Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 If they were weak you would raid alone. By that logic you could get 20 alliances together and raid MK & TOP because they would be "weak" by comparison. Good lord, you just described the Karma war. Thanks for the spelling tune up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChimpMasterFlash Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Jones, your post confuses, what the hell is your point? Never is a point My point is that for as much as atanatar or whatever claimed that people were posting only to demand respect for the existence of their alliance, everyone in \m/ does the same, except they try to pass off their commentary as them being "too cool for school" while pretending that they don't care who respects them.Y'all are hypocrites. Again, the irony is uncanny. I think respect, caring about respect and anything in relation to respect is not an issue even though you are trying real hard to make it one. What happened to the pacifist AJ you claimed to have morphed into? While you may lable some of us hypocrites your issue is much more acute as in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted January 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Good lord, you just described the Karma war.Thanks for the spelling tune up. I dont do that, I meant your definition of week/weak not the spelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 I dont do that, I meant your definition of week/weak not the spelling. But you did describe most of the major wars, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted January 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 But you did describe most of the major wars, no? Most wars but not all. However you weren't describing wars you were talking about attacking alliances for no (read CB) reason. Well written post, I believe you are spot on. To answer your question, I believe and promote that its not only our right, but more so our duty to feed off the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Most wars but not all. However you weren't describing wars you were talking about attacking alliances for no (read CB) reason. That is were you are wrong, we had a very good reason, profit in the form of Tech, Land and Money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanatar Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 If they were weak you would raid alone. By that logic you could get 20 alliances together and raid MK & TOP because they would be "weak" by comparison. you also have to factor in MK/TOP's allies and their associations with us, but yes. You perfectly described raiding as to what it can be used for: a political tool and a socio-economic force. Reviling and casting it down only robs other alliances of the opportunity to use these tools to further them selves. With that in mind, who here is the tyrant, seeking to keep the downtrodden oppressed? Not us, surely. We live by example, and hope to teach other alliances through such. You may now greet me as a liberator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) you also have to factor in MK/TOP's allies and their associations with us, but yes. You perfectly described raiding as to what it can be used for: a political tool and a socio-economic force. Reviling and casting it down only robs other alliances of the opportunity to use these tools to further them selves. With that in mind, who here is the tyrant, seeking to keep the downtrodden oppressed? Not us, surely. We live by example, and hope to teach other alliances through such. You may now greet me as a liberator. Interesting. If a bunch of alliances got together and tech raided you, what would be your response? Would you make a formal declaration of war, just tech raid them back, or would you do something else? Edited January 16, 2010 by Kzoppistan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Interesting. If a bunch of alliances got together and tech raided you, what would be your response? Would you make a formal declaration of war, just tech raid them back, or would you do something else? All wars are tech raids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 All wars are tech raids. Ah, so would you make a formal declaration or just retaliate without one, or something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Ah, so would you make a formal declaration or just retaliate without one, or something else? I would hope "something else" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Well its a harsh world. Anyway, though, to respond to the OP. It is not decisive that metal alliance broke their charter. You see, it is by all means plausible that the war against +30 members alliance in question is goverment sanctioned. I take it that that clause in metal alliance's charter prohibits members to declare war on nations which are part of +10 members alliances on their own accords. Yes, I didn't read the topic so if this was already covered and metal alliances goverment said how they cleared this, then I am late to point to that. While it is a standard to announce DoW's on alliances on this medium, one can do without as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 I would hope "something else" Anything in specific? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanatar Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) And we have a first strike policy. If an alliance seeks to raid us, so be it. But they can expect escalation past the normal guidelines of tech raiding. If a nation seeks to raid us, they have the right, much like we have the right to sentence them to a one time ZI. @Branimir: yes, that about covers it. Thnk you for saving me the effort required in quoting my previous post explaining the various ways this tech raid was legal by our charter. Edited January 16, 2010 by Atanatar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 And we have a first strike policy. If an alliance seeks to raid us, so be it. But they can expect escalation past the normal guidelines of tech raiding. If a nation seeks to raid us, they have the right, much like we have the right to sentence them to a one time ZI. Sounds like a solid plan. Thanks for the reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Green Giant Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 And we have a first strike policy. If an alliance seeks to raid us, so be it. But they can expect escalation past the normal guidelines of tech raiding. If a nation seeks to raid us, they have the right, much like we have the right to sentence them to a one time ZI. This is quite funny so you are basically saying "Hey lil guy sit there while we take your cookies but if you fight back were gonna drop nukes on you" but In the end \M/ is correct they can do this. There is no rule in CN that says they cant, in fact they have every right to do this but in the end its still a poor show of character as well as a poor show of what they believe in. In the end anyone who is sitting here saying "STOP" or any threats should either actually do something or stop posting in this thread. The people who allow tech raiding at this size will eventually make a mistake and pay for it but its a waist of time to simply speak and do nothing. WALK THE WALK OR DONT TALK THE TALK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 So what you're saying is that for such alliances, any alliance that has insufficient 'connections' can have no guarantee of peaceful security. That is a threat to global security. Just because we can sit in our comfortable, protected alliances today does not mean that the world is secure. Such attitudes lead the the acceptance of acts like the Viridicide.I do not support raiding of alliances in any form, and those who attempt to push the boundaries of common consensus further towards acceptance of unprovoked war against alliances should be stopped from doing so. man, that is always hasit has worked here. Unaligned gets raided all the time just for being there. Small alliances gets hit every day for not having treaties or being big enough to defend themselves from raiders. This "moral outrage" against raiding is cute. Criticizing the actions of a few over the actions of many. \m/, PC, and GOONS tech raid, but so do many, many more people and alliances, so why not search teh war screens every day and criticize every alliance who participates in tech raids instead of just jumping on the bandwagon here and saying "when \m/, PC, and GOONS tech raid its wrong". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 man, that is always hasit has worked here. Unaligned gets raided all the time just for being there. Small alliances gets hit every day for not having treaties or being big enough to defend themselves from raiders.This "moral outrage" against raiding is cute. Criticizing the actions of a few over the actions of many. \m/, PC, and GOONS tech raid, but so do many, many more people and alliances, so why not search teh war screens every day and criticize every alliance who participates in tech raids instead of just jumping on the bandwagon here and saying "when \m/, PC, and GOONS tech raid its wrong". Most alliances have the good sense to learn from their mistakes, that's why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Most alliances have the good sense to learn from their mistakes, that's why. You imply we made a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 just to clarify from my earlier posts ......... I could care less about goons and pc's involvments in this ....... I just wanted an explanation about m disregarding the quoted section of their charter.marxie(and the rest of m) made it clear their charter is just useless propoganda and they do whatever they want when they want regardless of what any paper says..........this has been noted and filed for future reference and anyone with any dealings with them be it an ally or an opponent should keep this in mind. thank you, CtG \m/ even in the old \m/, has never taken the charter as 100% word. It's pretty flexible to allow us to do as we see fit, with basic guidelines. I can understand you using this reasoning for other alliances, but as it is, the sole interpreter of the \m/ charter because of this, is pretty much \m/. Though next time, we'll just make our charter: "Deal with it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 I do believe you're giving your alliance FAR more credit than it rightly deserves. And you're confusing the NPO with the NpO, as it was the NpO that lead the charge, and NPO was largely on the sidelines for that war. NPO was certainly not on the sidelines. They directly attacked several members of the Unjust Highway coalition, gave their full diplomatic support behind ~, and their leaders were in the planning stages with ~ leadership. They were directly involved. You are right that NpO led the charge, but NPO was there and involved as well. But he does have a point. As soon as the Unjust Path was gone, BLEU took our place. As soon as BLEU was gone, Continuum took our place. THe might makes right mindset and the "if you don't like us do something about it" mentality has stood firm in the face of all the "bad guys" who used such monicers in the past. Please, feel free to return that fake rage towards \m/, PC, and GOONS, and get a real crusade, because this has been done before. You remind me of benjamin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) Criticizing the actions of a few over the actions of many. \m/, PC, and GOONS tech raid, but so do many, many more people and alliances, so why not search teh war screens every day and criticize every alliance who participates in tech raids instead of just jumping on the bandwagon here and saying "when \m/, PC, and GOONS tech raid its wrong". He has a leg to call metal alliance out, though, because this isn't an act of individual nation tech raiding entirely under their own accords as their alliance allow them to, because per metal alliance's charter, this tech raid is an alliance on alliance war, goverment approved with a reason for war "tech raiding." He may think this to be a lousy reason for alliance on alliance war. Or, some members of metal alliance broke their charter. Edited January 16, 2010 by Branimir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Green Giant Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 man, that is always hasit has worked here. Unaligned gets raided all the time just for being there. Small alliances gets hit every day for not having treaties or being big enough to defend themselves from raiders.This "moral outrage" against raiding is cute. Criticizing the actions of a few over the actions of many. \m/, PC, and GOONS tech raid, but so do many, many more people and alliances, so why not search teh war screens every day and criticize every alliance who participates in tech raids instead of just jumping on the bandwagon here and saying "when \m/, PC, and GOONS tech raid its wrong". I agree with most of what you say but many are not saying simply tech raiding is wrong, what most people are saying is that tech raiding an alliance who is over 500k and 20 members is wrong. When you think about it an alliance at that size can now be considered an alliance heck most Protectorates are upgraded at 500k. So this isnt an alliance that simply cant defend it self but an alliance who has no treaty's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 He has a leg to call metal alliance out, though, because this isn't an act of individual nation tech raiding entirely under their own accords as their alliance allow them to, because per metal alliance's charter, this tech raid is an alliance on alliance war, goverment approved with a reason for war "tech raiding." He may think this to be a lousy reason for alliance on alliance war. Or, some members of metal alliance broke their charter. Congrats, you came in on the tail end of this and made great sense of it. PS Hai Branimir, good to see you out and about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 I agree with most of what you say but many are not saying simply tech raiding is wrong, what most people are saying is that tech raiding an alliance who is over 500k and 20 members is wrong. When you think about it an alliance at that size can now be considered an alliance heck most Protectorates are upgraded at 500k. So this isnt an alliance that simply cant defend it self but an alliance who has no treaty's. What is the "accepted limit" on alliance size for tech raiding? Is this a age of consent like issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts