ChairmanHal Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) Boys, boys, boys... *sigh* Section IV: War1. Offensive Wars: \m/ recognizes the sovereignty of each of our nations, members may freely declare war on the following: a. Unaligned nations, that being said you do so at your own nations peril. \m/ is not required to provide assistance (military OR financial) in unauthorized conflicts. Do not write checks your $@! can't cash. b. Any nation listed on the \m/ perpetual ZI list. Moratoriums on offensive wars are sometimes necessary for war preparation, alliance growth efforts, or getting a nation's attention for waging potentially destructive wars. The government may call for a temporary moratorium on all offensive wars. At least three officials (Triumvirate OR Primary Ministers) must agree in order for an immediate moratorium to take effect. No moratorium will last for more than 96 hours from its announcement. Members may NOT declare war on the following without PRIOR authorization from alliance leadership: a. Aligned nations belonging to an alliance. An alliance is hereby defined as a group of 5 or more nations flying the same alliance affiliation. b. Any current members of \m/. c. See EXPULSION if you are thinking about violating this rule. It was so elegant it didn't need a revision, honest. Ok, drop the "perpetual ZI list" reference. Modern times and all. Now on to the whole FOA affair... Back in ancient times we rolled on FAN, Legion, and the like. Heck, I personally even rolled on someone in OBR once because they were aiding a member of FAN and lived to tell about it. Point is, when we went in it was against alliances of size and weight, alliances that were targets that everyone knew. Now \m/ is reduced to rolling on...FOA? Not just rolling on FOA solo, but taking in GOONS and PC with you. Very Compton Ave. of you, but a bit beneath what I would have expected. Of course you will get away with it because I don't think The Corporation will move on this like they should...though I await their next move. As for everyone else calling out \m/ & Co. out here, what exactly do you plan to do about it except complain? I am genuinely curious. EDIT: and yes there is a Compton Ave in New Jerusalem that's very much like one in another place... Edited January 16, 2010 by ChairmanHal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 So you launched an alliance war on some random alliance? No we launched a tech raid on some random alliance, unlike "alliance war" we will not require reparations for peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 all due respect WC, no matter how reasonable and respectful you are about defending your tech raiding policies, people will still dislike you. Tech raiding is just a polarizing issue and there's no way to sugarcoat it. Either both sides agree to disagree and let the other go on living their lives as long as it doesn't bother them, or they come to a head and yell at each other. That's fine, lowering yourself in a debate however does just not look good to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 No we launched a tech raid on some random alliance, unlike "alliance war" we will not require reparations for peace. So you broke your charter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Boys, boys, boys... *sigh*It was so elegant it didn't need a revision, honest. Ok, drop the "perpetual ZI list" reference. Modern times and all. Now on to the whole FOA affair... Back in ancient times we rolled on FAN, Legion, and the like. Heck, I personally even rolled on someone in OBR once because they were aiding a member of FAN and lived to tell about it. Point is, when we went in it was against alliances of size and weight, alliances that were targets that everyone knew. Now \m/ is reduced to rolling on...FOA? Not just rolling on FOA solo, but taking in GOONS and PC with you. Very Compton Ave. of you, but a bit beneath what I would have expected. Of course you will get away with it because I don't think The Corporation will move on this like they should...though I await their next move. As for everyone else calling out \m/ & Co. out here, what exactly do you plan to do about it except complain? I am genuinely curious. EDIT: and yes there is a Compton Ave in New Jerusalem that's very much like one in another place... Corp has already spoken in this thread on that subject. as to a bit beneath what you would have expected, nothing is beneath us, that's how we roll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 So you broke your charter? How so? please explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Meanĕ Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 If anything this should be a valuable lesson to alliances with few treaties. Also hugs and kisses FoA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 I'm also interested as to why GOONS has attacked the alliance of Stupid Newbie. That is their applicant AA I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 How so? please explain? Is the charter posted in the OP not accurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) Of course you will get away with it because I don't think The Corporation will move on this like they should...though I await their next move. As for everyone else calling out \m/ & Co. out here, what exactly do you plan to do about it except complain? I am genuinely curious. Peace has been achieved, and this raid began before we had any affiliation with FoA. What would you have our next move be? We don`t generally feel the need to threaten, especially as there is so much of that going around these days. Edit: Grammar Edited January 16, 2010 by Kevin McDonald Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 If anything this should be a valuable lesson to alliances with few treaties. Also hugs and kisses FoA. What happened to the implied ODP all alliances share? Or is that bluster I hear in optional defensive treaty announcements just all hot air? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Goby Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Boys, boys, boys... *sigh*It was so elegant it didn't need a revision, honest. Ok, drop the "perpetual ZI list" reference. Modern times and all. Now on to the whole FOA affair... Back in ancient times we rolled on FAN, Legion, and the like. Heck, I personally even rolled on someone in OBR once because they were aiding a member of FAN and lived to tell about it. Point is, when we went in it was against alliances of size and weight, alliances that were targets that everyone knew. Now \m/ is reduced to rolling on...FOA? Not just rolling on FOA solo, but taking in GOONS and PC with you. Very Compton Ave. of you, but a bit beneath what I would have expected. Of course you will get away with it because I don't think The Corporation will move on this like they should...though I await their next move. As for everyone else calling out \m/ & Co. out here, what exactly do you plan to do about it except complain? I am genuinely curious. EDIT: and yes there is a Compton Ave in New Jerusalem that's very much like one in another place... Now I know that \m/ is badass and gets the credit for everything, but this raid wasn't our idea. In the spirit of friendship and goodwill we were asked to raid with some bangin' alliances to strengthen bonds and all that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 What happened to the implied ODP all alliances share?Or is that bluster I hear in optional defensive treaty announcements just all hot air? It's optional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Meanĕ Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 What happened to the implied ODP all alliances share?Or is that bluster I hear in optional defensive treaty announcements just all hot air? Don't ask me. I only handle \m/'s hugs and kisses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 I really don't feel like going to a third server, but it's simple. Just try not to be negative towards everyone and respond with more cohesive arguments while remaining respectful. You can still do what you want, just try to show your reasons more clearly and with less direct offense. We're working on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanatar Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 So you broke your charter? The charter states it is 10 members for an individual to tech raid. The Triumvirate has the euthority to mobilize the alliance as they see fit. This has been covered several times by several other members of government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 This has been covered several times by several other members of government. So your alliance launched a war on FoA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanatar Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 We launched a Mass Tech Raid, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 \m/ and friends would have been a lot edgier in doing this if Athens hadn't already done the same thing just a little while back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Is the charter posted in the OP not accurate? Here are the relevant parts of our charter. Our Triumvirate did give majority approval. 1. Inter-alliance war, whether it be aggressive or defensive, is sometimes necessary. A majority approval from the Triumvirate is necessary to declare war. -- tech raid: All wars are tech raids until the game mechanics allow individuals to isolate what is taken or destroyed in war. Since I have seen no activity from NSO in regards to relations with \m/ I'm not really worried about how NSO interprets our charter and the FA implications between \m/ and NSO as there is no relationship there and likely never to be one and with recent history showing NSO isn't willing to back up anything they say with armed conflict I would like to take a moment to direct you back to the bleachers where you belong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 \m/ and friends would have been a lot edgier in doing this if Athens hadn't already done the same thing just a little while back. Athens backed down, we wont, either Bob can accept that unaligned alliances are no different than unaligned nations or........................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanatar Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Holy mother of run on sentences, MM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 We launched a Mass Tech Raid, yes. Here are the relevant parts of our charter. Our Triumvirate did give majority approval. So you launched an alliance war? Since I have seen no activity from NSO in regards to relations with \m/ I'm not really worried about how NSO interprets our charter and the FA implications between \m/ and NSO as there is no relationship there and likely never to be one and with recent history showing NSO isn't willing to back up anything they say with armed conflict I would like to take a moment to direct you back to the bleachers where you belong. So you're hiding behind false bluster and faux bad-assery now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steodonn Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 They e-lawyering in this thread is amazing Unless someone form \m/ complains about the charter been broken then it dosent really matter it their alliance to be run how they want. No one outside of \m/ has the right to attack their internal rules and such. It dosent matter if the charter is broken if \m/ dont care Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) If an alliance is untreated and attractively profitable on our eyes, our Tri grant the permission, were going to hit, regardless of membership size. My point isn't about size, it's about violating an unwritten social rule about "tech raiding" an alliance . I don't care about size either, personally. However, since you bring it up - if size makes NO difference, why put ANY emphasis on treaties other than those \m/ has with others? I mean, when it comes right down to it the big advantage of treaties is that the "size" of the number of people who say they will defend you increases. If \m/ really didn't take size into account, I doubt there would be any restrictions what so ever - including about hitting alliances with treaties. Edited January 16, 2010 by White Chocolate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts