Tick1 Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Okay, so if the raid consisted of four 10 man alliance would it be different than the Knights of Ni! situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Wasn't all of this settled days ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 One nation accounts for .00388% of CN's general population at the moment. Thirty-Nine nations accounts for .151% of CN's general population. Those numbers are such a small fraction of the Cybernations. Would you eat an apple that has a 1/25775 chance of killing you? Probably not. Would you eat an apple that has a 39/25775 chance of killing you? Probably not. So why oh why can't you grasp the fact that 1 is hardly different that 39 when there are an infinite amount of numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Orly?Who is revisioning now? Because it was, in fact, just a mass techraid. The amount of raids doesn't make it an alliance declaration of war. Attacking an actual alliance is not a tech raid. It's flat out war, regardless of whether or not nukes/CM's are used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Attacking an actual alliance is not a tech raid. It's flat out war, regardless of whether or not nukes/CM's are used. Once again that is in your opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Attacking an actual alliance is not a tech raid. It's flat out war, regardless of whether or not nukes/CM's are used. Right. If I "raid"/attack a two man AA, do I need to post a DoW first, or is it "just" a techraid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 You would be declaring war upon an alliance, assuming you (as MoFA) are capable of sanctioning such things. The only difference is most people don't care about such tiny alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 You would be declaring war upon an alliance, assuming you (as MoFA) are capable of sanctioning such things. The only difference is most people don't care about such tiny alliances. Why? Is it because they don't have any treaties? Or because you feel they are insignificant in the CN community? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Tick, I swear you're a plant by an alliance hostile to C&G, trying to make FoB look bad. The original issue was dead and the bad PR wearing off until you chose to re-ignite it in here. The first picture is the most important one. If anyone impersonated Penkala would he not have nuked them on the first day (24 hours)? Quite simply this proves that he was not impersonated. What? This makes no sense. The impersonator could have come up with his scheme at any point during the span of the war. So why oh why can't you grasp the fact that 1 is hardly different that 39 when there are an infinite amount of numbers. There are not an infinite amount of nations. There are a very finite number, and attacking 39 of them is 39 times worse than attacking 1. In addition, nations not in an alliance are often not counted as part of the international community (they are raided freely by many established alliances), so you could say that raiding unaligned nations is actually affecting 0 out of the 10000 or so nations in the political sphere, whereas raiding a 40 nation alliance is affecting 40/10000. It's still a small proportion, but it's still an established alliance and that's what makes it a bad precedent to allow. And you still haven't touched the point (because you can't refute it, what with it being true) that discussing whether Penkala is or is not hypocritical doesn't make what you did any better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Tick, I swear you're a plant by an alliance hostile to C&G, trying to make FoB look bad. The original issue was dead and the bad PR wearing off until you chose to re-ignite it in here.What? This makes no sense. The impersonator could have come up with his scheme at any point during the span of the war. There are not an infinite amount of nations. There are a very finite number, and attacking 39 of them is 39 times worse than attacking 1. In addition, nations not in an alliance are often not counted as part of the international community (they are raided freely by many established alliances), so you could say that raiding unaligned nations is actually affecting 0 out of the 10000 or so nations in the political sphere, whereas raiding a 40 nation alliance is affecting 40/10000. It's still a small proportion, but it's still an established alliance and that's what makes it a bad precedent to allow. And you still haven't touched the point (because you can't refute it, what with it being true) that discussing whether Penkala is or is not hypocritical doesn't make what you did any better. That hasn't been touched, or refuted, because we all know that, and that's not the point anybody has been trying to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Once again that is in your opinion. So you're not sorry for what your alliance did? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 There are not an infinite amount of nations. There are a very finite number, and attacking 39 of them is 39 times worse than attacking 1. In addition, nations not in an alliance are often not counted as part of the international community (they are raided freely by many established alliances), so you could say that raiding unaligned nations is actually affecting 0 out of the 10000 or so nations in the political sphere, whereas raiding a 40 nation alliance is affecting 40/10000. It's still a small proportion, but it's still an established alliance and that's what makes it a bad precedent to allow.And you still haven't touched the point (because you can't refute it, what with it being true) that discussing whether Penkala is or is not hypocritical doesn't make what you did any better. Why the hell does it matter that they're not in an established alliance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireandthepassion Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 If he really meant what he said, there's a [OOC] block/report feature. Why? The nuke probably made the nukee quite upset, and well emo tears are delicious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Tick, I swear you're a plant by an alliance hostile to C&G, trying to make FoB look bad. The original issue was dead and the bad PR wearing off until you chose to re-ignite it in here.What? This makes no sense. The impersonator could have come up with his scheme at any point during the span of the war. There are not an infinite amount of nations. There are a very finite number, and attacking 39 of them is 39 times worse than attacking 1. In addition, nations not in an alliance are often not counted as part of the international community (they are raided freely by many established alliances), so you could say that raiding unaligned nations is actually affecting 0 out of the 10000 or so nations in the political sphere, whereas raiding a 40 nation alliance is affecting 40/10000. It's still a small proportion, but it's still an established alliance and that's what makes it a bad precedent to allow. And you still haven't touched the point (because you can't refute it, what with it being true) that discussing whether Penkala is or is not hypocritical doesn't make what you did any better. Well Bob Janova, thanks for your time. My point is that Penkala's action are no better than ours not that our actions are redeemed by his screw-up. I also disagree that raiding Knights of Ni! played any major difference in the political sphere considering they aren't connected to the political sphere in any shape, way or form. Now please would you actually look at it from Penkala's point of view this time while I explain my opinion on how he was not impersonated. If Penkala knew that someone impersonated him on IRC, he would have been going in guns blazing. Correct me if I'm wrong. So Why on earth would he have sent peace after the first two ground attacks? Answer that question and then I'll quit posting in this thread Bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Why? Is it because they don't have any treaties? Or because you feel they are insignificant in the CN community? The NSO does not raid alliances, so I'm not the guy to ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 (edited) Well Bob Janova, thanks for your time. My point is that Penkala's action are no better than ours not that our actions are redeemed by his screw-up. Um no I don't believe you're redeemed for Penkala's tech raid, according to all your responses. I also disagree that raiding Knights of Ni! played any major difference in the political sphere considering they aren't connected to the political sphere in any shape, way or form. If that's the case then why are we discussing it here right now after all this agruments? Also are you in FoB Gov.? Edited November 21, 2009 by kevin32891 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 (edited) If Penkala knew that someone impersonated him on IRC, he would have been going in guns blazing. Correct me if I'm wrong. So Why on earth would he have sent peace after the first two ground attacks? Answer that question and then I'll quit posting in this thread Bob. Because it started as a normal raid, 2 GAs and peace. Some time later, someone came to Penkala in IRC pretending to be this guy and got him to flip out. You're welcome. I also disagree that raiding Knights of Ni! played any major difference in the political sphere considering they aren't connected to the political sphere in any shape, way or form. Except that treaty with M*A*S*H, lol. But even if that was the case, you're still wrong – raiding independent alliances affects all independent alliances or even micro-blocs and would drive everyone to tie in to the MDP web, because it would leave them in fear of being attacked for nothing. Edit: Vilien, it matters because that's where the international community has drawn the line. I don't agree with any raiding, but I'm not the sole arbiter of morality. Edited November 21, 2009 by Bob Janova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 (edited) So, while Athens bowed out, apologised and made all the effort to make this bad thing go away. The alliance[FoB] who recieved the least backlash is now doing the opposite and making things worse for themselves. I'm not keen on gag orders, but I'd sure as hell recommend one right about now. Edited November 21, 2009 by Johnny Apocalypse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nutkase Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 So, while Athens bowed out, apologised and made all the effort to make this bad thing go away. The alliance[FoB] who recieved the least backlash is now doing the opposite and making things worse for themselves.I'm not keen on gag orders, but I'd sure as hell recommend one right about now. This man speaks the truth. This thread is as useful as a bucket of puke, Unavailable Contact the more you post the more I seem to dislike your methods. Penkala I would of done exactly the same thing if in your position, threats of that nature never go down well for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Yeah, they should be able to raid whoever they like. How about members of Ragnarok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choader Posted November 22, 2009 Report Share Posted November 22, 2009 So, while Athens bowed out, apologised and made all the effort to make this bad thing go away. The alliance[FoB] who recieved the least backlash is now doing the opposite and making things worse for themselves.I'm not keen on gag orders, but I'd sure as hell recommend one right about now. I fully agree on both points. Buccaneers, this thread is dead to us. That goes for all of you. 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.