Tromp Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Stating that my definition is wrong is far more effective if it actually is wrong, and not just wrong because you disagree with it.I agree that it is my definition and you are free to disagree. However to act as thought it is "wrong" is simply in error, because in this context it is NOT wrong. What? I used your definitions to show that your initial argument is false. While I may agree that this is a coordinated techraid, it isn't an alliance wide war as per your definitions. It has nothing to do with me or my opinion, since I haven't even mentioned it in these last 3 posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenann Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 The only difference here is the avenue in which profits are being earned. But who cares? If these guys were treatied to some other alliance, you bet your $@! it would have been seen as an alliance war and that alliance would be drilling Athens in the butt as we speak. What happens when they do have a treaty... but said treaty partner is tied to both the Attacker and the Attackee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 What?I used your definitions to show that your initial argument is false. While I may agree that this is a coordinated techraid, it isn't an alliance wide war as per your definitions. It has nothing to do with me or my opinion, since I haven't even mentioned it in these last 3 posts. So you just ignore the word "normally" or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason8 Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 What happens when they do have a treaty... but said treaty partner is tied to both the Attacker and the Attackee? Said treaty partner probably steps in and tells Athens to step off. And Athens will kindly back away and go on with life like nothing happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 But it IS an alliance wide war. It just wasn't fully organized with target lists. Athens government said "Here's an alliance, go raid it." And Athens, as an alliance, had a bunch of members blitz the Knights of Ni! I don't know about this, so I won't say anything here. Now I don't know about you, but there was a time in CN when full-scale alliance wars were handled this way. Drop a link to the AA and let everyone pick their targets.The only difference here is the avenue in which profits are being earned. But who cares? If these guys were treatied to some other alliance, you bet your $@! it would have been seen as an alliance war and that alliance would be drilling Athens in the butt as we speak. I agree with you here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinpah Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 But it IS an alliance wide war. It just wasn't fully organized with target lists. Athens government said "Here's an alliance, go raid it." And Athens, as an alliance, had a bunch of members blitz the Knights of Ni! I wouldn't go so far as to presume that they would use an imperative declaration like "go". It is much more convincing to suggest that they presented a possible alliance to raid and then said "raid if you wish" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterof9puppets Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 What happens when they do have a treaty... but said treaty partner is tied to both the Attacker and the Attackee? I would sure hope that the treaty partner would drop the Attacker for being an asshatt and attacking their other treaty partner (the Attackee) and declare war on the Attacker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skavax Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Yay for finding the missing treaty... now what are you going to do with it? The post you quoted has been edited... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 So you just ignore the word "normally" or what? So what is Athens' gain from this all then, if it isn't security or tech/land/money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterof9puppets Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 7 members is my count; 6 that I see (not counting mushi ) and counting myself in there, I have already deleted the wars.A more accurate statement would be that a large portion of our members active at that time raided I count seventeen in Athens. I'm probably 1 or 2 off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenann Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) Said treaty partner probably steps in and tells Athens to step off. And Athens will kindly back away and go on with life like nothing happened. So this alliance war (by your definition, since there is a treaty partner and such) is swept under the rug "as if nothing happened"? Nice to know that things may just return their normal way, ignoring the fact that one part about an alliance being stomped on. The post you quoted has been edited... so it seems... Edited in second quote... Edited November 14, 2009 by Brenann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinpah Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 I count seventeen in Athens. I'm probably 1 or 2 off. So we have 1/20th of FoB and 1/10th of Athens in this raid I wouldn't call it alliance wide; I would call it large Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 So what is Athens' gain from this all then, if it isn't security or tech/land/money? Well, I guess the difference imo is that in an alliance war the "profit" is normally not in land/tech/infra/money (well depending on how reps work :v) but more often in security benefits or things of that nature. I'm not sure how much longer you can ignore the choice of the word normally there, but if you shall insist, I'm going to keep quoting this to you until you read it correctly. I did not say: In an alliance war, the only goal in every single instance is security benefits or things of that nature, and that goal (which incidentally is subjective anyways, this COULD have had those sorts of benefits, because now Athens probably has a better idea of who in their treaty partners really supports them, and who is just clinging on for the political clout) is the only possible way that an alliance war could be had. No matter how much you wanted it to say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 So we have 1/20th of FoB and 1/10th of Athens in this raidI wouldn't call it alliance wide; I would call it large If KoN had more slots I expect that number would have greatly gone up, and, considering that you combined possess almost 10x KoN's NS, I would say that that is a really high percentage of nations involved - especially since, as someone was extolling earlier, a lot of people in your alliances are raiding more than one person at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterof9puppets Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) So we have 1/20th of FoB and 1/10th of Athens in this raidI wouldn't call it alliance wide; I would call it large It's all just semantics Across Athens, and across FoB, there were wars declared on Knights of Ni!. Across the alliance. Alliance-wide. Edited November 14, 2009 by Masterof9puppets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chasmic Descent Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) There is nothing wrong with what Athens have done, even if they have changed their stance. However this is a big alliance that has been targeted and there might be some interesting consequences from those who protect the Knights of Ni! Its refreshing to see people chase bigger and more risky targets. Oh and the whole "I should be able to join a 40 man alliance without the fear of being tech raided" doesnt wash with me. If your in alliance that has 40 members you should have the treaties to protect yourself, otherwise its your own alliance's fault for not chosing your friends carefully enough, or losing contact with them. Edited November 14, 2009 by Chasmic Descent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinpah Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 It's all just semantics Across Athens, and across FoB, there were wars declared on Knights of Ni!. Across the alliance. Alliance-wide. Semantics are of the utmost importance in these situations. I suppose 2 wars from FoB and 2 from Athens would be alliance wide as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 Semantics are of the utmost importance in these situations.I suppose 2 wars from FoB and 2 from Athens would be alliance wide as well? Fortunately, having double digits numbers of members involved means that any semantic argument is pointless, since it clearly was an alliance scale operation (otherwise Kronos never was involved in an alliance war, since our numbers aren't big enough to have that many people declare that many wars :'(), unless both your alliances cannot control your members and have that number of wars inappropriately declared on a regular basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) I'm not sure how much longer you can ignore the choice of the word normally there, but if you shall insist, I'm going to keep quoting this to you until you read it correctly. I asked for an explanation of what you meant in this case, since obviously you do not consider this a "normal" alliance wide war. You failed to explain yourself, and instead keep telling me that I am the one who doesn't get what you mean, ignoring the fact that you never bothered to explain your position to me other than telling me to read it again. Well, I guess the difference imo is that in an alliance war the "profit" is normally not in land/tech/infra/money (well depending on how reps work :v) but more often in security benefits or things of that nature. What I took from this post, was that you do not consider this to be a "normal" alliance wide war, so you contradicted yourself. That's the only thing I pointed out, and I haven't seen you refute that point up until now, just dodging the matter on hand. edit: maybe it's my reading comprehension, I'm still Dutch. Edited November 15, 2009 by Tromp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterof9puppets Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 Semantics are of the utmost importance in these situations.I suppose 2 wars from FoB and 2 from Athens would be alliance wide as well? Sure, you could say that. But, the amount of members in this situation itself is what constitutes it as more alliance-wide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rickyman1984 Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 I was going to register my displeasure with this but then realized that I'm in an alliance of 40 members so I'd probably get raided for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinpah Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) Fortunately, having double digits numbers of members involved means that any semantic argument is pointless, since it clearly was an alliance scale operation (otherwise Kronos never was involved in an alliance war, since our numbers aren't big enough to have that many people declare that many wars :'(), unless both your alliances cannot control your members and have that number of wars inappropriately declared on a regular basis. Which is where intent comes in; if you declare that the number of members is pointless then you must accept some other kind of criterion for determining the difference between a large tech raid and an alliance war. EDIT: sneaky sneaky; "inappropriately declared" indeed Edited November 15, 2009 by Shinpah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpcurley Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 It's all just semantics Across Athens, and across FoB, there were wars declared on Knights of Ni!. Across the alliance. Alliance-wide. Excuse me? We don't appreciate sound logic here in CN! Take your fancy "city thinking" on back to where it belongs. Ya here?!... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinpah Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 Sure, you could say that.But, the amount of members in this situation itself is what constitutes it as more alliance-wide. So where would you draw the line precisely? Would it be total nations or would it be based upon percentages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterof9puppets Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 So where would you draw the line precisely?Would it be total nations or would it be based upon percentages? More than a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts