Dochartaigh Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 I believe this is the longest reply I've ever read to any one statement in my time here. Also glad the situation was resolved in less time than epic tyga vs do argument. well no worries, that argument is done with as well, at least on my end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 That post is about to collapse in upon itself to become blackhole of text that nobody read. tis not a treatise at all actually. was a reply to Tyga. which is something that i was trying to get through to Tyga in that i am not attempting to justify anything, just state the differences between what ya'll did and what NEW did. so no, no treatise just a wall o' text reply to Tyga. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Holy crap Doch, even I think that's tl;dr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facade Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Doch, lrn2tl;dr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 I read Doch's post. I now feel proud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megabyte Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Talking about how long a post is is at best off-topic and at worst blatant spam. If you have nothing to add, please move along. (That's a verbal to all of you too )): ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avernite Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 seriously? ok, i will break it down then. what Athens did was akin to war, in fact most against what Athens did said it was in fact a CBless war and not just a raid. that is why there was such an outrage against Athens. i myself saw what Athens did as essentially a CBless war due to the fact that it was an alliance wide, organized hit on every or almost every nation in KoN. so if you still do not see a difference, then you are just willingly ignorant. How is a techraid not a CBless war? it's a war, says so on the can, and the CB is 'profit' which is seen as no CB (Since, clearly, Athens sought to profit off attacking KoN too). The only difference is that, in one, you start it against one target so you might get a chance, as a courtesy, to back off and say 'oopsie!' while in the other you will likely get nukes back from day 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 How is a techraid not a CBless war? it's a war, says so on the can, and the CB is 'profit' which is seen as no CB (Since, clearly, Athens sought to profit off attacking KoN too). The only difference is that, in one, you start it against one target so you might get a chance, as a courtesy, to back off and say 'oopsie!' while in the other you will likely get nukes back from day 2. to me, tech raiding is war. what i was discussing is how most of those in the "moral brigade" side felt during the Athens issue. most felt that what Athens did was commit a CBless war especially since it was an alliance wide hit. you cannot say any old tech raid is a cbless war because most tech raiding is done on an individual basis and not with the entire alliance, including gov, behind it. in order for a tech raid to be the same as an actual CBless war, it would need to be done as Athens/FoB did it. organized by gov as an alliance wide effort to hit an entire alliance. a single techraid against even an aligned member is not the equivalent of a CBless war unless from here on out, every alliance should consider a noob, rogue, ghost, etc a CBless war against their alliance? that would be fun. Alliance A- zomg, you just committed a CBless war against us Alliance B.... Alliance B- wait, wha??? Alliance A- you just had someone from your alliance hit a member from my alliance. Alliance B- give us a min... Alliance B- oh, sorry, that dude is new to our alliance, we will get him to peace out and send you some reps. Alliance A- CBLESS WARRRRRRR!!!!11!!!!!!!! that is why a tech raid is usually never considered a CBless war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeRo1 Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 /me slaps Chimaera and Stagger on the wrist Chimaera and Stagger, have i taught you nothing. Quit being big meanies to all the other people! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avernite Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 in order for a tech raid to be the same as an actual CBless war, it would need to be done as Athens/FoB did it. organized by gov as an alliance wide effort to hit an entire alliance. a single techraid against even an aligned member is not the equivalent of a CBless war unless from here on out, every alliance should consider a noob, rogue, ghost, etc a CBless war against their alliance? that would be fun. Alliance A- zomg, you just committed a CBless war against us Alliance B.... Alliance B- wait, wha??? Alliance A- you just had someone from your alliance hit a member from my alliance. Alliance B- give us a min... Alliance B- oh, sorry, that dude is new to our alliance, we will get him to peace out and send you some reps. Alliance A- CBLESS WARRRRRRR!!!!11!!!!!!!! Yeah, and that's why people don't respond to every CB-less war the same exact way; indeed, Alliance A's last response would have been 'good!' in 90% of all cases. If instead B says 'yeah, so?' it proceeds as war since no peace is reached. A ghost is still starting a CBless war, he just does it alone rather than with a group, and thus the AA is not responsible per se. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDragon Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) I support my allies in IAA. Good luck. BD Edited December 16, 2009 by BlackDragon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Yeah, and that's why people don't respond to every CB-less war the same exact way; indeed, Alliance A's last response would have been 'good!' in 90% of all cases. If instead B says 'yeah, so?' it proceeds as war since no peace is reached.A ghost is still starting a CBless war, he just does it alone rather than with a group, and thus the AA is not responsible per se. i am entirely certain that you and i have different meanings as to what a CBless war is. while tech raiding is warring, it is one type of war. there are several types and should not be classified in overlapping manners as you are trying to do. A CBless war is one in which an entire alliance takes part in against another alliance. thus, a tech raid is not a CBless war (heck even if you go by what you write in the war dec space, most tech raiders use some version of Raid-PM for peace) since tech raids are individual wars and not an alliance war. but you can consider it as you wish. but there is not much point in discussing the issue as we are coming in with different meanings to the same thing and i doubt you will change my mind nor i yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desperado Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Just in case ya'll missed it... They did agree to peace found here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facade Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Just in case ya'll missed it... They did agree to peace found here. They didn't miss it. They just enjoy recounting the 100 different things that may have happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 They didn't miss it. They just enjoy recounting the 100 different things that may have happened. That's how it starts. They are about to move on to the 1000 different things that clearly had no chance of happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 A CBless war is one in which an entire alliance takes part in against another alliance I think you just invented that definition. Yeah, it's clear that you and Avernite are disagreeing about semantics and not substance, and largely agree, so this isn't a big point. I would personally say that a tech raid is a war, and since it is without a CB, it's a CB-less war. every alliance should consider a noob, rogue, ghost, etc a CBless war against their alliance? that would be fun. This is actually the case – if someone declares on VE, they get rolled, as they've entered a war with the Entente. Several other (pretty much all, actually) alliances routinely destroy nations that attack a member state of theirs, as they believe that nation has entered a war with them. Of course those examples are different because the declaring entity is one nation, so they aren't really relevant to a situation like this where the declaring entity is enough members of an alliance to make it appear to be a coordinated alliance action. But alliance wars have been started over single nation declarations: NSO-RAD is the recent example of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 Way to stand by your allies TPf.IAA, I'd back down if I were you. Comedy gold. I lol'd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacapo Saladin Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 Comedy gold. I lol'd And the life cycle of the thread is now complete. Starfox has lol'd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattski133 Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 I think you just invented that definition. Yeah, it's clear that you and Avernite are disagreeing about semantics and not substance, and largely agree, so this isn't a big point. I would personally say that a tech raid is a war, and since it is without a CB, it's a CB-less war. Problem is in the case where guidelines for tech-raiding are made in an alliances charter, or official policy, by not meeting those guidelines that particular alliance could either argue that the target is not a recognized alliance, or is an alliance, but the CB is that they don't meet the requirements. When the world police arrive and say that those two reasons are no longer valid, then tech raiding will either end, or the world police will be destroyed in outright war. I suspect it is because the world police are not brave enough or lack the military power to take action, that tech raiding continues. In this case it looks like loss outweighed profit. Personal opinions are not enough to stop the practice, ugly as it can be sometimes. http://forums.cybernations.net/lofiversion...hp/t4878-0.html If that left any doubt as to my beliefs, I nevertheless represent my people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gantanX Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 i fully support my allies at TPF on Supporting my Alliance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 i fully support my allies at TPF on Supporting my Alliance That's a ballsy move. I hope it works out for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 I think you just invented that definition. Yeah, it's clear that you and Avernite are disagreeing about semantics and not substance, and largely agree, so this isn't a big point. I would personally say that a tech raid is a war, and since it is without a CB, it's a CB-less war. This is actually the case – if someone declares on VE, they get rolled, as they've entered a war with the Entente. Several other (pretty much all, actually) alliances routinely destroy nations that attack a member state of theirs, as they believe that nation has entered a war with them. Of course those examples are different because the declaring entity is one nation, so they aren't really relevant to a situation like this where the declaring entity is enough members of an alliance to make it appear to be a coordinated alliance action. But alliance wars have been started over single nation declarations: NSO-RAD is the recent example of that. while what you say is true about nations getting destroyed when they attack an alliance, i was more talking along the lines of the entire alliance being rolled. while this has happened, it is quite rare as most alliances deal with the nation and the gov of the other alliance instead of rolling the entire alliance. as for just inventing the definition, when most of the OWF discusses a CBless war are they discussing tech raids? no. they are discussing an alliance war in which no CB or a very flimsy CB was presented. so no i did not make up any such definition but took what has been the standard definition CN has used for at least hte last 2 or so years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chigurh Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 Not for it or against it, but every single nation leader here knows damn well that there is no "Declare Techraid" button in any of our millitary command centers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 Not for it or against it, but every single nation leader here knows damn well that there is no "Declare Techraid" button in any of our millitary command centers. I have one. It's big, red and says "do not push" in white letters. My advisers tell me it would not be wise to press said button for fear of retribution from the Volcano God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsoxbronco1 Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 I have one. It's big, red and says "do not push" in white letters. My advisers tell me it would not be wise to press said button for fear of retribution from the Volcano God. Mine says "press for OWF tears" 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.