White Chocolate Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 This raid happened because FoA failed to take the steps to ensure that something like this wouldn`t happen. My obligation ends at getting the attacks ended. However, if someone raids FoA when the protection is already in place, reps are most certainly warranted in that circumstance. This raid happened because \m/ decided to raid. Period - end of story. It's not like FoA made a declaration of war on \m/ and then \m/ beat them to the punch. The entire thing could have easily been avoided IF \m/ just did not do it in the first place. Not having a treaty in place is politically inexperienced. However, it's NOT the same thing as an attack and it isn't "asking" for an attack. People can talk about an alliance's "right" to tech raid all they want and regardless of whether I like it or no, it still is possible for them to do so. However, it is simply impossible for a nation or alliance to cause someone to attack them for any reason. No amount of blame on the alliance attacked changes that fact. If a group doesn't like being known as the attacker - don't attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 This raid happened because \m/ decided to raid. Period - end of story. It's not like FoA made a declaration of war on \m/ and then \m/ beat them to the punch. The entire thing could have easily been avoided IF \m/ just did not do it in the first place. Not having a treaty in place is politically inexperienced. However, it's NOT the same thing as an attack and it isn't "asking" for an attack. People can talk about an alliance's "right" to tech raid all they want and regardless of whether I like it or no, it still is possible for them to do so. However, it is simply impossible for a nation or alliance to cause someone to attack them for any reason. No amount of blame on the alliance attacked changes that fact. If a group doesn't like being known as the attacker - don't attack. We don't mind being referred to as attackers at all, I'd like to think the revival of \m/ is far more evil than the original incarnation. I have to disagree with you on cause, if a nation or alliance puts itself in an unprotected position that is profitable to us they are indeed forcing us to raid them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 What part of "we will not be paying reps to FoA" dont you get? Even if you put together a large group and beat the snot out of us we will not pay. Get it? Are you speaking for the Goons and PC, too? ...if a nation or alliance puts itself in an unprotected position that is profitable to us they are indeed forcing us to raid them. Same question as above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Are you speaking for the Goons and PC, too?Same question as above. How the hell could I speak for PC or Goons? did you miss my alliance tag? Damn boy.............................................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 How the hell could I speak for PC or Goons? did you miss my alliance tag? Damn boy.............................................. Simply pointing out that reps can come from other places. But you know this. I really don't see why you continue to take a stance that is such an embarrassment to your allies. You seem to be convinced that cutting off your nose will spite your face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Simply pointing out that reps can come from other places. But you know this.I really don't see why you continue to take a stance that is such an embarrassment to your allies. You seem to be convinced that cutting off your nose will spite your face. And you seem to have come to the end of your record and the needle is aimlessly skipping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneLOL Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Simply pointing out that reps can come from other places. But you know this.I really don't see why you continue to take a stance that is such an embarrassment to your allies. You seem to be convinced that cutting off your nose will spite your face. Honestly, there should be no reps to speak of. FoA was unprotected, was raided, and is now protected again. Now, if they were completely protected during that time, sure, reps are warranted. But, they weren't. You won't see any of the 3 offensive parties paying reps for what is considered logical action by them. Me personally, I only paid reps to protected nations. Cue moral outrage. Do something about it, do what MCXA is doing for TPF right now and help them rebuild if you care so much about them. o/ The Corporation for actually doing something to help FoA and doing what they thought was correct. (That's more than the rest of you can say) o/ \m/, PC, GOONS for giving us more drama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 I have to disagree with you on cause, if a nation or alliance puts itself in an unprotected position that is profitable to us they are indeed forcing us to raid them. How are you forced to raid them? Is there a force that compels you to attack them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 I have to disagree with you on cause, if a nation or alliance puts itself in an unprotected position that is profitable to us they are indeed forcing us to raid them. All hail those great and powerful alliances out there without treaties who have the power to "force" \m/ to raid them!!! (now it's you who know better) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Meanĕ Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 How are you forced to raid them? Is there a force that compels you to attack them? You know the whole angel/demon on the shoulder thing? We've just got a guy from Camden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 How are you forced to raid them? Is there a force that compels you to attack them? Yes, we have a incurible addiction to unaligned/untreated land and tech. Really don't you think it is selfish of them to horde tech and land that rightly belongs in the treaty web? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Yes, we have a incurable addiction to unaligned/untreated land and tech.Really don't you think it is selfish of them to horde tech and land that rightly belongs in the treaty web? I don't get it. You raid them to make them part of the treaty web? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 I don't get it. You raid them to make them part of the treaty web? No, not at all, we raid them and make their land and tech part of the web via our nations and our treaties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 No, not at all, we raid them and make their land and tech part of the web via our nations and our treaties. Why don't you just buy the land and tech instead of raiding it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Oh boy, clearly you can't seem to grasp simple concepts. I'll try again for your benefit: All wars are tech raids until the attacker can isolate what's stolen or destroyed in a war. Aside from that, typically in a war full-out attacks are used. Involving not just Ground attacks, but Cruise Missiles, Aircraft and Nuclear Weapons as well as the Navy. Nothing aside from Ground Attacks were used in these raids, and true to the concept of tech raiding, peace was sent to the attacked nations after the quad attacks were done. The only way this would turn into a war is if FoA counterattacked, and after hearing what I have from FoA I believe peace is going to be the outcome. They understand their predicament and their fellow Yellow Sphere comrades have offered them a hand. Really, this did more to help FoA than anything.And since you love our charter so much, why don't you actually read it again. You'll find that statement in the charter. Bolded. I like you, you know that, but this is just stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Why don't you just buy the land and tech instead of raiding it? Where's the fun in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanatar Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 I don't get it. You raid them to make them part of the treaty web? As MM said, we raid for several reasons. Either to enrich our selves, and what I pointed out earlier: One thing I'm rather amused by is that somehow we have caused a grievious crime against the sensibilities of this world, and have committed a great crime, when infact the opposite is true: FoA undoubtadly did something to have their initial protectorate (which we had always respected) dropped. Now, obviously to have Sparta drop a protectorate, something undoubtadly boneheaded must have occured. Now, in a raid free world, FoA would not have learned any meaningful lesson from this. How ever, due to the great magnanimity of the raiding alliances, FoA has learned that their idiocy has serious repercussions past a simple treaty cancellation, and are unlikely to repeat those same mistakes with their new protector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Why don't you just buy the land and tech instead of raiding it? Why buy it when you can just beat someone down and take it for free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 As MM said, we raid for several reasons. Either to enrich our selves, and what I pointed out earlier:One thing I'm rather amused by is that somehow we have caused a grievious crime against the sensibilities of this world, and have committed a great crime, when infact the opposite is true: FoA undoubtadly did something to have their initial protectorate (which we had always respected) dropped. Now, obviously to have Sparta drop a protectorate, something undoubtadly boneheaded must have occured. Now, in a raid free world, FoA would not have learned any meaningful lesson from this. How ever, due to the great magnanimity of the raiding alliances, FoA has learned that their idiocy has serious repercussions past a simple treaty cancellation, and are unlikely to repeat those same mistakes with their new protector. I'm sorry but that argument is rather silly. Do you actually know why Sparta dropped the treaty? If you do, by all means, tell us. Otherwise, please don't make assumptions. Even if you were right, there are much better ways to teach them of the consequences of their actions than just raiding them. This is akin to beating children to teach them a lesson. Have you tried speaking with them first? Maybe telling them the consequences of their actions? Also, FoA wouldn't have gotten a protectorate in the first place if they didn't know the consequences of being unaligned. So, you're trying to teach them something they probably already know. And lastly, who made you guys the world police? Who said you could impose your ways onto others? I respect your opinion but I cannot possibly buy that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Why buy it when you can just beat someone down and take it for free? Because raiding requires unnecessary destruction of a nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Is that a declaration of war? No I am not kidding either? Just one of many possible future. Do keep in mind that FAIL has not yet reformed. But it will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Because raiding requires unnecessary destruction of a nation. Which is something we enjoy greatly. Do you know anything about us? really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanatar Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Oh I never claimed it to be the best or most efficient way, but it clearly demonstrates the lesson of being unaligned, does it not? And is this not the point of my post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Meanĕ Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Because raiding requires unnecessary destruction of a nation. Destruction is always necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Which is something we enjoy greatly. Then why are you not in a constant state of war with larger alliances? I'm sure that will bring you all the destruction for which you wish. Oh I never claimed it to be the best or most efficient way, but it clearly demonstrates the lesson of being unaligned, does it not? And is this not the point of my post? If it is not the most efficient way then why do you use it? Would you run a mile if you could fly? Destruction is always necessary. And why is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts