Brother Kane Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 I'll confirm that Voldorish chose self-ZI over higher reps. How he's gonna pull off both at once, I'm not sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 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. Any alliance is safe harbour if your goal is to go rogue, friend or otherwise. I've got a pretty big warchest right now that I'm planning on putting to good use some day, and I've received not one cent from CSN. That's a pretty piss poor argument there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Just out of curiosity, why aren't they allowed to join the listed alliances or their allies? And how would you define "allies" for those alliances the rogues are "barred" from joining? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias 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. Just a question. Do you accuse all of your members of spying? Spying is collecting and reporting information, so do you have evidence of him taking info from your forums and giving them to someone else? Seems to me that NR was just a member who went rogue on his own alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 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? Because you provided no reason for restricting their movement other than pettiness and bitterness because you're militarily impotent. 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'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. Because it makes no sense to you doesn't matter all that much. If they didn't agree to the terms, they were within their rights to accept to pay reps instead. They made no arguments to the latter. And, as agreed upon between myself and Brother Kane, if any of the terms are voided, the whole deal is voided and hostilities will recommence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) 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. I suppose that'd be up to us to comply or not, though, wouldn't it? 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. OK, so you're saying he DOESN'T have to pay any reps. Which is it? Edited November 12, 2009 by Penkala Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Because it makes no sense to you doesn't matter all that much. If they didn't agree to the terms, they were within their rights to accept to pay reps instead. They made no arguments to the latter.And, as agreed upon between myself and Brother Kane, if any of the terms are voided, the whole deal is voided and hostilities will recommence. So, other than military impotence, what is the reason behind restricting their movement? Why those alliances? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWConner Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Because you provided no reason for restricting their movement other than pettiness and bitterness because you're militarily impotent. Good show as always. Glad you bring that added humor to the conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWConner Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 I suppose that'd be up to us to comply or not, though, wouldn't it? Penkala, before spouting off at the mouth, as usual, you may want to make sure you're speaking for your alliance when you say "us". As we share an ally, I highly doubt you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Good show as always. Glad you bring that added humor to the conversation. I was being serious. You're providing no reason for restricting their movement, so it seems as though you're looking to exact some measure of control over the situation because you and your alliance are so militarily impotent that you couldn't contain a few rogues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Penkala, before spouting off at the mouth, as usual, you may want to make sure you're speaking for your alliance when you say "us". As we share an ally, I highly doubt you do. I'll echo Mathias' question: Just a question. Do you accuse all of your members of spying? Spying is collecting and reporting information, so do you have evidence of him taking info from your forums and giving them to someone else? Seems to me that NR was just a member who went rogue on his own alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWConner Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 I suppose that'd be up to us to comply or not, though, wouldn't it?OK, so you're saying he DOESN'T have to pay any reps. Which is it? Read the OP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) Penkala, before spouting off at the mouth, as usual, you may want to make sure you're speaking for your alliance when you say "us". As we share an ally, I highly doubt you do. Did I ever say we weren't complying? If I did I do apologize, I certainly want to make it clear that I speak for my alliance in no way, shape or form - you'd need to talk to one of our triumvirs for any official positions. In any case, I'm just glad to see peace here. No matter what I think of the terms, I can certainly say good show on that, VA. Edited November 12, 2009 by Penkala Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Penkala, before spouting off at the mouth, as usual, you may want to make sure you're speaking for your alliance when you say "us". As we share an ally, I highly doubt you do. CSN shares an ally with you. I'd love to see those nations in CSN, they seem to be stand up guys, and even though it's not much to go on, considering they went rogue on VA, but that's a smart move in anyone's book. So, hell, send them over this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 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. So this is the post Karma world huh? We're all agreeing with AJ? /me sighs and becomes emo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightwave Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 So what exactly would you do if an alliance accepted them, and you are forbidding that alliance from being joined? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 i love how you choose to restrict their movement to IAA. i never knew that IAA was VA's !@#$%*..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWConner Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 I was being serious. You're providing no reason for restricting their movement, so it seems as though you're looking to exact some measure of control over the situation because you and your alliance are so militarily impotent that you couldn't contain a few rogues. I'll leave it at this...your opinion, as irrelevant as it has always been...makes for an interesting read. Thanks for once again letting us know your opinion. I'll make sure to make a memo that astronaut jones doesn't like me or VA. Wait...that sounds familiar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackSkellington Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 You know you're in the wrong when you have AJ and I agreeing that you're wrong. Besides that fact, it's really not hard to just give the rogues peace and let them be on their way. No one forces you to implement reps of any kind of restrict the nations from joining an alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenny N Karl Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 You really want to resolve this issue I suggest you cut them loose to where ever they choose to go. The restrictions only mean that you haven't really buried the hatchet and you leave yourself open to relive this conflict. Also, I suggest you take the 75 mil in reps, but drop the ZI if he shows commitment and goodwill. you are defeating the purpose of this resolution . Like they say, you get more flies with honey than vinegar. Good luck to all involved and I hope that all can move on peacefully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 So what exactly would you do if an alliance accepted them, and you are forbidding that alliance from being joined? Blitz and overwhelm the enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 I'll leave it at this...your opinion, as irrelevant as it has always been...makes for an interesting read. Thanks for once again letting us know your opinion. I'll make sure to make a memo that astronaut jones doesn't like me or VA. Wait...that sounds familiar. It's not about like or dislike, it's about unnecessarily restricting the movements of nations to other alliances because YOU said so. I doubt you consulted with the alliances in question on this matter, I doubt you even informed them that this was going to take place. It's a matter of individual sovereign rights as nations, and just because you say they can't go somewhere, doesn't mean you had the right to do so to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddog241 Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 i can understand reps. but restricting free movement is poor show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 It's not about like or dislike, it's about unnecessarily restricting the movements of nations to other alliances because YOU said so. I doubt you consulted with the alliances in question on this matter, I doubt you even informed them that this was going to take place. It's a matter of individual sovereign rights as nations, and just because you say they can't go somewhere, doesn't mean you had the right to do so to begin with. not to mention the sovereignty of the alliances that VA seems to wanna stomp on... 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.