Ok, admit it, you spent the last few weeks watching Olympic Curling

[neneko]

Sort of amusing to see which people are claiming 100% reps is the only right thing when someone gets attacked for no reason. I wonder if there's any other similar situations where that could be applied.

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='neneko' date='11 March 2010 - 06:24 PM' timestamp='1268353781' post='2222634']
Sort of amusing to see which people are claiming 100% reps is the only right thing when someone gets attacked for no reason. I wonder if there's any other similar situations where that could be applied.
[/quote]

The situations are pretty different, although it is pretty laughable.

[rsoxbronco1]

[quote name='neneko' date='11 March 2010 - 07:24 PM' timestamp='1268353781' post='2222634']
Sort of amusing to see which people are claiming 100% reps is the only right thing when someone gets attacked for no reason. I wonder if there's any other similar situations where that could be applied.
[/quote]
It wouldn't even be extortion!

[Caffine]

Regardless of how people outside of PC feel about nuking in techraiding, PC seems to be forbidden from doing so.

[quote]
4) The use of Cruise Missiles, Air Force, destructive Spy Operations, Navy and Nuclear Weapons are strictly forbidden on raids. In the event that the person you're raiding attacks back, you are to offer peace regardless of the damage that has been done.[/quote]

It just seems a little ridiculous.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Caffine1

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='12 March 2010 - 09:55 AM' timestamp='1268352032' post='2222602']
I don't know where you got the idea tech raids are universally limited to "two GA's" Tech raids can and sometimes do escalate into all out war, including nukes.
[/quote]
I have that idea because GAs are the only attack that will get you loot.

Everything else is just a waste and destroys tech/land that could be looted.

So it kind of makes sense to want to maximise the gain of a raid. and there is no sense in destroying that which you want to take.

And using a nuke for a raid is kinda like the story we have all heard about the safe-cracker who uses just a [i]little [/i]bit too much explosives to blow open a safe and is left with nothing but burnt confetti that used to be the paper money he was intending to make his.

Personally if I was a raider I would only respond to retaliation with the same kind of attacks as the target has already used and use my allies and my own superior size to our advantage.

If you want war practice there are plenty of other venues to explore that will offer superior experiences in fighting wars in a variety of situations.

War practice and raiding should be considered to be separate because the only experience you will get in a raid is how to handle a 3 on 1 fight against a much smaller opponent. and this situation is not likely to come up often in an actual war when you are fighting for your survival.

[AirMe]

[quote name='neneko' date='11 March 2010 - 07:24 PM' timestamp='1268353781' post='2222634']
Sort of amusing to see which people are claiming 100% reps is the only right thing when someone gets attacked for no reason. I wonder if there's any other similar situations where that could be applied.
[/quote]

Now if there were only people in here asking for 100% of the reps. I believe the amount of reps that have been proposed and are currently on table are less than half of the damage that was done. There is also a major difference between a war that involved 3 nations and one that involves 4000 nations. Nice attempt at drawing a parallel. A for effort. C for execution.

Edited March 12, 2010 by AirMe

[Ryuzaki]

I can't be bothered quoting it, but it is kind of sad that you have made a twitter feed for this.

Even so, nuking a tech raid target? What the hell.

[Lord Brendan]

Still not feeling the neutrality from Echelon.

[Otherworld]

The twitter was/is not Echelon related.

[quote]
Sort of amusing to see which people are claiming 100% reps is the only right thing when someone gets attacked for no reason. I wonder if there's any other similar situations where that could be applied.[/quote]

Well the main thing here is PC's own rules say they have to.. whiwch is the main difference.
Plus the fact we're only asking for 25% and..yeah.

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='12 March 2010 - 12:32 AM' timestamp='1268354280' post='2222649']
I have that idea because GAs are the only attack that will get you loot.

Everything else is just a waste and destroys tech/land that could be looted.

So it kind of makes sense to want to maximise the gain of a raid. and there is no sense in destroying that which you want to take.

And using a nuke for a raid is kinda like the story we have all heard about the safe-cracker who uses just a [i]little [/i]bit too much explosives to blow open a safe and is left with nothing but burnt confetti that used to be the paper money he was intending to make his.

Personally if I was a raider I would only respond to retaliation with the same kind of attacks as the target has already used and use my allies and my own superior size to our advantage.

If you want war practice there are plenty of other venues to explore that will offer superior experiences in fighting wars in a variety of situations.

War practice and raiding should be considered to be separate because the only experience you will get in a raid is how to handle a 3 on 1 fight against a much smaller opponent. and this situation is not likely to come up often in an actual war when you are fighting for your survival.
[/quote]

Raiding has and always will be very poor war training. If a raid target fights back it escalates, if the raid target is nuclear it most likely will escalate to a nuclear level. As has been pointed out many times, once a raid target fights back the possibility of profit almost always disappears which is why so many advocate fighting back. I and most in my alliance see it like this, if a raid target doesn't figth back then it is fun with profit, if a raid target does fight back then it is fun without profit. Of course there are always exception to the rule.

@ Airme & Ejayrazz, you both are old enough to remember the days when raiding was considered to be rogue activity all around (think pre CNARF) then came the days when raid targets who fought back were often doomed to ZI (Think WUT/Pre UJW) Now days when a raid target fights back it usually ends with one round of war. Seems we have made ground not slipped further.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Merrie Melodies

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='AirMe' date='12 March 2010 - 12:37 AM' timestamp='1268354564' post='2222657']
Now if there were only people in here asking for 100% of the reps. I believe the amount of reps that have been proposed and are currently on table are less than half of the damage that was done. There is also a major difference between a war that involved 3 nations and one that involves 4000 nations. Nice attempt at drawing a parallel. A for effort. C for execution.
[/quote]
I think the intent was to point out that some of the people in hear demanding that PC own up to their mistakes are the same people who are saying else where that TOP and Co. shouldn't have to pay for their mistakes. My take on it anyways.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='11 March 2010 - 07:46 PM' timestamp='1268355094' post='2222672']
I think the intent was to point out that some of the people in hear demanding that PC own up to their mistakes are the same people who are saying else where that TOP and Co. shouldn't have to pay for their mistakes. My take on it anyways.
[/quote]

I get what she was saying, and I agree with the intended message but the analogy was flawed.

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='Otherworld' date='11 March 2010 - 06:43 PM' timestamp='1268354934' post='2222668']
Plus the fact we're only asking for 25% and..yeah.
[/quote]
You were initially demanding an outrageous amount.

[Caffine]

[quote name='Rey the Great' date='11 March 2010 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1268355408' post='2222679']
You were initially demanding an outrageous amount.
[/quote]

You mean the damage they did?

[Bordiga]

[quote name='Caffine1' date='12 March 2010 - 10:31 AM' timestamp='1268354229' post='2222646']
Regardless of how people outside of PC feel about nuking in techraiding, PC seems to be forbidden from doing so.



It just seems a little ridiculous.
[/quote]

[b]In the event that the person you're raiding attacks back, you are to offer peace regardless of the damage that has been done[/b]

Wow. I'm going to keep that one in mind. Can't wait to use nuclear retaliation against any raiders from PC. But then again, I remember the LoSS minister of Defense threatening me with nuclear attack after I retaliated to his tech raid, despite nuclear first strikes being forbidden by their charter.

[Caffine]

[quote name='Bordiga' date='11 March 2010 - 07:54 PM' timestamp='1268355611' post='2222683']
[b]In the event that the person you're raiding attacks back, you are to offer peace regardless of the damage that has been done[/b]

Wow. I'm going to keep that one in mind. Can't wait to use nuclear retaliation against any raiders from PC. But then again, I remember the LoSS minister of Defense threatening me with nuclear attack after I retaliated to his tech raid, despite nuclear first strikes being forbidden by their charter.
[/quote]

Well no, because their rules do stipulate that if the target nukes first then they are weapons free.

[Vilien]

[quote name='Rey the Great' date='11 March 2010 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1268355408' post='2222679']
You were initially demanding an outrageous amount.
[/quote]
I'm always outraged when people demand restitution for unprovoked attacks.

[Bordiga]

[quote name='Caffine1' date='12 March 2010 - 10:55 AM' timestamp='1268355667' post='2222684']
Well no, because their rules do stipulate that if the target nukes first then they are weapons free.
[/quote]

Ah, damn. Missiles and bombing runs then.

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='Caffine1' date='11 March 2010 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1268355443' post='2222680']
You mean the damage they did?
[/quote]
Considering that you've dropped your demands by a pretty big (proportionally) number, I'm sort of doubting 210 million is the actual damage done.

Of course, you're also trying to shed a negative light on PC and get back into the spotlight yourself.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Rey the Great

[neneko]

[quote name='AirMe' date='12 March 2010 - 01:37 AM' timestamp='1268354564' post='2222657']
Now if there were only people in here asking for 100% of the reps. I believe the amount of reps that have been proposed and are currently on table are less than half of the damage that was done. There is also a major difference between a war that involved 3 nations and one that involves 4000 nations. Nice attempt at drawing a parallel. A for effort. C for execution.
[/quote]
Why would 3 nations be more responsible for damages they do than 4000?

I don't know what the reps currently being asked by echelon is since that seems to be changing in between the posts. Can't say I really care either. My comment was towards those that said 100% reps would be the only fair thing. I thought that was pretty clear in my post.

[Caffine]

[quote name='Rey the Great' date='11 March 2010 - 08:06 PM' timestamp='1268356336' post='2222699']
Considering that they probably had no clue that the alliance was your protectorate, and that you've dropped your demands by a pretty big (proportionally) number, I'm sort of doubting 210 million is the actual damage done.

Of course, you're also trying to shed a negative light on PC and get back into the spotlight yourself.
[/quote]

So now you're doubting the numbers? Did you see the chart in the OP with the breakdown of the damage done? If you didn't, then I'd reccomend you actually read it, if you did then you're being ignorant. We went down to near 25% in order to be reasonable.

[Caffine]

[quote name='neneko' date='11 March 2010 - 08:07 PM' timestamp='1268356339' post='2222700']
Why would 3 nations be more responsible for damages they do than 4000?

I don't know what the reps currently being asked by echelon is since that seems to be changing in between the posts. Can't say I really care either. My comment was towards those that said 100% reps would be the only fair thing. I thought that was pretty clear in my post.
[/quote]

Well, considering their rules state

[quote]8) In the event that a person raids a protected or treatied alliance by mistake, they will lose their raid privileges for the next thirty (30) days, and will pay reparations to [b]compensate for the [u]damage done[/u][/b][/quote]
Asking for our protectorate to be made whole is reasonable. Yet we're not even asking for that.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Caffine1

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='Caffine1' date='11 March 2010 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1268356562' post='2222702']
So now you're doubting the numbers? Did you see the chart in the OP with the breakdown of the damage done? If you didn't, then I'd reccomend you actually read it, if you did then you're being ignorant. We went down to near 25% in order to be reasonable.
[/quote]
I'm doubting whether you're being honest about your own beliefs as any decent alliance would get what's right for a protectorate no matter what the cost.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Rey the Great

[Caffine]

[quote name='Rey the Great' date='11 March 2010 - 08:14 PM' timestamp='1268356763' post='2222706']
I'm doubting whether you're being honest about your own beliefs as any decent alliance would get what's right for a protectorate no matter what the cost.
[/quote]

So the fact that we're being reasonable in willing to negotiate means we're not being honest? Well here's the truth, we're planning on paying the rest to SBA out of our own pocket.

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='Caffine1' date='12 March 2010 - 01:26 AM' timestamp='1268357496' post='2222719']
So the fact that we're being reasonable in willing to negotiate means we're not being honest? Well here's the truth, we're planning on paying the rest to SBA out of our own pocket.
[/quote]
I fail to see your tweet as reasonable. Without being intimate with the details it seems to me Echelon's inital behavior was so outlandish tha PC finally decided screw you guys, and I can't say I blame them.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Merrie Melodies