Charge of the FEAR brigade

[Scorponok]

Awesome. Good show FEAR

[Haflinger]

[quote name='R3nowned' timestamp='1292935352' post='2548255']
Either way, iFOK and PC don't come off looking good in this.
[/quote]
No.

Ah well. At least FOK won't defend International against FEAR.

Still this is a disappointing turn of events. I hope NEW can see reason before this all spreads too far.

[Tromp]

Right lol, so you are supporting NEW in their agressive war.

I guess it's good to know where FEAR stands on the protectorate issue. It's now free game to attack FEAR protectorates, if they have any.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1292938118' post='2548282']
Right lol, so you are supporting NEW in their agressive war.

I guess it's good to know where FEAR stands on the protectorate issue. It's now free game to attack FEAR protectorates, if they have any.
[/quote]

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/FEAR

Looks like they have a few. Have at it boys.

I won't jump on FEAR for honoring their treaty. However, in my useless opinion, you are allowing NEW to get away with reckless behavior.

[Freebird99]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1292941052' post='2548314']However, in my useless opinion, you are allowing NEW to get away with reckless behavior.
[/quote]

Friends is friends is friends!!!! and they may make mistakes and you may shout at them in private, but you still defend them!

Edited December 21, 2010 by Freebird99

[Ying Yang Mafia]

Props to FEAR. You're much better at this ally thing than PC and iFok blah blah blah.

[shadeslayers09]

FEAR, I love you guys

/o FEAR

[AvengingAngel256]

[quote name='jeff barr' timestamp='1292917676' post='2548077']
PC and iFOK had an [b]Optional Aggression[/b] treaty with NEW meaning you have the option to NOT follow in your allies footsteps when they make a silly act of aggression.

I think NEW's non-allies as well as allies realize the war is unjust/doublefacepalm. I'd say thus far PC and iFok have played their cards wisely. This is clearly why Optional Aggression clauses exist, so you are not sentenced to death by a reckless ally.
[/quote]
Optional aggression does not apply in this case.
It would apply if NEW were declaring on someone but I saw no declaration. I saw a handful of tech raiders.
Even if you e-lawyer that tech raid into a DoW, optional aggression still doesn't apply because that would be DoWing on DF.
They got attacked. PC and iFOK are supposed to defend them.
Optional aggression clauses exist to allow allies to support each other in [i]attacking[/i] someone, not to provide a loophole to get out of defending your allies.

[Canik]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1292941052' post='2548314']
http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/FEAR

Looks like they have a few. Have at it boys.

I won't jump on FEAR for honoring their treaty. However, in my useless opinion, you are allowing NEW to get away with reckless behavior.
[/quote]

We don't blame The Internationale for backing they nations they said they'd protect. I'd expect nothing less of them. If NEW was offered reasonable terms and rejected them, I would say that was a mistake on their part. However, we've all made mistakes. No one here is perfect, and certainly no alliance. If someone isn't gonna back you when you make a mistake, then when are they going to back you? What other time would you REALLY need your friends? It's easy to say you're loyal to an ally when the going's good. This is where it counts.

[mdnss69]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1292941052' post='2548314']
However, in my useless opinion, you are allowing NEW to get away with reckless behavior.
[/quote]

Your right. Let's all go and support GOONS instead.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Canik' timestamp='1292944778' post='2548356']
We don't blame The Internationale for backing they nations they said they'd protect. I'd expect nothing less of them. If NEW was offered reasonable terms and rejected them, I would say that was a mistake on their part. However, we've all made mistakes. No one here is perfect, and certainly no alliance. If someone isn't gonna back you when you make a mistake, then when are they going to back you? What other time would you REALLY need your friends? It's easy to say you're loyal to an ally when the going's good. This is where it counts.
[/quote]

I see your point. I guess I would have forced them back to the table. I don't know what terms they were offered.


[quote name='mdnss69' timestamp='1292944975' post='2548358']
Your right. Let's all go and support GOONS instead.
[/quote]

What does this even have to do with anything that is going on in this war?

[WarriorConcept]

Honorable stance, despite the fact that I disagree with the original reason for the war starting.

May all combatants have a fun time this war.

[President S O]

Regardless of the situation and all its technicalities and such. This is a gutsy and honorable move.

[Steinfeld]

o/ FEAR. Get some. dun dun dunnnnnnnn aww snap some peeps are about to get rolled.

and for the record... there still isnt a protection announcement.... im still very confused by that... if there is an official one please link me

[AirMe]

[quote name='Steinfeld' timestamp='1292946679' post='2548376']
o/ FEAR. Get some. dun dun dunnnnnnnn aww snap some peeps are about to get rolled.

and for the record... there still isnt a protection announcement.... im still very confused by that... if there is an official one please link me
[/quote]

The protection notices were made in the thread. As alliances have done in the past and will continue to do in the future.

[Finnish Commie]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1292945599' post='2548367']
I see your point. I guess I would have forced them back to the table. I don't know what terms they were offered.
[/quote]

We couldn't really get NEW to the table. They refused to negotiate completely on anything other than us dropping the matter.

[Steinfeld]

see now, i saw that one, only because i was told to read that thread over and over and over again b/c i didn't see it the first 8 times. now i am a student of these planet Bob politics, and i know what an official protection announcement is, and if you call that announcement a competent, official announcement, then you are fooling yourself and looking for a conflict to arise. If they were so sincere in the protection, why wouldn't they immediately post their announcement, or make another thread so nobody gets confused? to me this just seems like it was a set up for war.

but it is what it is now. i will enjoy seeing how this will end.

[Rayvon]

I'm no fan of NEW, however the words of your second paragraph ring true. "we do what we must tonight for one simple reason, and that is that we will not stand by and watch"

They've done good by you, you do good by them. Good show FEAR.

o/

[AirMe]

[quote name='Finnish Commie' timestamp='1292947307' post='2548382']
We couldn't really get NEW to the table. They refused to negotiate completely on anything other than us dropping the matter.
[/quote]

How totally unfair of you. You should be ashamed.

Am I doing this right?

Edited December 21, 2010 by AirMe

[lazaraus45]

awesome show

o/ FEAR

[Steinfeld]

[quote name='Finnish Commie' timestamp='1292947307' post='2548382']
We couldn't really get NEW to the table. They refused to negotiate completely on anything other than us dropping the matter.
[/quote]


dropping the whole thing would have made sense, considering that the protection announcement was pretty much hidden in the thread. there was no official "stamp" on it what so ever. just someone saying that it would be against their best interest to raid them. that's not official... and once again, if you think it is.... you are just fooling yourself. And if this was such a big thing to go to war about, then they/you should have gone and made an official stance, with a new thread. where everyone knew that you were protecting a deceased alliance.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Steinfeld

[Barnaby von Farter]

[quote name='Steinfeld' timestamp='1292948006' post='2548394']
dropping the whole thing would have made sense, considering that the protection announcement was pretty much hidden in the thread. there was no official "stamp" on it what so ever. just someone saying that it would be against their best interest to raid them. that's not official... and once again, if you think it is.... you are just fooling yourself. And if this was such a big thing to go to war about, then they/you should have gone and made an official stance, with a new thread. where everyone knew that you were protecting a deceased alliance.
[/quote]

Incorrect presumption for starters.

Within a handful of comments of the Protection announcement, NEW membership directly inquired about it. They later acknowledged comprehending the protection statements. What it boils down to is that NEW chose to disregard the statements of protecting DF, and proceeded to hit their AA.

And now here we are. Good times.

[Finnish Commie]

[quote name='Steinfeld' timestamp='1292948006' post='2548394']
dropping the whole thing would have made sense, considering that the protection announcement was pretty much hidden in the thread. there was no official "stamp" on it what so ever. just someone saying that it would be against their best interest to raid them. that's not official... and once again, if you think it is.... you are just fooling yourself. And if this was such a big thing to go to war about, then they/you should have gone and made an official stance, with a new thread. where everyone knew that you were protecting a deceased alliance.
[/quote]

NEW had no problem spotting the protection announcements. They even questioned them. They tried to e-lawyer their way out of it by saying that they were not official enough for them, just like you are trying to e-lawyer now. Nevertheless, if we promise to protect someone we will, even if our opponents lack basics skills of reading comprehension.

[Steinfeld]

[quote name='Barnaby von Farter' timestamp='1292948331' post='2548396']
Incorrect presumption for starters.

Within a handful of comments of the Protection announcement, NEW membership directly inquired about it. They later acknowledged comprehending the protection statements. What it boils down to is that NEW chose to disregard the statements of protecting DF, and proceeded to hit their AA.

And now here we are. Good times.
[/quote]


And of course, now, not to be disrespectful, one would ask for you to show that they actually did inquire about the protection status. (with the times of the inquiries to match up with the time of the disband notice) Also, what announcement, of MASS IMPORTANCE, makes post # 32 on a thread. especially a protection notice? just wondering.

but you must also agree, that this whole thing could have been avoided if there were a proper Protection Announcement, even if there was someone who posted two vague times(?) and just hinted, and suggested at a protection. It just seems now you are looking for wars.

yes indeed, let the good times roll

Edited December 21, 2010 by Steinfeld

[Jackie Moon]

[quote name='Steinfeld' timestamp='1292948006' post='2548394']
dropping the whole thing would have made sense, considering that the protection announcement was pretty much hidden in the thread. there was no official "stamp" on it what so ever. just someone saying that it would be against their best interest to raid them. that's not official... and once again, if you think it is.... you are just fooling yourself. And if this was such a big thing to go to war about, then they/you should have gone and made an official stance, with a new thread. where everyone knew that you were protecting a deceased alliance.
[/quote]

Here you go again, arguing the same damn point. You asked where the protection announcement was, and you were pointed to posts in that thread. Regardless of that fact, you seem to be missing the bigger picture; you think NEW can deface the corpse of a prestigious black team alliance, which has decided to disband peacefully, and no one will notice or care? Whether it's got the 'official' stamp or not, if you believe there's a chance in hell of NEW getting away with something like that, you're sorely mistaken.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'official'... Their allies saying, "it's not in your best interest to raid them" is CN diplomatic talk for: "raid them and I punch you in the @#%^ing face", which as about as 'official' as it gets around here.

The fact of the matter is, NEW called DF's allies bluff, and got a face-full of Cruise Missles. It's as simple as that. Please move on and argue something else.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Dark Temptation