Athens - KoFN resolution

[King Chill I]

Hahaha the comments in this thread make me think of how Athens is the new TOP (during/post karma). Whatever you do in some peoples' eyes you still cant seem to find a way out.

What OMG you attacked a defenseless alliance? What OMG you dont care if we call you out even though we are right and should listen to us? What OMG you are listening to us and apologizing, you are such weak !@#$%*^.

And for all those crying about the good ole NPO days, yes things have changed for the best. The public was allowed to freely express its opinion, create meaningful pressure and create a situation where a major alliance stepped back and took responsibility for its actions rather than ZIing a smaller/defenseless alliance and then exacting "reps" (not that i see a problem with either approach, just saying things are indeed different).

P.S. This quote had me laughing on the floor

Seth says:

hey I am sorry if raiding you guys caused you any problems

Hey man i hope the quad dump we took on your carpet didnt cause any problems.

Edited November 18, 2009 by King Chill I

[Dochartaigh]

Yes, God forbid someone try and defend themselves. Obviously their treachery provides you with the full moral authority to continue attacking their nation. Again, give me a break!

Meh, asking for money from anyone for damages incurred in launching an unprovoked war is stupid and only shows how far our community has slipped.

honestly, did you read anything i posted? i stated that i attack with 2 GAs (as is typical with tech raids), then if the victim hits me with full force (i.e. 2 GAs, 2 CMs, 2 Air attacks) i will accept or send peace as it is their right to defend themselves. but if they ignore the peace offer and attack me fully a second time, that is when i will continue to attack.

so again, you read into what i say with what you want to be there rather than what is actually there. and end up making yourself look foolish.

as for your second part- where did i state i asked anyone for money from damages incurred? i have never nor will i ever ask for money from either my victim or my alliance. so i am not even entirely sure what you are attempting to state with that sentence.

also, if you read the tech raid policy that most alliances have, they are fully capable of retaliating upon the first set of defensive attacks from the victim. i do not do this. so i am not sure where you get off thinking i am stating that the victim cannot defend themselves in the least, but do not think i will take more than one full set of attacks for the rest of the week as being somehow morally reprehensible. The victim can easily do far more damage to me with one full set of attacks, than i did to them with 2 GAs. but yes, i am obviously ebil for allowing the victim much more rights than basically any other tech raider out there allows.

you got me Raga. you have foiled my ebil plan and have read so far between the lines of what i wrote that you have yet again gone into some other realm where you have full knowledge of what i think, why i am writing what i am writing, and obviously know me far better than i know myself. congrats my good friend but you have bested me yet again.

[Ragashingo]

honestly, did you read anything i posted? i stated that i attack with 2 GAs (as is typical with tech raids), then if the victim hits me with full force (i.e. 2 GAs, 2 CMs, 2 Air attacks) i will accept or send peace as it is their right to defend themselves. but if they ignore the peace offer and attack me fully a second time, that is when i will continue to attack.

so again, you read into what i say with what you want to be there rather than what is actually there. and end up making yourself look foolish.

I understand how a tech raid works, and I read what you said. I still say its a complete joke to call one set of counterattacks against unprovoked aggression their full right, but not the subsequent ones. Is some consistency in your policies here too much to ask?

as for your second part- where did i state i asked anyone for money from damages incurred? i have never nor will i ever ask for money from either my victim or my alliance. so i am not even entirely sure what you are attempting to state with that sentence.

I got it when you said: "i have tech raided a few times since i came to IAA and have kept it on strict regulations as well (including laughing off being nuked 3-4 times by my victim but did not even ask for money to help repair the damage" and "i was talking about money from IAA, not money from the victim. sorry i did not clarify that before."

It sounded to me like you were saying it was a nobel thing that you didn't ask for money to repair your damages. What were you really trying to say?

also, if you read the tech raid policy that most alliances have, they are fully capable of retaliating upon the first set of defensive attacks from the victim. i do not do this.

Oh you are so noble, only declaring unprovoked wars for profit. Here let me kneel before you.

so i am not sure where you get off thinking i am stating that the victim cannot defend themselves in the least, but do not think i will take more than one full set of attacks for the rest of the week as being somehow morally reprehensible. The victim can easily do far more damage to me with one full set of attacks, than i did to them with 2 GAs. but yes, i am obviously ebil for allowing the victim much more rights than basically any other tech raider out there allows.

How many attacks would your victim have preformed against you if you hadn't raided him in the first place. You have absolutely zero right to complain if they try and defend themselves. That you do so is pathetic.

congrats my good friend but you have bested me yet again.

At least you got something right.

[Dochartaigh]

I understand how a tech raid works, and I read what you said. I still say its a complete joke to call one set of counterattacks against unprovoked aggression their full right, but not the subsequent ones. Is some consistency in your policies here too much to ask?

lawlz. you are quite the comedian Raga. i honestly don't care what you think of my personal policy. i do find it amusing that you are defending Athens in this mess in which they tech raided a 39 man alliance and are attempting to demonize me for having what amounted to a much more stringent tech raid policy than the people you are defending.

including the fact that the tech raid policy in place at Athens at the time allowed for the raiders to conduct full retaliatory attacks if the victim defended themselves in any way (i.e. the victim could launch 2 CMs and receive 2 CMs, 2 Aircraft attacks, and 2 Naval strikes). but yes, you are right, i am a demon because i understand that tech raiding is an aggressive attack on a sovereign nation and thus allow them to defend themselves once against my one set of attacks. but obviously i am ebil for defending myself after that. right Raga.

I got it when you said: "i have tech raided a few times since i came to IAA and have kept it on strict regulations as well (including laughing off being nuked 3-4 times by my victim but did not even ask for money to help repair the damage" and "i was talking about money from IAA, not money from the victim. sorry i did not clarify that before."

It sounded to me like you were saying it was a nobel thing that you didn't ask for money to repair your damages. What were you really trying to say?

see that is the issue with you. you read into it what you want and go from there. you even stated as such. "it sounded to me" not "this is what was posted". do you see the difference in those two statements? i stated it simply as a fact that i do not ask for reparations from the victim, but also i do not ask for aid from my alliance. the reason for this is i truly do tech raid on my own, at my own risk and on my own dime. in several tech raids, the victim came out ahead.

Oh you are so noble, only declaring unprovoked wars for profit. Here let me kneel before you.

again, never said i was noble of any sort. i know i conduct wars for profit by aggressively attacking someone else. all i stated again was the FACT (you should really learn what this concept of facts are as it seems you only know how to rewrite someone elses post so that you can demonize them (including adding and/or switching words at a whim. much like "Athens thinks they did not commit war on Ni" became for you, Raga, "Athens is totally and utterly wrong".) i allow retaliation whereas most tech raiders do not. so you can be sarcastic all you want but i was stating how i conduct a tech raid. again, ironic you state that considering who you are defending here. of course, it seems i have my own little "fan" so i guess you can continue to amuse me with your posts trying to make me look bad and ebil and like i am a little $@!. cuz it is like a jester in the presence of a king i guess.

How many attacks would your victim have preformed against you if you hadn't raided him in the first place. You have absolutely zero right to complain if they try and defend themselves. That you do so is pathetic.

gee, if i attacked no one that would be zero.... also, when did i complain? again, you need to learn the concept of facts. you have none when you state things like "you think you are so noble" or "you complained" or "you threw a tantrum". you little spin doctoring is easily visible. honestly, if the victim wants to take it beyond 1 set of attacks each, they can. i like war and i like nations who fight back. nothing bores me more than being in a war and getting saddled with that nation that does nothing the entire time.

honestly Raga, that you twist words worse than anyone i have seen in a long while and over something as comparatively small as my personal tech raid policy while you defend Athens after they tech raided a 39 man alliance and have a much looser tech raid policy than i do, is pathetic. it shows you are only after me for some personal vendetta i can assume. at least when i went after Athens, i stated that i despised them and have not liked them in a long while.

i remember giving you props for coming onto the OWF when GATO reemerged. now that you went to STA you have grown arrogant in your posting and it went down hill to the point where all you are doing here is personally attacking me over something that is much less worse (i know tech raiding is an aggressive war, never stated it wasn't unlike Athens who said specifically "it is not a war, it was a tech raid" and again Raga, you are defending Athens it seems) than what the people you are defending did.

to go with those analogies that happened somewhere in one of the Athens threads- you are defending Athens after they robbed a bank for millions and attempting to demonize me for mugging people on the street and taking a few hundred or less (hell sometimes being counter mugged by the victim). you are defending Athens because should anyone in the bank attempt to defend themselves, Athens would have beat them even harder where as, if my victim punches me in the face and takes my wallet and runs away, i just shrug and walk on.

yeah, i admit i aggressively attack nations for profit, that is the whole point of raiding. but i do have a much more stringent code than those you are defending. if you are not defending Athens, then what have i personally done to you to deserve your attention? honestly, i do feel like you are simply a jester that came for my amusement but i feel that it is much more personal for you. ohs well. i am done with this as i am done with you Raga. i do not need to defend myself against your spin doctoring and your attempts at demonizing me. i did so out of boredom and amusement but i have more important things to do than to deal with your pathetic attempts. have fun reading this wall o text though.

At least you got something right.

oh and you need to most assuredly learn what sarcasm is. that whole sentence was one sarcastic remark. starting with "congrats" going to "good friend" (i don't much like you) and ending with "bested me yet again" see that should have been a clear signal that it was sarcasm, since you have yet to best me. the closest you came was pointing out a mistake in my typing. woo hoo for you i guess. good job pointing out an error i made while doing something else.

again, have fun with the wall o' text. i figured you needed me to break things down Barney style for ya, so i went with ensuring that a kindergartener could understand what i was saying. but then again, you will still most likely spin it and attempt to demonize me so i guess that is saying something about you Raga.

[F15pilotX]

Well, I'd like to see a bit more than one token 3M package from jgoods here: http://www.cybernations.net/search_aid.asp...s+Knights+of+Ni!

At least try and send as much as we sent to Crimson Guard.

But yeah, it's a start.

Yes, it is.

Either way, I'd say KofN has benefited solely because of the random aid from outsiders that weren't happy about the situation, so on their side it might have even helped.

[Bob Janova]

Doch, as a mate, let me just say, I think it's about time to let this drop.

[Haflinger]

Either way, I'd say KofN has benefited solely because of the random aid from outsiders that weren't happy about the situation, so on their side it might have even helped.

According to their alliance chart, they have lost roughly 140K NS, or about one-sixth of their total alliance strength, since the raid began.

[Ragashingo]

i do find it amusing that you are defending Athens in this mess in which they tech raided a 39 man alliance and are attempting to demonize me for having what amounted to a much more stringent tech raid policy than the people you are defending.

I am defending Athens' right to make amends for their mistake. That is all.

My policy on tech raiding has been, for years, that it is wrong in all its shapes and forms.

This fact means that many of your arguments below about irony or my defending one party and demonizing another are misplaced, so I will not be responding to them. As for you, I'm simply expressing my opinions on tech raiding using you and your actions as a central example. If someone were to stand up in your place or with you I would address their actions as well. This is not personal.

but yes, you are right, i am a demon because i understand that tech raiding is an aggressive attack on a sovereign nation and thus allow them to defend themselves once against my one set of attacks. but obviously i am ebil for defending myself after that. right Raga.

Why, in understanding that you are violating their sovereignty, do you only allow them one round of defensive actions? Is it something along the lines of equal and opposite actions? You hurt them once so they get one change to hurt you back, but no more? Whatever the case I think you are being horribly inconsistent in your policies. To me the breach of sovereignty extends as long as your nation and their nation are at war. They don't someone repair their sovereignty by defending themselves against your attacks.

see that is the issue with you. you read into it what you want and go from there. you even stated as such. "it sounded to me" not "this is what was posted". do you see the difference in those two statements? i stated it simply as a fact that i do not ask for reparations from the victim, but also i do not ask for aid from my alliance. the reason for this is i truly do tech raid on my own, at my own risk and on my own dime. in several tech raids, the victim came out ahead.

How much credit should I allow you for not dragging others into your unprovoked attacks when I think the very attacks themselves are wrong? No, you get no bonus points for solo unsupported tech raiding. Not from me anyway.

it shows you are only after me for some personal vendetta i can assume. at least when i went after Athens, i stated that i despised them and have not liked them in a long while.

No personal vendetta. Athens' actions did open up a doorway to a wider discussion on tech raiding, and you have continued to promote the idea that big tech raids are bad but small ones, like the ones you preform, are just fine. I think they are all bad. And again, if someone else were to stand up to defend their tech raids I'd go after them will equal vigor.

i remember giving you props for coming onto the OWF when GATO reemerged. now that you went to STA you have grown arrogant in your posting and it went down hill to the point where all you are doing here is personally attacking me over something that is much less worse (i know tech raiding is an aggressive war, never stated it wasn't unlike Athens who said specifically "it is not a war, it was a tech raid" and again Raga, you are defending Athens it seems) than what the people you are defending did.

I'm not really sure what you liked about me during those GATO times or what you dislike about me now. All I can say is that I have been very consistent in my years around here. I've read logs of myself from three years ago and I use the same phrases, and support the same ideals as I did back then. Fact is I'm not treating you any differently than the countless others I've disagreed with. Perhaps the difference is now I'm disagreeing with you, and calling your actions wrong and inconsistent.

oh and you need to most assuredly learn what sarcasm is. that whole sentence was one sarcastic remark. starting with "congrats" going to "good friend" (i don't much like you) and ending with "bested me yet again" see that should have been a clear signal that it was sarcasm, since you have yet to best me. the closest you came was pointing out a mistake in my typing. woo hoo for you i guess. good job pointing out an error i made while doing something else.

You really think I didn't understand your sarcasm? With all the sarcastic remarks we've exchanged back and forth you think I missed a paragraph that was nothing but sarcasm? Of all your remarks and insults (kindergartner, jester, spin doctor, etc) I think this one is the one that came the closest to offending me.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Ragashingo

[Roadie]

The OP stated that rep amounts would be decided when Ni leadership wakes up. That was four days ago, so I figure unless they're lead by Rip Van Winkle the reps must be listed somewhere in the OWF by now, correct?