tayloj7 Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 [quote name='blackdeathbailey' timestamp='1296215668' post='2607315'] so because i try and get away from a war im a deserter? [/quote] somebody buy this man a dictionary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SynthFG Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 [quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1296280390' post='2608938'] Cool we now know what we can get away with. Thanks. [/quote] If a POW changes his mind that's his decision He should however remember that an opportunity to surrender is an act of mercy on the part of the other alliance and every nation only gets 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HalfEmpty Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 Base scum. You're well rid of this parasite, admin willing this yellow-vector will infect the other side with his poison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 I would support leaving this guy out of terms should RIA lose. That's pretty bad to commit treason against both sides in a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 Yeah, this kind of shenanigans is not acceptable. PoW camps are a kindness, a way for individual nations who don't wish to fight for whatever cause their alliance is at war for to escape, and abusing them, if done on a wide scale, would simply result in individual surrender terms not being offered in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Letum' timestamp='1296270892' post='2608396'] Pretty much. Getting away from a war, when part of an army, is called "desertion". [/quote] [quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1296272865' post='2608448'] Well... umm... Yes? That's the definition of desertion. E:Shafted by Letum! [/quote] These things right here ^^ they just both beat me. As for the topic why the hell are you pointing this out Alterego? I really don't understand. A lot of noobs mis-use peace terms. THey usually get away with it, because they are actually noobs and they don't quite understand. If RIA did however message someone and ask them to come back and fight though that is completely wrong imo. Once again, most of the people who surrender are newer nations who don't quite understand the culture here yet. If they surrender and then you ask them to come back knowing they will that's very disrespectful. Edited January 29, 2011 by Omniscient1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vespassianus Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 POW-s= future raid targets. My saved nation page is longer and longer Nations who cheat witht the mercy of surrender=ZI list applicants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamuella Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1296335192' post='2609888'] Yeah, this kind of shenanigans is not acceptable. PoW camps are a kindness, a way for individual nations who don't wish to fight for whatever cause their alliance is at war for to escape, and abusing them, if done on a wide scale, would simply result in individual surrender terms not being offered in the first place. [/quote] well, they're more than a kindness, let's be brutally honest. They're a good way of melting your opponent's NS, reducing their number of nations, and lowering the morale of those left behind (while also freeing up your own offensive slots so you can find a new head to stomp on). A PoW camp is a weapon as much as a cruise missile is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Lamuella' timestamp='1296345806' post='2610101'] well, they're more than a kindness, let's be brutally honest. They're a good way of melting your opponent's NS, reducing their number of nations, and lowering the morale of those left behind (while also freeing up your own offensive slots so you can find a new head to stomp on). A PoW camp is a weapon as much as a cruise missile is. [/quote] Pretty much this, threatening to stop offering individual surrender terms is an empty threat, since that actually benefits the opposing alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 blackdeathbailey you're a coward. Good day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cataduanes Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='blackdeathbailey' timestamp='1296215668' post='2607315'] so because i try and get away from a war im a deserter?. [/quote] As many others have said your indeed a deserter and a coward, try having some self respect in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Lamuella' timestamp='1296345806' post='2610101'] well, they're more than a kindness, let's be brutally honest. They're a good way of melting your opponent's NS, reducing their number of nations, and lowering the morale of those left behind (while also freeing up your own offensive slots so you can find a new head to stomp on). A PoW camp is a weapon as much as a cruise missile is. [/quote] Eh, the nations which surrender would probably sit there and take the beating anyway, and offensive slots are no use when you're in anarchy. If what you were saying was strongly the case then individual surrender terms would habitually be offered on day 1, which they usually aren't (though I think it was pretty early this war). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlinus Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 It seems to be an issue sufficient to include in alliance charters, to me. Spell it out, then live with it. It sounds reasonable, and rather basic, but if the info isn't there from the beginning, retro-punishment seems a bit over the top to me. If it is there, understandable, and agreed to by alliance affiliation, the alliance member is duty bound to honor it, or leave the alliance (preferably prior to engaging in war.) In this game, war is a central component; therefore those things relating to war should be clearly laid out to all member applicants (Academy?) prior to accepting the benefits and responsibilities of the AA. Period. In this instance, the member benefited from the AA, then left the AA after war was engaged. That IS desertion: "[i][b]Leaving your post during a time of hostilities without leave.[/b][/i]" (Permission). Reasons matter not to the definition, and the member now should feel the costs of choice. Just like in war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1296280686' post='2608960'] It wasn't deliberate though, he did surrender. Queue sent him a message basically saying "what are you doing, don't surrender" so he came back. Sometimes things like this happen. [/quote] Sure, we'll remember it. Again thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Z Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1296280686' post='2608960'] It wasn't deliberate though, he did surrender. Queue sent him a message basically saying "what are you doing, don't surrender" so he came back. Sometimes things like this happen. [/quote] That's not something I support at all. Using the POW AA to restock and go back into the war is a pretty disgusting tactic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Big Z' timestamp='1296373234' post='2610781'] That's not something I support at all. Using the POW AA to restock and go back into the war is a pretty disgusting tactic. [/quote] I agree, and that's essentially what RIA has been accused of here, but it's not true. We had two clueless noobs surrender, then un-surrender as soon as they found out we didn't want them to surrender. I mean but we're not trying to achieve some tactical advantage. I suppose our mistake was to take them back after surrendering. I'll shut up about this now Edited January 30, 2011 by James Dahl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 [quote name='Lamuella' timestamp='1296345806' post='2610101'] well, they're more than a kindness, let's be brutally honest. They're a good way of melting your opponent's NS, reducing their number of nations, and lowering the morale of those left behind (while also freeing up your own offensive slots so you can find a new head to stomp on). A PoW camp is a weapon as much as a cruise missile is. [/quote] Not if the nations in the PoW camps simply sit there, wait for war aid to flow in, rearm, and rejoin the fight. Then they're a liability. I'd advise alliances at war with RIA against accepting individual surrenders in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 A couple of iFOK members pulled this too. My problem is not with them peacing out and going back to the original AA, it is the threat of them re engaging. When I spoke to their government about it, they said that they did not support this tactic, yet said they will provide war aid if he decides to re enter. Great precedent to set . Dirty play in my opinion. But whatever floats your boat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Whimsical Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 [quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1297881335' post='2635777'] A couple of iFOK members pulled this too. My problem is not with them peacing out and going back to the original AA, it is the threat of them re engaging. When I spoke to their government about it, they said that they did not support this tactic, yet said they will provide war aid if he decides to re enter. Great precedent to set . Dirty play in my opinion. But whatever floats your boat. [/quote] It happens. We had nation from GATO attack us from GOD PoW, and he's being ZI'd at we speak. Pretty opportunistic, imo, and a very bad precedent to set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmmehhh Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Apparently the guy who became POW is now back in GATO. It's a large nation too. Not some clueless noob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 [quote name='blackdeathbailey' timestamp='1296215668' post='2607315'] so because i try and get away from a war im a deserter?. A war which i wasnt involved in/couldnt have been active enough to be involved in at the start. A war in which to my understanding had 2 sides of GATO's allys on it?. I still had friends in GATO so i didnt join RIA and also LOSS and a few other alliances asked me to join them. I did inform them i would not be joining them because it would be backstabbing GATO not that it was any of your buisness alterego. I also did mention to a few Goverment members in GATO that due to me not taking part in the war i would be helping to rebuild them again not that its your buisness or to be quite frank anybody else's buisness what i can/cant do within GATO the only explaining i would perhaps have needed to do was to GATO Goverment officials. Edit Since this is realy noone's buisness / or against any of the current standing rules to do ingame. Could a moderator lock and close topic i dont see any relevance of why its been posted other then to start flaming. [/quote] GATO was only in the war for like a week anyway; you couldn't wait a week before deserting at the same time as the rest of GATO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 [quote name='Emperor Whimsical' timestamp='1297901289' post='2636108'] It happens. We had nation from GATO attack us from GOD PoW, and he's being ZI'd at we speak. Pretty opportunistic, imo, and a very bad precedent to set. [/quote] Pretty sure he's already been ZI'd, actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalasin Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 [quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1296374328' post='2610818'] I agree, and that's essentially what RIA has been accused of here, but it's not true. We had two clueless noobs surrender, then un-surrender as soon as they found out we didn't want them to surrender. I mean but we're not trying to achieve some tactical advantage. I suppose our mistake was to take them back after surrendering. I'll shut up about this now [/quote] Lawl. I was actually fighting one of the guys that surrendered. To be fair it was a pretty hilarious situation. He and two mates from TTK attacked me (they were all about 9k NS bigger than me) and I wasn't around (OOC: I didn't have internet access.) When I returned I bought an MHP and started to nuke them. My RIA opponent got a bit of a shock and surrendered straightaway. He wasn't a "clueless noob" (he was like 400 days old) but his surrender was understandable. His PMs were really funny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironfist Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 [quote name='Timmehhh' timestamp='1297902119' post='2636123'] Apparently the guy who became POW is now back in GATO. It's a large nation too. Not some clueless noob. [/quote] No. He is a ghost, no more no less. He is no member of GATO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernesto Che Guevara Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1297902467' post='2636130'] GATO was only in the war for like a week anyway; you couldn't wait a week before deserting at the same time as the rest of GATO? [/quote] Save us all, I'm agreeing with Schatt. What a dangerous new world we live in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.