ChairmanHal Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 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 Since the raid is over it no longer matters, but if you are taking on a protectorate under fire, the right thing to do is to consult your allies in the event that you have to go on the offensive to make the raids stop. Assuming they are on board with you (and if they aren't, why did you take on a protectorate under fire in the first place...?), your next step is to communicate privately to the government(s) of the raiders that military action will be taken against any nation that declare after update and that all raiders currently with a DoW in place should peace out ASAP. Most importantly don't threaten, inform of consequences for actions and move to action. There are far too many yapping dogs on the OWRP as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) \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........................ Answer accepted, even if you - in fact - already have backed down. Hear that Londo? \m/ is just a perfected version of Athens. Edited January 16, 2010 by heggo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) 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 People have at least as much "right" to "attack" their internal rules as \m/ does to literally attack another alliance, and by the same reasoning. Edited January 16, 2010 by White Chocolate 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?So you're hiding behind false bluster and faux bad-assery now? You know, why don't you get a copy of the recruitment message I recently sent your Dark Lord, it clearly explains postion on issues like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Meanĕ Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 This is the first I've heard of an unwritten rule about not tech raiding alliances. Guess I've been hanging out with the wrong crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Marcelle Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 No one should expect any kind of honor or class from the likes of \m/ . I hope to see them wiped off the face of Cybernations again. They cry like scared children when the find themselves on the losing side. Its a great side to behold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 So you launched an alliance war?So you're hiding behind false bluster and faux bad-assery now? What difference does it matter whether it's called an alliance war or a tech raid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Answer accepted, even if you - in fact - already have backed down. Hear that Londo? \m/ is just a perfected version of Athens. How did we back down? It was tech raid, we had offered peace prior The Corp popping up on the Radar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 No one should expect any kind of honor or class from the likes of \m/ . I hope to see them wiped off the face of Cybernations again. They cry like scared children when the find themselves on the losing side. Its a great side to behold. Coming from the person who's crying about lack of honor or class and isn't doing anything to stop them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 No one should expect any kind of honor or class from the likes of \m/ . I hope to see them wiped off the face of Cybernations again. They cry like scared children when the find themselves on the losing side. Its a great side to behold. Bring it loud mouth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanatar Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) 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. This was answered in a previous conversation. 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? 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. In short: size does not matter. If neccessary, we will tech raid any alliance regardless of size or connections should it prove prudent and neccessary to do so in order to secure our alliance, and we will do so with all means at our disposal. Edited January 16, 2010 by Atanatar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 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. You well know the living abortion called the "treaty web" prohibits what you are referring to. although if I could find allies of sufficient size there are a few tech heavy alliances I would like to raid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Since the raid is over it no longer matters, but if you are taking on a protectorate under fire, the right thing to do is to consult your allies in the event that you have to go on the offensive to make the raids stop. Assuming they are on board with you (and if they aren't, why did you take on a protectorate under fire in the first place...?), your next step is to communicate privately to the government(s) of the raiders that military action will be taken against any nation that declare after update and that all raiders currently with a DoW in place should peace out ASAP. Most importantly don't threaten, inform of consequences for actions and move to action. There are far too many yapping dogs on the OWRP as it is. I appreciate it, but we don`t take on protectorates or any allies lightly. We took this protectorate on, though under fire, with the full support of the attacking parties. The 7 day temporary order is to ensure we take the time to get to know FoA properly, and they us, so we DON`T place our allies into the type of situation you describe above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 I appreciate it, but we don`t take on protectorates or any allies lightly. We took this protectorate on, though under fire, with the full support of the attacking parties. The 7 day temporary order is to ensure we take the time to get to know FoA properly, and they us, so we DON`T place our allies into the type of situation you describe above. Well said! Funny everyone trying to create conflict where none exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 How did we back down? It was tech raid, we had offered peace prior The Corp popping up on the Radar. Well then how did Athens back down? Actually, never mind. The point is that y'all and Athens are basically the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Well then how did Athens back down?Actually, never mind. The point is that y'all and Athens are basically the same thing. Athens was forced to pay reps while \m/ attacked then offered peace and everything was settled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salithus Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Just posting to thank Kevin for his reasonable approach and grasp on reality during this event. It was quite a refreshing break from the elawyering moral outrage crowd (I'm looking at you Bob Janova) to have someone say "Hell, I'm doing something about this, and I'm not going to be an arse about it either." He was incredibly polite and willing to work with all the parties involved. For that, thank you Kevin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Just posting to thank Kevin for his reasonable approach and grasp on reality during this event. It was quite a refreshing break from the elawyering moral outrage crowd (I'm looking at you Bob Janova) to have someone say "Hell, I'm doing something about this, and I'm not going to be an arse about it either." He was incredibly polite and willing to work with all the parties involved. For that, thank you Kevin. Generally speaking, people react in kind. The day you and yours stop responding like my idols to everyone, is the day they'll stop responding like my idols to you. You give what you get, you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanatar Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Indeed, thank you Kevin. You're my favorite ally. Except iClean. I love him more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Meanĕ Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Athens was forced to pay reps while \m/ attacked then offered peace and everything was settled. I don't know, \m/thens seems pretty !@#$%*ing to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salithus Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Generally speaking, people react in kind. The day you and yours stop responding like my idols to everyone, is the day they'll stop responding like my idols to you. You give what you get, you know? I'd be thrilled if you could point out a single thread with as much whining and moral outrage as this that was started by a member of GOONS and where the majority of the whining and moral outrage was done by GOONS. We don't !@#$%*'n'moan like the rest of you do, we handle things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Indeed, thank you Kevin. You're my favorite ally. Except iClean. I love him more. I take it all back. /me gets his pitchfork and torch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Athens was forced to pay reps while \m/ attacked then offered peace and everything was settled. Nyah, /m\ may have perfected what Athens attempted the first time, but Athens clearly bested them in the declare-war-with-allies-for-no-reason department on their second attempt. Call it a draw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Nyah, /m\ may have perfected what Athens attempted the first time, but Athens clearly bested them in the declare-war-with-allies-for-no-reason department on their second attempt. Call it a draw? So you brought in a category not related this topic at all in order to try to save some face in an argument you lost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanatar Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 I don't know, \m/thens seems pretty !@#$%*ing to me. No no no. The merger is \m/HA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts