Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='06 March 2010 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1267898282' post='2216075']
Edit: Also, the general dislike for preemptive strike is a community standard, just like the opposition to mass tech raiding.
[/quote]
Funny, I didn't see any outrage when FAN did it.

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='06 March 2010 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1267898282' post='2216075']
I guess the morale here is that, if you want to get more support, you should just stick to preemptive strikes on poor isolated alliance.
[/quote]
Apparently IRON is now a poor isolated alliance.

[shilo]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='06 March 2010 - 06:48 PM' timestamp='1267897984' post='2216071']
so wait, CnG !@#$%*es, whines, moans, and complains about Polaris attempting to uphold community standards, and now we have CnG trying to tell someone they were "morally" wrong in something? so now CnG is attempting to uphold community standards or something? heh. cuz i have heard this "TOP was wrong blah blah blah" bs long enough. tis awesome to watch CnG grow even more hypocritical than ever.
[/quote]
CnG are victims, you are not allowed to point out their errors. Ultimately it's still all TOP's fault in some way, or that of IRON, TSO, TORN, DAWN. You know, the evil crowd in general

[AirMe]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='06 March 2010 - 12:48 PM' timestamp='1267897984' post='2216071']
so wait, CnG !@#$%*es, whines, moans, and complains about Polaris attempting to uphold community standards, and now we have CnG trying to tell someone they were "morally" wrong in something? so now CnG is attempting to uphold community standards or something? heh. cuz i have heard this "TOP was wrong blah blah blah" bs long enough. tis awesome to watch CnG grow even more hypocritical than ever.
[/quote]

Ok now you need to stop being an idiot. Preempting has never been acceptable on this world and anyone who has in the past has paid a major price for it.

I can handle you playing the part of the outraged citizen but seriously, you are going a tad bit over board by stretching that comment into this reaction.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='AirMe' date='06 March 2010 - 01:12 PM' timestamp='1267899458' post='2216093']
Ok now you need to stop being an idiot. Preempting has never been acceptable on this world and anyone who has in the past has paid a major price for it.
[/quote]
Pretty much everyone in Superfriends has done it.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='06 March 2010 - 11:58 AM' timestamp='1267898570' post='2216077']
Funny, I didn't see any outrage when FAN did it.


Apparently IRON is now a poor isolated alliance.
[/quote]Oh God, you're right everyone in CN loved FAN, and IRON have been aggressively attacked.

Do you just disregard the point of people's posts and use a random related alliance generator to make your point?

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='AirMe' date='06 March 2010 - 01:12 PM' timestamp='1267899458' post='2216093']
Ok now you need to stop being an idiot. Preempting has never been acceptable on this world and anyone who has in the past has paid a major price for it.

I can handle you playing the part of the outraged citizen but seriously, you are going a tad bit over board by stretching that comment into this reaction.
[/quote]

Haflinger, read and recognize. Aggressive action is forbidden*, but dangling a small alliance or two in front of someone else in case they might attack and allow you come in with an over-the-top, well coordinated counterattack planned for weeks/months in advance is acceptable. Got it? Thanks.


* - unless your CB is at least 4-5 months old or older

[Letum]

I remember when we had the "think of the children treaty" and THAT community standard.

Yeah, that didn't end well.

[shilo]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='06 March 2010 - 07:29 PM' timestamp='1267900424' post='2216108']
Haflinger, read and recognize. Aggressive action is forbidden*, but dangling a small alliance or two in front of someone else in case they might attack and allow you come in with an over-the-top, well coordinated counterattack planned for weeks/months in advance is acceptable. Got it? Thanks.


* - unless your CB is at least 4-5 months old or older
[/quote]
Hey, we all know that ultimately, it was TOP's fault, their aggressive posting and acts forced CnG into a defensive premptive strike against TPF

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Letum' date='06 March 2010 - 01:35 PM' timestamp='1267900824' post='2216111']
I remember when we had the "think of the children treaty" and THAT community standard.

Yeah, that didn't end well.
[/quote]

Your alliance is #3 in the alliance rankings holding 6 nukes. It has the most infra and 26th most tech and would likely have the most tech except that so many alliances are living off your tech teet. If C&G actually will allow you out from under terms, your alliance would rocket to #1 over all in a few weeks or so and not look back.

You are "winning the game". Stop winning so quietly, you're embarrassing MK.

[lebubu]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='06 March 2010 - 07:29 PM' timestamp='1267900424' post='2216108']
dangling a small alliance or two in front of someone else in case they might attack and allow you come in with an over-the-top, well coordinated counterattack [b]planned for weeks/months in advance[/b] is acceptable.
[/quote]

Ok seriously. What.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Letum' date='06 March 2010 - 12:35 PM' timestamp='1267900824' post='2216111']
I remember when we had the "think of the children treaty" and THAT community standard.

Yeah, that didn't end well.
[/quote]These community standards exist for a reason. With the advent of warchests, it became apparent that nuclear war wasn't just an automatic complete loss for both sides and could be modified by organisation and preparation.

The essentially defensive nature of alliances nowadays is a natural progression of a game this old -- if there's no need for CBs, there's no way to have any winners and losers because regardless of diplomacy and all this game is played for, someone could just jump in for no reason and hit people they don't like.

(OOC) It would be boring. It's a reasonable abstraction to be outraged or some !@#$ IC to justify making this game not just boring. I would rather you didn't come and burst our football, dude.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='06 March 2010 - 12:42 PM' timestamp='1267901260' post='2216119']
Your alliance is #3 in the alliance rankings holding 6 nukes. It has the most infra and 26th most tech and would likely have the most tech except that so many alliances are living off your tech teet. If C&G actually will allow you out from under terms, your alliance would rocket to #1 over all in a few weeks or so and not look back.

You are "winning the game". Stop winning so quietly, you're embarrassing MK.
[/quote]I wish I could pointlessly insult your alliance but no one cares enough about Valhalla, it would be like pissing in an ocean made of piss.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Rocky Horror

[Rocky Horror]

Accidental double post.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Rocky Horror

[neneko]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='06 March 2010 - 06:48 PM' timestamp='1267897984' post='2216071']
so wait, CnG !@#$%*es, whines, moans, and complains about Polaris attempting to uphold community standards, and now we have CnG trying to tell someone they were "morally" wrong in something? so now CnG is attempting to uphold community standards or something? heh. cuz i have heard this "TOP was wrong blah blah blah" bs long enough. tis awesome to watch CnG grow even more hypocritical than ever.
[/quote]
You shouldn't call others hypocrites when you change opinions based on what alliance you're currently hoping will win. CnG gets pissed when people attack them without a cb? That totally makes all of us hypocrites. If it was your alliance that got attacked we'd hear a whole other sort of crying from you.

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='06 March 2010 - 06:53 PM' timestamp='1267898282' post='2216075']
Will you hold yourself to the same standards should your alliance or a member of your bloc decides to go on opportunistic attacks? I don't recall the Knights of Ni! being offered a billion in reparations and about 3000 tech but maybe that's just me.
[/quote]
Ni didn't take billions in damages. They did however get reps for the damage they took so I don't see why'd you bring that up.

You attacked us and you'll either pay for the damages or be blown to pieces.

[quote name='shilo' date='06 March 2010 - 07:02 PM' timestamp='1267898860' post='2216084']
CnG are victims, you are not allowed to point out their errors. Ultimately it's still all TOP's fault in some way, or that of IRON, TSO, TORN, DAWN. You know, the evil crowd in general
[/quote]
Are you sure? Because I'm fairly sure mk plotted to make you guys attack cng, mk is also responsible for the reps from tool and GOD not giving NPO a break with paying reps to them during the war. Pretty much everything that went down this war was a mk plot.


[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='06 March 2010 - 07:29 PM' timestamp='1267900424' post='2216108']
Haflinger, read and recognize. Aggressive action is forbidden*, but dangling a small alliance or two in front of someone else in case they might attack and allow you come in with an over-the-top, well coordinated counterattack planned for weeks/months in advance is acceptable. Got it? Thanks.


* - unless your CB is at least 4-5 months old or older
[/quote]
Wow, way to keep being bitter about it

[shilo]

[quote name='neneko' date='06 March 2010 - 08:14 PM' timestamp='1267903162' post='2216146']
Are you sure? Because I'm fairly sure mk plotted to make you guys attack cng, mk is also responsible for the reps from tool and GOD not giving NPO a break with paying reps to them during the war. Pretty much everything that went down this war was a mk plot.
[/quote]
Well, who am I to disagree with you

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='neneko' date='06 March 2010 - 02:14 PM' timestamp='1267903162' post='2216146']

Ni didn't take billions in damages. They did however get reps for the damage they took so I don't see why'd you bring that up.

You attacked us and you'll either pay for the damages or be blown to pieces.[/quote]
Are you sure they didn't take close to a billion in damage, with 3-4k tech at least? Some of them got raided for 2 days and were mid-sized nations. At that level, 300-400 infra is a lot in damage. I'm pointing it out because it seems that, to you, the only acceptable solution is that we (the aggressive party) reimburse you for all the damage we have done while, it seems, that you didn't hold your own immediate allies to the same standard.

That said, I don't mind the "being blown to pieces" part. Been there, done that. You'll go down with us. If we're trying to prove who is the most stubborn alliance between MK and TOP, it's a contest that will likely end in a draw, I'm afraid.

[flak attack]

[quote name='neneko' date='06 March 2010 - 02:14 PM' timestamp='1267903162' post='2216146']
Ni didn't take billions in damages. They did however get reps for the damage they took so I don't see why'd you bring that up.
[/quote]
It's actually difficult to measure the value of what Ni got because of the nature of reps being paid. It was done in donation deals, and since we don't know who got the deal

[neneko]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='06 March 2010 - 08:58 PM' timestamp='1267905778' post='2216184']
Are you sure they didn't take close to a billion in damage, with 3-4k tech at least? Some of them got raided for 2 days and were mid-sized nations. At that level, 300-400 infra is a lot in damage. I'm pointing it out because it seems that, to you, the only acceptable solution is that we (the aggressive party) reimburse you for all the damage we have done while, it seems, that you didn't hold your own immediate allies to the same standard.

That said, I don't mind the "being blown to pieces" part. Been there, done that. You'll go down with us. If we're trying to prove who is the most stubborn alliance between MK and TOP, it's a contest that will likely end in a draw, I'm afraid.
[/quote]
Sorry if I was unclear. I didn't mean that you should pay for our lost infra. I'm satisfied with 100% of the tech you've destroyed. Wich still would be more than the last offer you got. If we want to take the infra into account the reps would be alot bigger.

I still don't get what point you're trying to get across since Ni was reimbursed for the raid.

[John Michaels]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='06 March 2010 - 01:29 PM' timestamp='1267900424' post='2216108']
Haflinger, read and recognize. Aggressive action is forbidden*, but dangling a small alliance or two in front of someone else in case they might attack and allow you come in with an over-the-top, well coordinated counterattack planned for weeks/months in advance is acceptable. Got it? Thanks.


* - unless your CB is at least 4-5 months old or older
[/quote]

Are you talking about Karma? If so, we've been over this !@#$ before and it is just as ludicrous now as it was back then. Furthermore if you are talking about Karma let's take this to PMs because I don't want to derail the thread.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='John Michaels' date='06 March 2010 - 09:50 PM' timestamp='1267912540' post='2216281']
Are you talking about Karma? If so, we've been over this !@#$ before and it is just as ludicrous now as it was back then. Furthermore if you are talking about Karma let's take this to PMs because I don't want to derail the thread.
[/quote]

You don't want to derail [i]this[/i] thread?

[John Michaels]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='06 March 2010 - 04:53 PM' timestamp='1267912664' post='2216285']
You don't want to derail [i]this[/i] thread?
[/quote]
At the very least right now the discussion is still tangentially related to the ongoing conflict.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='AirMe' date='06 March 2010 - 12:12 PM' timestamp='1267899458' post='2216093']
Ok now you need to stop being an idiot. Preempting has never been acceptable on this world and anyone who has in the past has paid a major price for it.

I can handle you playing the part of the outraged citizen but seriously, you are going a tad bit over board by stretching that comment into this reaction.
[/quote]

i never thought you would be one to attempt an ad hominem AirMe. Preemptive strikes are a tactical thing, not a community standard. i have never once seen anyone cry out against a preemptive strike until now. because if it is so morally wrong, why did CnG allow Athens to use a preemptive strike against TPF? and yes, before anyone says anything, a preemptive strike is simply an aggressive attack done with the element of surprise. the fact that TPF nor almost anyone else knew that TPF was about to be hit (i mean no diplomacy at all was used) kinda shows the hypocrisy.

tech raiding has also been kept in very strict standards by the majority in this world, yet we see how Athens/FoB (both CnG members) as well as others on CnG's side have played havoc with that. so, no i am not going over board on anything. and really, i like and respect you but if you think i give a damn what you can handle, you are seriously mistaken. i am pointing out a legitimate and quite humorous double standard that seems to be playing out amongst those on CnG's side. one of what is and is not allowed by community standards. so let me guess, if i go the MK route and start calling CnG the new "world police", i would be booed or whatever? lawlz.

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='06 March 2010 - 12:49 PM' timestamp='1267901622' post='2216125']
These community standards exist for a reason. With the advent of warchests, it became apparent that nuclear war wasn't just an automatic complete loss for both sides and could be modified by organisation and preparation.[/quote]

wait wait wait. since when do community standards matter? i could have sworn MK was completely against any single alliance or small group of alliances being capable of dictating community standards. i mean i remember all the whining on the boards that MK and CnG did about Polaris attempting to do it. yet, now the very same bloc is attempting to enforce a community standard? you guys need to get with your own program. either no one can do it, or everyone can. there is no "you aren't allowed to do it, but we can" bs.

[quote]The essentially defensive nature of alliances nowadays is a natural progression of a game this old -- if there's no need for CBs, there's no way to have any winners and losers because regardless of diplomacy and all this game is played for, someone could just jump in for no reason and hit people they don't like.[/quote]

but your alliance condones and supports "tech raids" on alliances so long as they are politically isolated? yeah, again with the double standards. so essentially, we can launch noCB wars of a limited nature.

so seriously, if what you are saying is so bad, when is FAN getting hit? ya'll played this game with Polaris when they hit \m/ but not PC despite the fact that it was well known that PC would come in. so, either hit FAN or just drop this entire line of BS as that is what it is otherwise.

[quote name='neneko' date='06 March 2010 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1267903162' post='2216146']
You shouldn't call others hypocrites when you change opinions based on what alliance you're currently hoping will win. CnG gets pissed when people attack them without a cb? That totally makes all of us hypocrites. If it was your alliance that got attacked we'd hear a whole other sort of crying from you.[/quote]

when have i changed my opinion? i have always thought that both Grub and TOP made serious mistakes. Grub for not attempting more diplomacy (though i blame \m/ as well) and TOP for their preemptive strike. i have pretty much always assumed CnG would win and TOP would lose. yes, i supported Grub because i do believe in community standards and while i tech raid, i feel there should be limits. again all consistent.

i am only stating ya'll are hypocrites because i see many in CnG starting to throw around community standards in regards to preemptive strikes. 1) never heard that no preemptive strikes are considered ebil. 2) preemptive strikes are a tactic much like nuclear first strikes and so on. fact is every aggressive war is pretty much a preemptive strike, especially those that are conducted without any diplomacy before hand. the reason is preemptive strikes are pretty much surprise attacks. alliance A has a CB against alliance B that they feels threatens them in some way and declares war on Alliance B. that is a preemptive attack, since Alliance A feels threatened, they launch a war first before Alliance B does. Athens did it to TPF just recently and we saw CnG hailing that as the "right" thing to do.

so that makes you hypocrites. i did not call you hypocrites for being upset over being attacked. next time read my post before you attempt to debate me.

[quote name='neneko' date='06 March 2010 - 02:46 PM' timestamp='1267908686' post='2216223']
Sorry if I was unclear. I didn't mean that you should pay for our lost infra. I'm satisfied with 100% of the tech you've destroyed. Wich still would be more than the last offer you got. If we want to take the infra into account the reps would be alot bigger.

I still don't get what point you're trying to get across since Ni was reimbursed for the raid.
[/quote]

the point i do believe that is trying to be made is that Ni did not get fully reimbursed for their losses (especially in terms of tech) like you wish to be. thus, if CnG is incapable or unwilling to submit themselves to this, why should CnG even attempt to do the same to someone else? thus, short and simple is that CnG is again showing a double standard to the world. TPF only got white peace for being aggressively assaulted and decimated for 6 days by 4 alliances. how come CnG did not force Athens/co to pay TPF for 100% of tech loss there?

[Vilien]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='06 March 2010 - 01:29 PM' timestamp='1267900424' post='2216108']
Haflinger, read and recognize. Aggressive action is forbidden*, but dangling a small alliance or two in front of someone else in case they might attack and allow you come in with an over-the-top, well coordinated counterattack planned for weeks/months in advance is acceptable. Got it? Thanks.
[/quote]
Do you ever get tired of losing credibility?

[Pablo Monkey]

So right now the best option for TOP and company is to keep fighting CnG and let their allies rebuild. It makes no sense to rebuild your enemy at your own detriment, TOP & company has to keep fighting rather pay reps that will put them and their allies in harms way. You can ask for all your tech back, but the smarter thing may be to just get as much as you can.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Killer Monkey land

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='06 March 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1267913137' post='2216292']
<snip> TPF are poor innocent victims </snip>[/quote]That was not an aggressive war, it was a retaliation for an offensive act (ie spying and infiltration). It was not attacking an alliance just because no one likes them. Argue otherwise until the cows come home, I implore you.

An act of retaliation precludes the description of an event as "pre-emptive". The meaning of the word bears [i]no relation[/i] to the element of surprise.

There's another term for that.

"Surprise attack".

Edited March 6, 2010 by Rocky Horror

[shilo]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='06 March 2010 - 11:21 PM' timestamp='1267914369' post='2216312']
That was not an aggressive war, it was a retaliation for an offensive act (ie spying and infiltration). It was not attacking an alliance just because no one likes them. Argue otherwise until the cows come home, I implore you.

An act of retaliation precludes the description of an event as "pre-emptive". The meaning of the word bears [i]no relation[/i] to the element of surprise.

There's another term for that.

"Surprise attack".
[/quote]
You cannot retaliate for something that was abandoned in the planning stages.

You can punish for having planned to infiltrate, although that plan was abandoned before it was ever put into action.
And that you did, with a sneak attack, that you justified tactically ("they would have jumped into peacemode").

So yes, unless you are the world thought crimes unit, you very much so made an aggressive attack against TPF which has not made any kind of hostile move against Athens, unless you forgot all the proof that showed that TPF ever did anything hostile/aggressive against Athens after they abandoned those infiltration ideas.

Edited March 6, 2010 by shilo