Mark Reynolds Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 Jack Reacher, ruler of the nation of Omar alBashir Land has been expelled from the Grey Council for aid scamming. The following screenshot shows his boasting of his crimes on our forums: Systemfailure was a nuclear rogue who publically issued a one man DoW against us, which can be read here. Evidently, he took losing at the hands of a neutral alliance that didn't have any Manhatten Project owners in his range somewhat hard so he decided to reroll under a different name to continue hassling us. As this new nation was created for the sole purpose of scamming us out of some cash, we are sentencing it to ZI until either of the following conditions is met: Nation deletion Systemfailure/Jack Reacher finds an alliance that is willing to give him yet another chance. Such an alliance would have to ensure that the $9m we lost is returned to us and it would have to provide certain guarantees regarding his future conduct. We know that he is safe from retaliatory attack at the moment because of his low nation size and his retreat into hippy mode when he boasted of being an aid scammer. However, we can wait... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilleus Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 (edited) If I were to personally cover his debt, would that be satisfactory, or would you still require that he join an alliance first? Edited November 18, 2009 by Achilleus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 Awww... Systemfailure. This makes me very sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 Fair justice, GC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Reynolds Posted November 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 If I were to personally cover his debt, would that be satisfactory, or would you still require that he join an alliance first? It's a kind offer, but I am afraid that it would be necessary for an alliance to make those guarantees regarding his future conduct. It doesn't really matter to us whether he joins that alliance. Our problem is that he is developing a pattern of deceitful behaviour. When he went rogue against us in his previous incarnation, he pretended to be willing to pay reperations in return for peace while launching further attacks because he thought it would be funny to string us along and then mock us for giving him a chance for peace. Here is the link to the 'negotiations' thread on our forum: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Grey_Council/i...showtopic=2489. You shouldn't need to be registered to view the thread. He could have decided to reroll and leave us alone, but instead he decided to apply for membership just to cause us more hassle by scamming some aid out of us. He used a different IP address to the one he used last month, which is why we didn't detect his presence until it was too late. We don't see any point in trying to negotiate with him because we believe him to be untrustworthy. This is why a diplomatic solution would have to involve some other alliance promising to make sure that he doesn't try to cause us any more trouble. This would be a pretty serious commitment for that alliance, but it is a diplomatic solution that we used once before and it was successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taget Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 Sorry to see you guys have been put through that. Best of luck GC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmacis Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 As this new nation was created for the sole purpose of scamming us out of some cash, we are sentencing it to ZI until either of the following conditions is met: Nation deletion Systemfailure/Jack Reacher finds an alliance that is willing to give him yet another chance. Such an alliance would have to ensure that the $9m we lost is returned to us and it would have to provide certain guarantees regarding his future conduct. We know that he is safe from retaliatory attack at the moment because of his low nation size and his retreat into hippy mode when he boasted of being an aid scammer. However, we can wait... Good luck enforcing the bolded part. I hope the alliance he joins will be kind enough to give you the cash - because I'm certain some troublemakers out there would love to recruit him for the pleasure of bypassing your conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 Good luck enforcing the bolded part. I hope the alliance he joins will be kind enough to give you the cash - because I'm certain some troublemakers out there would love to recruit him for the pleasure of bypassing your conditions. Like NSO! oh waii... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Fidem Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Hmm... welll i helped you guys the first time and im always looking for a full on war. look me up and i'll go in and do what i do best... http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=283504 i love rogues B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Hmm... welll i helped you guys the first time and im always looking for a full on war. look me up and i'll go in and do what i do best...http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=283504 i love rogues B) Oh Ad, you war-mongerer you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extraduty Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Hmm... welll i helped you guys the first time and im always looking for a full on war. look me up and i'll go in and do what i do best...http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=283504 i love rogues B) HAHA, its my pitbull. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Jack Reacher, ruler of the nation of Omar alBashir Land has been expelled from the Grey Council for aid scamming. The following screenshot shows his boasting of his crimes on our forums: Systemfailure was a nuclear rogue who publically issued a one man DoW against us, which can be read here. Evidently, he took losing at the hands of a neutral alliance that didn't have any Manhatten Project owners in his range somewhat hard so he decided to reroll under a different name to continue hassling us. As this new nation was created for the sole purpose of scamming us out of some cash, we are sentencing it to ZI until either of the following conditions is met: Nation deletion Systemfailure/Jack Reacher finds an alliance that is willing to give him yet another chance. Such an alliance would have to ensure that the $9m we lost is returned to us and it would have to provide certain guarantees regarding his future conduct. We know that he is safe from retaliatory attack at the moment because of his low nation size and his retreat into hippy mode when he boasted of being an aid scammer. However, we can wait... So wait an alliance of 25 nations is going to PZI someone and attempt to enforce it over a measly 9 million? Yeah you guys should venture out to these forums more often Im going to be roasted for this comment but alas, i hope SF does join NSO and they tell you to bugger off with your PZI garbage then i might hate them just oh so less Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Reynolds Posted November 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) So wait an alliance of 25 nations is going to PZI someone and attempt to enforce it over a measly 9 million? Yeah you guys should venture out to these forums more oftenIm going to be roasted for this comment but alas, i hope SF does join NSO and they tell you to bugger off with your PZI garbage then i might hate them just oh so less We don't often post on the CN forums because it means having to deal with people who don't bother to read a post before they hit the reply button. I believe that I made it quite clear that after going rogue against us last month, he created a new nation with the sole purpose of continuing to cause us trouble. I seem to recall that I specifically stated that we would not be pursuing him after nation deletion for what he has done. If you would care to examine his stats, his nation is 9 days old and it has an NS of 861.121. He has put no actual work into developing his nation beyond the minimal amount required to obtain a foreign ministry. I doubt he would regard rerolling to be a major loss, but at least he wouldn't profit from his aid scamming. And we would leave his new nation in peace providing he doesn't cause us any more trouble. He has also been provided with an opportunity to get the sentence lifted if he doesn't want to reroll because we like to give even people like him an alternative to being warred to destruction or an eternity in peace mode. Perhaps you missed that bit? Instead of criticising us for actually being willing to take necessary steps against rogues and scammers, I would suggest that you ask the government of your alliance if they are willing to become the guarantors of his future good conduct towards us. We are offering a diplomatic solution that would make everybody happy. Will you accept? EDIT: I might add that any alliance or bloc that tells us to 'bugger off' as you put it would effectively be giving other alliances and blocs the right to interfere in its future attempts to deal with rogues and scammers as it sees fit. Think about it Edited November 19, 2009 by Mark Reynolds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) So does this mean the Grey Council will no longer be considered a neutral entity? After all, the kind of inter-alliance partnership you seem to be looking for hardly seems neutral to me. Edited November 19, 2009 by Hydro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Reynolds Posted November 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) An interesting question. Such an alliance would only be promising us that he won't be committing any further rogue actions against us as well as making sure that the stolen money is repaid by either himself or others on his behalf. If he were to subsequently break faith with them, then we would expect them to help us to deal with him, but this sort of thing happens in anti-rogue operations every day anyway. While we would expect the promise to be upheld if he moves to a different alliance, it would not apply if we ever find ourselves opposing him in an inter-alliance war, so it isn't as if we would even be signing a NAP. Think of it this way - you guys said you would not to try recruiting from us again after that regrettable incident, but that promise is hardly the same as a military treaty, and neither does it represent a breach of our neutrality. If he genuinely wants a diplomatic solution as opposed to rerolling, his main problem would be that he has no credibility in our eyes. The whole idea of finding an alliance willing to guarantee his future good behaviour is to give him a chance to get round this barrier to a diplomatic solution. In my experience, the NSO keeps to its word and it does like to give another chance to people with a troubled past. If your alliance is interested in this case, maybe you could send me an ingame PM? Edited November 19, 2009 by Mark Reynolds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Just to clarify, I'm not representing my alliance here and, even if I were, I doubt we'd be willing to pay his blood money. It just seemed like an interesting point, because you appear to be walking the line between neutrality and involvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 EDIT: I might add that any alliance or bloc that tells us to 'bugger off' as you put it would effectively be giving other alliances and blocs the right to interfere in its future attempts to deal with rogues and scammers as it sees fit. Think about it Or they could very well be standing up to your BS use of PZI. For those who were asleep a few months ago we fought a big ole war and E/PZI was one of the many things that was nicely put into the closet and hopefully never come out again. So yeah, i hope someone takes in SF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Or they could very well be standing up to your BS use of PZI. For those who were asleep a few months ago we fought a big ole war and E/PZI was one of the many things that was nicely put into the closet and hopefully never come out again.So yeah, i hope someone takes in SF "BS use of PZI"? Seriously? This guy rogued on them and then re-rolled just to damage them more by aid-scamming. If this isn't a textbook case for PZI (hell, EZI is more appropriate), I don't know what is. Systemfailure has clearly demonstrated that if let off he is most likely just going to build up and attack GC again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tequila Mockingbird Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Now I remember why nations were sent to permanent zero infrastructure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vyenna Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Or they could very well be standing up to your BS use of PZI. For those who were asleep a few months ago we fought a big ole war and E/PZI was one of the many things that was nicely put into the closet and hopefully never come out again.So yeah, i hope someone takes in SF I don't understand where you got PZI from? We've never said anything about that. We've said good ol' regular ZI until either his nation is deleted, or someone guarantees for his conduct. If either of those two happen, the sentence is lifted. How is that PZI? He got ZI'ed on his previous nation for going nuclear rogue on us, and is getting ZI'ed now for aid scamming (bearing in mind he rerolled to cause us further trouble). So where you got PZI from I don't know, but I recommend reading our posts again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilkenny Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 I don't understand where you got PZI from? We've never said anything about that. We've said good ol' regular ZI until either his nation is deleted, or someone guarantees for his conduct. If either of those two happen, the sentence is lifted. How is that PZI? He got ZI'ed on his previous nation for going nuclear rogue on us, and is getting ZI'ed now for aid scamming (bearing in mind he rerolled to cause us further trouble). So where you got PZI from I don't know, but I recommend reading our posts again. Because you don't participate on the OWF very much, you might have missed all the long winded discussions about this. ZI is a single trip to Zero infra, PZI is keeping them at ZI until they Delete, and EZI is chasing them across re-rolls. What you are doing is PZI, but you are giving him a way out of it. Don't get me wrong, this is clearly a case for the use of PZI. I wish you luck in this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freelancer Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 "BS use of PZI"? Seriously? This guy rogued on them and then re-rolled just to damage them more by aid-scamming. If this isn't a textbook case for PZI (hell, EZI is more appropriate), I don't know what is. Systemfailure has clearly demonstrated that if let off he is most likely just going to build up and attack GC again. wickedj, the one thing I hold dear in this game would never contradict a treatie partner in public, especially one who were tied so tightly, however GC has a valid and justified case here in my eyes, not only do I think the act of PZI or EZI is a deplorable action, there are always exceptions to the rules. Systemfailure, (a perfect name in this situation) as Nofish said " has clearly demonstrated that if let off he is most likely just going to build up and attack GC again" I'm with my maroon brother over at GOD, GC needs to show this individual what the true meaning of re-roll is, that means keep your past "character" and all its grudge's, crimes, ect where they belong, with his previous "character" BTW wickedj, if your unaware, GC invented PZI, if anyone has the right to use it, it should be them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vyenna Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Because you don't participate on the OWF very much, you might have missed all the long winded discussions about this. ZI is a single trip to Zero infra, PZI is keeping them at ZI until they Delete, and EZI is chasing them across re-rolls.What you are doing is PZI, but you are giving him a way out of it. Don't get me wrong, this is clearly a case for the use of PZI. I wish you luck in this. Aha, I suppose I interpreted "permanent" to mean across rerolls, or confusing E- and PZI, no doubt because of lack of participation on the official forums. Thank you for the consideration and clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) "BS use of PZI"? Seriously? This guy rogued on them and then re-rolled just to damage them more by aid-scamming. If this isn't a textbook case for PZI (hell, EZI is more appropriate), I don't know what is. Systemfailure has clearly demonstrated that if let off he is most likely just going to build up and attack GC again. And PZI'ing people only makes things better..i mean EZI never created any alliances devoted to spying on those who have EZI'd them. I'm against E/PZI sue me....if SF really wants to make GC's life hell he'll keep rerolling and keep doing what hes doing how is PZI going to stop him I don't understand where you got PZI from? We've said good ol' regular ZI until either his nation is deleted You're new around here arent ya BTW wickedj, if your unaware, GC invented PZI, if anyone has the right to use it, it should be them. Didn't know that, but my objection still stands Aha, I suppose I interpreted "permanent" to mean across rerolls, or confusing E- and PZI, no doubt because of lack of participation on the official forums. Thank you for the consideration and clarification. Maybe my definitions are screwed up but PZI is for the life of this nation and EZI is..well..for life Edited November 19, 2009 by wickedj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Arouet Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 If this isn't a textbook case for PZI (hell, EZI is more appropriate), I don't know what is. Nothing is. I, like Wicked, thought we had more or less banished that scourge from our world. 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.