose this on the alliances...I didn't. It was meant on the nations themselves. Which I have explained. Whether or not you deem this a viable explanation or not, that's your deal. But this is what transpired, it was a mistake on my part, I have taken accountability for that oversight, and things have been corrected.

If you all want to continue on your rants, please feel free. But as I've stated previously, this issue is dead, handled and we're moving on. I'd suggest you all do the same.