Jump to content

Veritas Aequitas Announcement


JWConner

Recommended Posts

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.

ZI and reps is a joke, a pathetic joke. Telling your allies they who they cant allow join them is priceless. <_<

Edited by Alterego
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Other alliances who have been subject to nuke rogue attacks have been far less generous. I congratulate VA for coming to terms and being able to move on from this unfortunate incident.

Other alliances have been far more generous too. Celebrating not being the worst isn't very flattering to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From IAA's stance, we have viewed this entire situation as an indirect attack on our sovereignty - Voldorish has made a mistake in going nuclear rogue against Veritas Aequitas, but regardless of that circumstance, the Empire will never permit our membership to be dictated or restricted by exterior forces. Personally and collectively we thank VA for renouncing the term in question and appreciate their work in creating an amicable solution to a rather radioactive situation.

As I explained previously, the intentions were not to overtake any sovereignty of any other alliance. It was to dictate to the transgressors where they could go, as punishment. The alliances that were mentioned were homes that each has had or had ties to previously. There was no malice towards the alliances involved, it only turned out to seem that way. I have never had issues against IRON, IAA, TOP or RIA's allies. Heck, we share an ally in Monos Archein. Our intentions were merely punishment towards those that attacked us. If you, the involved alliances, took offense, I once again apologize.

Also, for clarification, Erixxxx is Lord Protector of Veritas Aequitas. I am the Il Duce (government adviser). But because this situation involved my actions when I originally began VA, Erixxxx granted me permission to handle the situation. I take responsibility for what I did in the past and for the poor choice in the alliance-restriction portion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as spying..im not admitting to spying..it was hardly spying..i joined under false pretenses yes..but i only chose one nation based off their warchest..the other 2 had good warchests and were a good match for me. All it did was save me a spy op.

As of now the terms are completed-minus the reps and ZI- Any farther attacks on me is an attack on my home <3IAA<3

You just admitted to using information you gained after joining us, which you admitted was under false pretenses, to choose a target to attack. Saving a spy operation, which was used to target nuclear weapons, was a rather important issue. Tell me how that's not espionage?

But, as you have held up your end in posting your apology, peace has now been granted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally wouldn't let such rogues get off so lightly.

When the rogue has more tech than all of your nations and is killing your upper tier with nukes also he has enough money to fight for 5 or 6 months what are you going to do ?

Edited by Timberland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I explained previously, the intentions were not to overtake any sovereignty of any other alliance. It was to dictate to the transgressors where they could go, as punishment. The alliances that were mentioned were homes that each has had or had ties to previously. There was no malice towards the alliances involved, it only turned out to seem that way. I have never had issues against IRON, IAA, TOP or RIA's allies. Heck, we share an ally in Monos Archein. Our intentions were merely punishment towards those that attacked us. If you, the involved alliances, took offense, I once again apologize.

Also, for clarification, Erixxxx is Lord Protector of Veritas Aequitas. I am the Il Duce (government adviser). But because this situation involved my actions when I originally began VA, Erixxxx granted me permission to handle the situation. I take responsibility for what I did in the past and for the poor choice in the alliance-restriction portion.

It seems to me as though you only dropped that term because you knew you wouldn't be able to enforce it, and not because there is something inherently wrong with imposing such draconian restrictions upon a ruler over something so small as a bit of nuke roguery, so I will certainly not be congratulating you for that. Through reading your posts and taking note of your attitude I would say that if you did have the power to disregard the sovereignty of other alliances and enforce the term you would see no reason not to do so, which is a shame.

As I do not believe I have seen you provide any justification or reasoning for the restriction of movement, I'll ask now: What did you hope to achieve by including such a term?

Edited by Aimee Mann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clear a few things up however...we approached VA after we attacked, before nukes, and asked for the terms and erixxxx and mankiller told us to screw ourselves and banned us from their chans and what not.

Before update last night i sent VA messages about the possible peace and said to ask conner..those nations responded with nukes and attacks..i never counter attacked.

As far as spying..im not admitting to spying..it was hardly spying..i joined under false pretenses yes..but i only chose one nation based off their warchest..the other 2 had good warchests and were a good match for me. All it did was save me a spy op.

As of now the terms are completed-minus the reps and ZI- Any farther attacks on me is an attack on my home <3IAA<3

Wait, so you admit to said actions and apologise for them then you turn around and say you didn't really mean any of it?

:facepalm:

Congrats to my friends in VA. Glad to see you were able to resolve this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, so you admit to said actions and apologise for them then you turn around and say you didn't really mean any of it?

:facepalm:

Congrats to my friends in VA. Glad to see you were able to resolve this situation.

How you got that out of what he said, I don't know. I've read his apology a few times now, and read what you said, and they do not match. Maybe you're reading another apology, one that I cannot see, maybe you have x-ray specs on or something. I'm not sure, though if it were x-ray specs, I've got a pair in my spaceship, so again, maybe you're seeing something that just isn't there.

But, yeah, what? huh? Make sense in your responses, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to see the indefinite restrictions on which alliances they could join lifted (not that you could have enforced them on most of the alliances listed anyway). I'm a believer that once a situation is resolved, permanent restrictive terms are a bad thing, so it's good to see them removed from the equation.

Asking for a ZI plus reps does seem a bit extreme, usually one or the other would suffice.

Considering the zero reps for Kane, and the statement that the reps were for 'spying' not for the attack, is this an indication that roguing against VA is acceptable and will result in a white peace*?

[ooc: *: Yes, I know, I know. The CN version, not the real life meaning of this term.]

e: grammar

Edited by Bob Janova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to see the indefinite restrictions on which alliances they could join lifted (not that you could have enforced them on most of the alliances listed anyway). I'm a believer that once a situation is resolved, permanent restrictive terms are a bad thing, so it's good to see them removed from the equation.

Asking for a ZI plus reps does seem a bit extreme, usually one or the other would suffice.

Considering the zero reps for Kane, and the statement that the reps were for 'spying' not for the attack, is this an indication that roguing against VA is acceptable and will result in a white peace*?

[ooc: *: Yes, I know, I know. The CN version, not the real life meaning of this term.]

e: grammar

Once again, the ZI was chosen by Voldorish himself. Our initial demands required higher reps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still gave him the option between high reps, or medium reps plus a ZI, so the responsibility is still yours for making that one of the options. Considering he currently has 6000 infra, which has a fairly significant rebuild cost, the reps you were previously asking must have been very high for the ZI+$75m to have been a less bad option. It may have been 'chosen', but you gave him a Hobson's choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voldorish:

How you're able to admit joining under false pretences and then claim not to be spying, when you have already admitted to making use of the information you've gained is mind-bogglingly idiotic. Here, it's like this. You went to place X, looked at their private info and used it. That's a simple case of spying mate, pure and simple.

Be that as it may, I'm glad things have worked out between yourself and VA.

Edit: mind-bogglingly

Edited by Veneke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still gave him the option between high reps, or medium reps plus a ZI, so the responsibility is still yours for making that one of the options. Considering he currently has 6000 infra, which has a fairly significant rebuild cost, the reps you were previously asking must have been very high for the ZI+$75m to have been a less bad option. It may have been 'chosen', but you gave him a Hobson's choice.

We didn't say "reps or ZI!". Voldorish proposed it and agreed to it himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still gave him the option between high reps, or medium reps plus a ZI, so the responsibility is still yours for making that one of the options. Considering he currently has 6000 infra, which has a fairly significant rebuild cost, the reps you were previously asking must have been very high for the ZI+$75m to have been a less bad option. It may have been 'chosen', but you gave him a Hobson's choice.

This issue has been handled and is now dead. It didn't involve you, and continues to not involve you. Go cause your drama elsewhere.

Edited by JWConner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'lol I don't have an answer so I'll tell you to get lost'

Don't post a public thread if you don't want public comment.

I suppose I could just go rogue on you and get white peace instead, then it would involve me!

Edit: Actually, whaddya know, I couldn't. They're all out of range.

Edited by Bob Janova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'lol I don't have an answer so I'll tell you to get lost'

Don't post a public thread if you don't want public comment.

I suppose I could just go rogue on you and get white peace instead, then it would involve me!

Edit: Actually, whaddya know, I couldn't. They're all out of range.

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.

Edited by JWConner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...