TheListener Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Then I guess that's not the same as not speaking to anybody, is it? While that may be true they did speak to others in ZDP, TOP, and NEW. I do believe they called the IAA out here, am I mistken? that still leaves the question of why was absolutely no one in the IAA contacted before TPF decided it was time to posture towards the IAA? The Loris Hungers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcades057 Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Ohhhhh he went there..... jeez, just keeps digging that hole deeper and deeper You're the only one who sees a hole, Grimmus. Maybe you've eaten too many hamgurgers today to have an unbiased opinion of your once-and-apparently-still-enemy. Nice that former Hegemony alliances and leaders are getting a second chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarikmo Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Ohhhhh he went there..... jeez, just keeps digging that hole deeper and deeper You are a very bad person Keve, c'mon grab a shovel, help out! Make sure it's 6 feet deep, add another foot to make sure that he stays! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Well, ZDP actually defended themselves, and KoN! didn't have an alliance attempt to defend them/weren't originally a rogue alliance, but yes, this is quite similar. I recall some sabre rattling about attacking Athens over their raid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 You have my nukes, Chimaera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChimpMasterFlash Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 You have my nukes, Chimaera. he can't have your nukes when you already promised them to me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
empirica Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 I find it somewhat amusing that NEW appears to expect ZDP to not expect reparations since NEW's actions were within their Charter. But when ZDP tried to explain that accepting a raid was unacceptable to their charter, ZDP gets told their Charter isn't international law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) Tyga, I'm going to have to ask you to change your avatar. I got caught up watching it and 2 pages were written in the meantime. I can't continue like this. I has rhythm and it is hypnotic! Edited December 16, 2009 by Tygaland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarikmo Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 I has rhythym and it is hypnotic! Good sir, your fat cat can wait, IAA is being accused for their most serious crimes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 I has rhythym and it is hypnotic! I'm with him. That avater must be a violation of some sort of something! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 i would say that there are some differences. for one, Penkala does not like Athens. two, mhawk is allied to NEW and this thread is calling out IAA and not NEW. three, ZDP fought back and had members of other alliances leave their alliances and join them to help defend them, as well as IAA was working on a peaceful resolution. four, Athens did not even attempt to start talks until after Penkala's thread, where as this thread seems to be a direct result of talks that are ongoing. so i would say it is only reasonable that the reaction is quite different. Mhawk is more a Penakala/Archon hybrid if you want to be pedantic. But I'm glad you cleared up that defending yourself from being raided is bad and punishable by the removal of any possiblity of being compensated for the damage done to your member nations during the raid. I really do struggle with what constitutes a "fair and just" raid on an alliance and an "evil and disgraceful" raid on an alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 I recall some sabre rattling about attacking Athens over their raid. That's true. I didn't want to read the entire thread, but even the bits I did read had a lot of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desperado Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 I disappear for a few days and mhawk's gone and rolled another Hard Six. Is it a coincidence that I come back and Trouble starts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarikmo Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 I disappear for a few days and mhawk's gone and rolled another Hard Six. Is it a coincidence that I come back and Trouble starts? What makes you think this is trouble? We are just having a little conversation on a few accusations. It's not like there was a lack of diplomacy, calling others out, and some guy going and using sarcasm in every post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keve69 Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 You're the only one who sees a hole, Grimmus. Maybe you've eaten too many hamgurgers today to have an unbiased opinion of your once-and-apparently-still-enemy.Nice that former Hegemony alliances and leaders are getting a second chance. /OOC/ Strangely enough I actually got food poisoning at McDonalds as a kid.... /OOC/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 I find it somewhat amusing that NEW appears to expect ZDP to not expect reparations since NEW's actions were within their Charter. But when ZDP tried to explain that accepting a raid was unacceptable to their charter, ZDP gets told their Charter isn't international law. I was thinking the exact same thing while having a deja vù of the situation. One would think NEW had learned before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lennox Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 You got balls son. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperium of Poliz Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 NEW Protectorate member here. We'd love to see peace, but we'll eagerly stand by NEW if there's a proper war, maybe bite a few ankles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coven Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) Excuse me? Did you just come out and say this was an attempt to threaten IAA? Glad you're admitting it.For the record, TPF has clearly not spent any time trying to resolve the matter diplomatically, considering your leader called my alliance out as warmongers without taking the time to actually get his facts straight or talk to anyone within the Empire. Myself and Jbone worked nearly all of the afternoon yesterday alongside TOP and with NEW, while Jbone communicated with ZDP, in an attempt to find a peaceful solution, it was Jbone whom talked NEW into the initial peace, where NEW peaced out the three wars. It was ZDP whom escalated when rogues from other alliances struck NEW, and peace was again broken. So don't even begin to say TPF hasn't tried to solve this diplomatically. We are still working that front, and hope that is how this ends, diplomatically. We were asked by TOP to try to intervene, and see if we could get NEW to have peace. To be quite honest, until mid-this afternoon, we had absolutely no idea the IAA was even involved, we thought we were working the diplomacy and peace front solo as far as mediating was concerned. Edited December 16, 2009 by Airikr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loannes Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 TPF, you seem to have an itch for war. Sorry, but we won't be scratching it for you. You can stop asking now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AUT Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 I was thinking the exact same thing while having a deja vù of the situation. One would think NEW had learned before. Lusi, English isn't NEW's first language. Of course this is not an excuse but it's likely a mishap happened. Reps were agreed too, NEW heard something and didn't fully comprehend what it meant, etc. I'd like to see a NEW spokesman come in and just settle this issue and offer up reps to ZDP as originally intended but something tells me this facetious and sarcastic banter will continue on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) I understand and agree with the right of ZDP defend themselves against raiders, but using a different foreign standard(no having treaties) than the rest of cyberverse will make that them have to face this situation every week(First GOONS now NEW) because raiders will see them as easy targets. ZDP also will have to accept the allies of raiders joining to defend them against ZDP attacks. I see 3 solutions for this: 1- Do as everyone else and sign treaties. 2- Show that you don't need treaties to your friends help you. 3- Fight alone and outnumbered every time that someone raid one of your alliances and refuse to pay reps. Now I fail to understand why TPF created this thread(I saw their reasons but they are ) Edited December 16, 2009 by D34th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) where NEW peaced out the three wars The three wars ... which are not peaced out? . I think we all hope it ends diplomatically. The ball is in NEW's court and your aggressive posturing will only make them less likely to make the necessary concessions, because they believe that daddy TPF will bail them out if their disgraceful antics provoke a response from a third party. Edit: AUT, read the thread. Logs were shown which clearly show NEW know what they're doing. Also, just peacing out is not sufficient. You wouldn't accept that if I attacked your alliance, why should ZDP? Taking the 'PM for peace' is putting up a big sign that says 'RAID ME'. Edited December 16, 2009 by Bob Janova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Kane Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Myself and Jbone worked nearly all of the afternoon yesterday alongside TOP and with NEW, while Jbone communicated with ZDP, in an attempt to find a peaceful solution, it was Jbone whom talked NEW into the initial peace, where NEW peaced out the three wars. It was ZDP whom escalated when rogues from other alliances struck NEW. So don't even begin to say TPF hasn't tried to solve this diplomatically. We are still working that front, and hope that is how this ends, diplomatically. I believe the point you are trying to explain has been debunked already. We retaliated on the raiders only, it is NEW that added fuel to the fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarikmo Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 TPF, you seem to have an itch for war. Sorry, but we won't be scratching it for you. You can stop asking now. The more you resist, the stronger the itch gets. Give in, peace is only obtainable in war! Not that we are in peacetime now or anything... 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.