GOONS owes me $90,000,000

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1283883841' post='2445524']
It disgusts me that people have this opinion. His inability to conduct an argument without addressing counterpoints provided by those that are arguing with him is his greatest flaw. The fact that he's able to bedazzle so many people with his wordplay just goes to show how low the bar is set to gain a following around here.
[/quote]
I didn't say I agree with everything he says when he posts, nor would I classify myself as a Schatt "follower", but his words hold weight around here whether they are agreeable or not. People listen to him, and people like reading what he writes. TWiP would not have been so successful, and dare I say influential, if that were not the case.

[DeadAnimal]

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1283883841' post='2445524']
It disgusts me that people have this opinion. His inability to conduct an argument without addressing counterpoints provided by those that are arguing with him is his greatest flaw. The fact that he's able to bedazzle so many people with his wordplay just goes to show how low the bar is set to gain a following around here.
[/quote]

I do believe Schatt was not arguing any points of fact, but rather of philosophical outlook.

In my estimation, he proposes that if the standard for compensation wieghs repeated offenses in a category seperate from reperations based on actual damage, that you too stand to be penalized by this standard. Thus, a philosophic sense of 'fairness' dictates that its morally wrong for you to enforce such a standard, when you yourselves are equally culpible.

Rather, I think he purposefully contorts the facts in each situation, not because he believes them to be analgous, but because he wanted to illustrate this point. No person of sound judgement would conisder raids by newer players, afforded some leeway due to their lack of experience, comparable to the actions of a senor member of an alliance, aiding, with foreknowledge, a known rogue.

Edited September 7, 2010 by DeadAnimal

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1283884502' post='2445541']
M'k. So what? That doesn't make the criticism he has since expanded upon any less legitimate.
[/quote]
I didn't say that. I was just trying to point out the fact that the OP was badly formed, and all those hailing it as a work of genius are quite mistaken.

[quote]
Well, you are free to disprove the OP, far be it from me to stop you.
[/quote]
... but you just refuted my attack on the OP by saying that it doesn't matter if the OP is off base because of what has come up in the rest of the thread.

[quote]
I never did.

I simply pointed out that the factor that was cited in deciding to go for such massively inflated reps, or face war, was due to the cited "repetition". So, by that reasoning, you all should have offered the aggrieved nation compensation at a similarly highly inflated level.

But you didn't, nor did Schatt ask for it, because of the obviously ridiculous nature of that reasoning.
[/quote]
Okay, correct me if I've got this wrong:
GOONS are hypocrites because CoJ did not ask for higher reps in a raid incident a month before we asked for large reps from NSO for two things that are only related because they are "repeat offenses"? Or are you trying to say that because CoJ asked for reps on-par with damages done, it proves that GOONS are unjustified in asking for punitive reps?

I'm honestly trying to figure out, because the debate has wiggled its way around so much I'm not quite sure what point people are trying to make any more. It's tough to refute a point if you don't know what it is.

[quote]
It really isn't, and I also called you out on your deflection, which I found pretty funny.

Who were the ones calling out others for shoddy arguments? Throwing stones in glass houses and whatnot.
[/quote]
I... I really don't understand what you are saying here. The OP actually is terrible, and I made no deflections.

[TehChron]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1283892639' post='2445669']
I didn't say that. I was just trying to point out the fact that the OP was badly formed, and all those hailing it as a work of genius are quite mistaken.[/quote] You certainly didn't present your point as such, but if that's what you meant by it, then I suppose I cant hold that against you.

Edit: Well, here we have yet [i]another[/i] deflection!

[quote]Actually, no.

Shatt may have backpedaled to this position since the start of the thread, but this is kind of backwards from what is actually stated in the OP. Go read it again, I'll wait![/quote]It turns out that that is, in fact, [i]exactly[/i] what you said.

Weird how that works, I quote what you say, respond to exactly what you said, and it turns out that, somehow, what I quoted and responded to [i]was exactly what you said.[/i]

[quote]
... but you just refuted my attack on the OP by saying that it doesn't matter if the OP is off base because of what has come up in the rest of the thread.[/quote]Once again, so what? It doesn't matter, nor, for that matter, do I have any right to stop you [b]from disproving the OP[/b]. You're free to use whatever means available to you, I certainly won't stop you from trying.


[quote]Okay, correct me if I've got this wrong:
GOONS are hypocrites because CoJ did not ask for higher reps in a raid incident a month before we asked for large reps from NSO for two things that are only related because they are "repeat offenses"? Or are you trying to say that because CoJ asked for reps on-par with damages done, it proves that GOONS are unjustified in asking for punitive reps?
[/quote]No, it's apparent that GOONS are hypocrites for not [i]offering[/i] highly inflated reps for repeatedly raiding a protected nation, in tune with their stance on how much Doppelganger needed to pay, since NSO as a whole apparently aids rogues with impunity. Or something.

Consistency is, inherently, voluntary, by the way. So the fact that you chose to act differently, just because CoJ was reasonable in this case, is itself a contradiction of the stance you took with Doppelganger. We too, wanted to be reasonable.

You would have none of that, however. Couldn't risk having those dastardly sith pulling another stunt like [i]that[/i], after all. Examples needed to be made, rabble rabble.
[quote]I'm honestly trying to figure out, because the debate has wiggled its way around so much I'm not quite sure what point people are trying to make any more. It's tough to refute a point if you don't know what it is.[/quote]You know, thats how I felt about why Doppelganger owed your alliance $90 million in reps.

At least these arguments make sense.


[quote]I... I really don't understand what you are saying here. The OP actually is terrible, and I made no deflections.
[/quote]
You've made several actually, in the quoted post alone there's a few.

[quote]
... but you just refuted my attack on the OP by saying that it doesn't matter if the OP is off base because of what has come up in the rest of the thread.[/quote]See what I mean?

Edited September 7, 2010 by Chron

[Heinlander]

I'd like to know what you actually intended to accomplish with this thread Schattenmann. Because if you were trying to ruin our reputation and destroy our credibility then it's a waste of electricity because the only people who care already hate us and already posted in the first two pages.

Really, I'd be delighted to know.

[Itsuki Koizumi]

whoa didn't see that coming. yadda yadda, lines being drawn. new war on the horizon, yadda yadda

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Heinlander' timestamp='1283893451' post='2445684']
I'd like to know what you actually intended to accomplish with this thread Schattenmann. Because if you were trying to ruin our reputation and destroy our credibility then it's a waste of electricity because the only people who care already hate us and already posted in the first two pages.

Really, I'd be delighted to know.
[/quote]
It's all he knows really, demagogically yelling at the uninformed masses about how they should be enraged about some grave injustice or hypocrisy that he and he alone has uncovered. His hatchet job won't fly with the people who matter anyway. Anyone with an iota of intelligence can tell the clear difference between the situations. He should take up arguing about tech raiding, at least that debate has two sides grounded in fact.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1283884338' post='2445537']
If you can provide proof GOONS was doing all this just to spite you we all roll GOONS. If nopt then as people before me have said it isn't quite the same situation. Similar sure but it seems the NSO guys were actually out to help methrage in his roguing which means it was deliberate. I don't see GOONS' aiding as deliberate intent to help the guy hurt you or whoever it was.

Also, Omni doesn't get to tell our senator who or who not to sanction anymore. Our senator will sanction who the gov tells him to or we'll find another senator. Plain and simple.
[/quote]

I think the point being made is that 90mil is way too much. It'd be like getting the death penalty for jay walking.

Also I can't tell if you're confirming the point I made earlier to Methrage or claiming you'll keep from having conversations with GATO's senator. If it's the latter then I'm looking forward to your plans there.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1283822954' post='2444637']
Hey buddy we tried to pay out reps for that one, but he never accepted the offer so I canceled it [b](I waited a week)[/b].
[/quote][quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1283824478' post='2444672']
This is literally how the negotiations went for that incident, the amount was his idea anyway:

<Beefspari[GOONS]> I'll suspend him from raiding and get him to peace.
<Schattenmann> Some amount of restitution would also be appropriate.
<Beefspari[GOONS]> He looks pretty small, how much do you want?
<Schattenmann> Not more than 1m
[b]<Schattenmann> 500k-1m[/b]
<Beefspari[GOONS]> That seems fine.
[/quote][quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1283834759' post='2444909']
[b]You canceled the offer before the slot even was even expired[/b] and never made an effort to investigate whether he was going inactive, idling out or if something had happened making him unable to accept it. Furthermore there's the fact that the nation still exists unpaid.


hmm, why does that debate of whether advisors are government sound familiar. Seriously, wasn't there a previous incident about that?
[/quote]

[b]Bold 1:[/b] Slots expire at 10 days not after a week which is 7 days

[b]Bold 2:[/b] The agreed amount was 500k-1m and it should be paid since GOONS didn't wait for the slot to expire, nation could have accepted on day 8 or 9, but we will never know will we.

[b]Bold 3:[/b] Slot never expired so again GOONS owes the agreed upon amount, had the slot expired then GOONS would have the right to not send another 500k-1m. Its not up to GOONS to find active nations to accept the aid on time but it is up to them to at least let the slot expire before making claims that they tried but it was never accepted.

[b]tl;dr[/b] GOONS still owes 500k-1m and if it is not paid then it will be a valid no time limit CB. When the power structure changes, this CB can be used to crush GOONS and any allies that attempt to defend them.

[TehChron]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1283894062' post='2445696']
It's all he knows really, demagogically yelling at the uninformed masses about how they should be enraged about some grave injustice or hypocrisy that he and he alone has uncovered. His hatchet job won't fly with the people who matter anyway. Anyone with an iota of intelligence can tell the clear difference between the situations. He should take up arguing about tech raiding, at least that debate has two sides grounded in fact.
[/quote]
I like how you imply that only the really clever people can see why the situations are different, in the hopes that one of those really clever people will be able to explain it for you, to the rest of us "unintelligent"-types or whatever.

I mean, the hypocrisy is pretty clear, and you guys havn't actually done anything to refute that basic accusation.

[quote] Anyone with an iota of intelligence can tell the clear difference between the situations.[/quote]
So humor the rest of us, then.

[Jakome]

I don't know why the 11 page discussion. Schat isn't getting 90 million and won't do a thing about it and Doppel agreed to 90 million after a civilized discussion.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1283894575' post='2445706']
I like how you imply that only the really clever people can see why the situations are different, in the hopes that one of those really clever people will be able to explain it for you, to the rest of us "unintelligent"-types or whatever.
[/quote]
He already did, His name is Bob Janova, and he is correct.

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1283894509' post='2445704']
[b]Bold 1:[/b] Slots expire at 10 days not after a week which is 7 days

[b]Bold 2:[/b] The agreed amount was 500k-1m and it should be paid since GOONS didn't wait for the slot to expire, nation could have accepted on day 8 or 9, but we will never know will we.

[b]Bold 3:[/b] Slot never expired so again GOONS owes the agreed upon amount, had the slot expired then GOONS would have the right to not send another 500k-1m. Its not up to GOONS to find active nations to accept the aid on time but it is up to them to at least let the slot expire before making claims that they tried but it was never accepted.

[b]tl;dr[/b] GOONS still owes 500k-1m and if it is not paid then it will be a valid no time limit CB. When the power structure changes, this CB can be used to crush GOONS and any allies that attempt to defend them.
[/quote]
This is so ridiculous, perhaps even NSO will see that since it is you making the argument. I have already pledged to pay the nation who is owed money should he become active again. But don't let that get in the way of your delusions, they are highly amusing.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1283893403' post='2445683']
words
[/quote]

Okay, let me just take a break right here. These point-by-point things always end up getting far too large.

Seems there was a bit of a miscommunication; I was operating under the assumption with my first reply to your post that when you said "The point being made here", that "the point" was the one being made by the OP. That really led to a lot of chaff (on both sides) that amounted to not much, so I'll respond to what I think is the important point.

[quote]
No, it's apparent that GOONS are hypocrites for not offering highly inflated reps for repeatedly raiding a protected nation, in tune with their stance on how much Doppelganger needed to pay, since NSO as a whole apparently aids rogues with impunity. Or something.

Consistency is, inherently, voluntary, by the way. So the fact that you chose to act differently, just because CoJ was reasonable in this case, is itself a contradiction of the stance you took with Doppelganger. We too, wanted to be reasonable.
[/quote]
This is patently absurd. The only way we could be hypocrites in this situation is if CoJ had asked for inflated reps due to whatever, and GOONS had outright refused them. Regardless of what reps we think are necessary and/or justified in any situation, we aren't going to pay more than what is asked. Period.

[Bob Janova]

I'm pretty sure I already described how they are different. (Apparently Biff knew in advance that they were .)

[Bilrow]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1283894509' post='2445704']
[b]Bold 1:[/b] Slots expire at 10 days not after a week which is 7 days


[/quote]
Actually the aid was sent on 9/2/2010 so it is just now 5 days.

[TehChron]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1283895717' post='2445731']
I'm pretty sure I already described how they are different. (Apparently Biff knew in advance that they were .)
[/quote]
Yeah, totally called you out as being wrong, too. Feel free to revisit my post.

[quote]This is patently absurd. The only way we could be hypocrites in this situation is if CoJ had asked for inflated reps due to whatever, and GOONS had outright refused them. Regardless of what reps we think are necessary and/or justified in any situation, we aren't going to pay more than what is asked. Period.[/quote] To be fair, NSO didnt outright refuse them, we simply attempted to negotiate them down to something more reasonable. You refused to do so.

Your analogy is misleading, and therefore incorrect. My point still stands, since you didn't offer a high-ball amount, and still went with CoJ's low-ball figure. But hey, since you stated that regardless of what reps are justified in your opinion, you'll go with whatever the cheapest option is, [i]you just proved my point for me. [/i]

[quote]He already did, His name is Bob Janova, and he is correct.[/quote]Ha.

Weren't you all the ones lecturing Schatt about faulty logic, terrible arguments, and refusing to address counterarguments?

And you cite [i]Bob Janova[/i] as an example of some kind of height of argumentative skill? That's honestly rich. Not only is Bob Janova not correct, but I even [i]explained why that is [/i] several pages ago.

Edited September 7, 2010 by Chron

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Bilrow' timestamp='1283896345' post='2445739']
Actually the aid was sent on 9/2/2010 so it is just now 5 days.
[/quote]
What? Seriously What? Then what is Schatt mumbling on about? He agreed to the amount. Its sent. What is going on here?

The point is punitive is for next time. Schatt, already agreed to the amount THIS time. Next time he can crank it up to crazy amounts.

[Horatio Longworth]

Schattenmann has addressed a legitimate concern and has made his argument in a logical and organized format. It was a good read. I hope both parties involved can come to an agreement civilly.

May justice be done.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1283896406' post='2445742']
To be fair, NSO didnt outright refuse them, we simply attempted to negotiate them down to something more reasonable. You refused to do so.

Your analogy is misleading, and therefore incorrect. My point still stands, since you didn't offer a high-ball amount, and still went with CoJ's low-ball figure. But hey, since you stated that regardless of what reps are justified in your opinion, you'll go with whatever the cheapest option is, [i]you just proved my point for me. [/i]
[/quote]
Uh.

I think you either 1) Don't know how hypocrisy works, 2) Don't know how negotiating works, or 3) Are trying to be intentionally obtuse in the hopes that I'll stop talking.

I wasn't making an analogy. I was stating a fact. I wasn't trying to say NSO refused reps. I don't know why you thought that. If CoJ had asked for inflated reps and GOONS had told CoJ that repeated infractions were not grounds for inflated reps, then yes we would be hypocrites in this situation.

And... I don't understand what us opting for the cheapest option proves at all. Please explain.

[Bob Janova]

You mean this post?

[quote]Excellent, I agree [that $1m reps is suitable for the raid].

So why is $90 million reasonable with regards to Doppelganger only doing it once? I mean...GOONs did several of those GA's, apparently. You know, the multiple raids on the same protected nation and all that.

[...]

Ah, I see.

So unless GOONS gets rolled, they have no reason to pay absurdly large reps. Thank you for clearing that up.[/quote]
That's not really 'calling me out as being wrong'. It's agreeing with half my post and trying to score points with misdirection against the other half.

There haven't been 'multiple raids on the same protected nation', the earlier wars were an alliance war between USSR and GOONS – one which started because GOONS tech raided them, yes, but turned into a war and resolved as a war. You can probably find the thread in AA about it if you care. Senior members of GOONS who should know better aren't doing this kind of thing, and assuming the raids are at a low level and a maximum of 4 GAs, the scale of the offence is much, much lower than aiding a rogue to permit him to drop extra nukes. I'm sure all of us in open membership alliances have to deal with accidental raids and tiny rogue nations all the time.

And I know your last sentence was facetious, and it's only half accurate, but ... yes. Once you've received a strong lesson about something, either getting rolled for it or warned that you could have been rolled for it, to then do it again so shortly afterwards makes the situation rather different. If CoJ had said 'These guys are protected, and we'll have to respond if you attack them', and then GOONS raided them, then CoJ would be entitled to take the nations in question to the cleaners. However, the attempt to make that into an anti-GOONS point fails on the very important point that [i]CoJ only asked for one million in compensation[/i].

[Felix von Agnu]

[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1283896406' post='2445742']
Your analogy is misleading, and therefore incorrect. My point still stands, since you didn't offer a high-ball amount, and still went with CoJ's low-ball figure. But hey, since you stated that regardless of what reps are justified in your opinion, you'll go with whatever the cheapest option is, [i]you just proved my point for me. [/i]
[/quote]

What kind of moron will negotiate higher reps for himself? If I raided someone and the damage was 4 mil and they just wanted 3 mil, I wouldn't go paying the 4 mil. Ask for more than you want, I thought that was Negotiations 101.

[Bilrow]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1283896659' post='2445746']
What? Seriously What? Then what is Schatt mumbling on about? He agreed to the amount. Its sent. What is going on here?

The point is punitive is for next time. Schatt, already agreed to the amount THIS time. Next time he can crank it up to crazy amounts.
[/quote]
The point is that GOONS canceled the offered aid prior to even 4-5 days had passed of it being offered. Course who would blame the guy for going inactive, since there is history back to July of GOONS harassing the nation by tech raiding him continuously for over a month.

[TehChron]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1283897453' post='2445756']
Uh.

I think you either 1) Don't know how hypocrisy works, 2) Don't know how negotiating works, or 3) Are trying to be intentionally obtuse in the hopes that I'll stop talking.

I wasn't making an analogy. I was stating a fact. [/quote]
Ah, then I apologize for mistaking your presentation, however, I take deep offense to the implication that I don't know how either of those two things work.

1) [quote name='hypocrisy']
–noun, plural -sies.
1.
a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2.
a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3.
an act or instance of hypocrisy.
[/quote]The first example may not apply, but I am positing that the latter two do, the second not so much, but the third is most definitely what I, and Schatt, are calling you out on.

2) Negotiation is discussion for the sake of gaining a mutually acceptable agreement between two or more parties. By the standards indicated in the Doppelganger aid incident, one would understand that the concept of massive punitive reps are a token show of remorse, nay, even a show of changing ones ways. I am disinclined to believe that Schatt would have found something in the range of, say, $6 million to be unacceptable.

It's not really negotiation if you simply discard your vaunted principles for the sake of what the other party demands without any discussion to secure them. Why, one could even say that it's taking Schatt's orders rather than a negotiation.

[quote]Negotiation:

–noun
1.
mutual discussion and arrangement of the terms of a transaction or agreement: the negotiation of a treaty.
2.
the act or process of negotiating.
3.
an instance or the result of negotiating.
[/quote]

3) Intentionally obtuse? Why never! I simply pointed out that by conceding the fact that regardless of what you think is justified, you'll [i]always[/i] go with the cheaper method simply proved my argument that the principles you argued so passionately in regards to Doppelganger paying $90 million are actually completely irrelevant to your decision-making itself. And this event indicates an hypocrisy in that manner, since you and your alliance went out of their way to extol the virtues of punitive measures to teach folks a lesson. This falls under the most basic colloquial use of hypocrisy; Talking out of both sides of your mouth.

[quote]I wasn't trying to say NSO refused reps. I don't know why you thought that. If CoJ had asked for inflated reps and GOONS had told CoJ that repeated infractions were not grounds for inflated reps, then yes we would be hypocrites in this situation. [/quote]Where did I say NSO refused reps?

Please stop making up fictional accounts of what arguments are being used in order to deflect from your actual position. Honestly, you'd think you'd be getting tired at this point of such an overused tactic.

[quote]And... I don't understand what us opting for the cheapest option proves at all. Please explain.
[/quote]I will quote myself out of sheer laziness.

[quote]3) Intentionally obtuse? Why never! I simply pointed out that by conceding the fact that regardless of what you think is justified, you'll [i]always[/i] go with the cheaper method simply proved my argument that the principles you argued so passionately in regards to Doppelganger paying $90 million are actually completely irrelevant to your decision-making itself. And this event indicates an hypocrisy in that manner, since you and your alliance went out of their way to extol the virtues of punitive measures to teach folks a lesson. This falls under the most basic colloquial use of hypocrisy; Talking out of both sides of your mouth.[/quote]

[quote name='felix']What kind of moron will negotiate higher reps for himself? If I raided someone and the damage was 4 mil and they just wanted 3 mil, I wouldn't go paying the 4 mil. Ask for more than you want, I thought that was Negotiations 101.[/quote]I never said there was anything wrong with being a hypocrite.

Put simply, being a blatant hypocrite is the politically astute route to take. My hats off to GOONS for the skill theyve demonstrated in this manner.

[quote name='Bob']There haven't been 'multiple raids on the same protected nation', the earlier wars were an alliance war between USSR and GOONS – one which started because GOONS tech raided them, yes, but turned into a war and resolved as a war. You can probably find the thread in AA about it if you care. Senior members of GOONS who should know better aren't doing this kind of thing, and assuming the raids are at a low level and a maximum of 4 GAs, the scale of the offence is much, much lower than aiding a rogue to permit him to drop extra nukes. I'm sure all of us in open membership alliances have to deal with accidental raids and tiny rogue nations all the time.[/quote]With regards to the war, link? You'd think that since the incident in question is central to what Schatt's been saying, he wouldn't have overlooked something so critical to the situation, so forgive me for finding your description of the situation to be somewhat wanting.

Now then, with regards to the "scale" of the situation, isn't the entire point of standards of practice to apply them consistently? If GOONS has even one member sending any amount of aid to a nuclear rogue for the express purpose of [i]assisting them[/i], the action is itself just as bad, regardless of the damage dealt.

So by refusing to budge in regards to Doppelganger's situation, who attempted to do GOONS the favor of not openly insulting them by paying a premium to hide his assistance to methrage from them, they are themselves acknowledging that aiding rogues doesn't really matter to them. It's only a matter of aiding [i]their[/i] rogues.

Once again, there is nothing wrong with hypocrisy. It's not bad for your health or anything, and all the more power to GOONS for being so open about their political views.

[quote]And I know your last sentence was facetious, and it's only half accurate, but ... yes. Once you've received a strong lesson about something, either getting rolled for it or warned that you could have been rolled for it, to then do it again so shortly afterwards makes the situation rather different.[/quote]Well now. I'll remember to apply this retroactively.

Bravo, Bob. Admitting to one's own hypocrisy takes a lot of guts, my hat is off to you. Now if only GOONS would be willing to take that same step, we'd all be able to move on.

The point is that CoJ was reasonable, GOONS, when the shoe was on the other foot, decided not to be. In fact, the $1 million has [i]yet to even be paid[/i], so that also kind of matters in it's own way. Considering GOONS were the ones at fault, you'd think that they'd take the effort to ensure that their dues were paid.

Edit: Quote tag fail

Edited September 7, 2010 by Chron

[Jakome]

[quote name='Bilrow' timestamp='1283898075' post='2445768']
The point is that GOONS canceled the offered aid prior to even 4-5 days had passed of it being offered. Course who would blame the guy for going inactive, since there is history back to July of GOONS harassing the nation by tech raiding him continuously for over a month.
[/quote]
Guess he should have stopped buying tech

[Bilrow]

[quote name='Jakome' timestamp='1283899066' post='2445787']
Guess he should have stopped buying tech
[/quote]
Clearly. Shame on him for having tech and just asking to be triple team tech raided by GOONS.