Lord Levistus Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1296791149' post='2618734'] Are you really so dense? He's criticizing your alliance's strategy. He's far from the only one. [/quote] I actually understand their strat as it appears, and if it's only meant to allow them to survive, then it has merits. It was never a strat that would allow them to win. I didn't have a problem with that, wasn't any skin off my teeth. Drawing in their other allies to do the heavy lifting defending the Orders while they play pattycake with goons? That I have a problem with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1296791818' post='2618764'] ML made it clear some time ago that they had every intention of entering the war to aid TPF. That's when said discussion was held. [/quote] Ya know, Duckroll sitting this one out has got to be one of the stupidest moves I've heard in a while. I can see not wanting to get involved when NpO and NPO got hit, but now that ML is in the fray not assisting ML goes against everything I've heard Duckroll standing for. Oh well, I guess I just can't get too worked up over them. If Doomhouse decides to roll Duckroll I'll just sit back, laugh, and say I told ya so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='The Crimson King' timestamp='1296791973' post='2618772'] Except for the fact that over 2/3's ov your AA is in range of the nations TPF has out of peace mode. [/quote] *and are in anarchy so they can't engage. I don't know if you've heard, but there are quite a few NPO nations we're preoccupied with in that range too. [quote name='The Crimson King' timestamp='1296791973' post='2618772'] The issue has nothing to do with you being unable to attack, it is simply that you [b]chose[/b] to only engage the select few higher ns nations that TPF left out of peacemode.[/quote] Because we have a surplus of slots in that range. I'm not too sure what you were trying to prove there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1296791399' post='2618746'] I love how this straightforward post has been twisted into some sort of debate about the merits of DoWs. This is a recognition of hostilities, people. Since ML refused to call the spade a spade and insisted that they were attacking rogues, we stepped up and made it official. [/quote] The combined attacks on NPO by those calling themselves DoomHouse are contrary to accepted behavior on Bob and constitute a rogue action, defining all members of DoomHouse rogues and war criminals. Using the above argument, ML was quite right in calling those nations rogues Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KainIIIC Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='The Corrupt Teacher' timestamp='1296792117' post='2618778'] WorldConqueror beat me to all the good comments. Leave it up to Valhalla to talk trash about TPF hangs its allies out to dry when they won't lift a finger themselves. Some Viking warriors there [img]http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2010-01-25/1264443830764.jpg[/img] [/quote] I'm almost wondering why they have any treaties at all if they don't intend on using any. I'd like to be proven wrong, personally. But we'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='Rebounder' timestamp='1296792163' post='2618779'] That's just a ridiculous argument. You're simply trying to weasel out of the fact that MK initiated war against TPF, giving Molon Labe the obligation to respond [/quote] I'll make it easier for you: we don't really care about ML or whoever attacking us. In fact, we welcome it: the more, the merrier! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinoa Rex Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='Caliph' timestamp='1296792195' post='2618781'] Ya know, Duckroll sitting this one out has got to be one of the stupidest moves I've heard in a while. I can see not wanting to get involved when NpO and NPO got hit, but now that ML is in the fray not assisting ML goes against everything I've heard Duckroll standing for. Oh well, I guess I just can't get too worked up over them. If Doomhouse decides to roll Duckroll I'll just sit back, laugh, and say I told ya so [/quote] If we wanted to roll Duckroll, we'd probably have done something to that effect by now. Considering we haven't, feel free to view it how it actually is: we're responding to an attack on our ally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='Rebounder' timestamp='1296792163' post='2618779'] You're holding a double standard. you're saying that MK did not have to declare war on TPF because the war is "assumed," which by the way is an extremely incorrect statement, but Molon Labe had to declare war on you, hence this "Recognition of Hostilities." But establishing that fact is simply backtracking. What you have to acknowledge for any of this to make sense is that you declared a war on TPF, and thus it is the obligation of all TPF treaty partners to respond in kind, barring any non-chaining clauses. [/quote] No, i'm saying that we have recognised ML's hostilities because 1) they are attacking us directly and 2) they refuse to acknowledge this fact. It helps if you read the replies. [quote name='Rebounder' timestamp='1296792163' post='2618779'] That's just a ridiculous argument. You're simply trying to weasel out of the fact that MK initiated war against TPF, giving Molon Labe the obligation to respond [/quote] The way you don't respond to my point and instead just fit my response to fit your conspiracy theory is truly fascinating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taishaku Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 So... now that ML is at war with Doom House, maybe Doom House can pre-emptively declare on Duckroll for [i]not[/i] defending their treaty partner. Because apparently that is a valid casus belli. =P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1296792234' post='2618783'] Because we have a surplus of slots in that range. I'm not too sure what you were trying to prove there. [/quote] Eh, something about that Doomhouse has the advantage in certain teirs and that keeping some of their nations in peace mode where they cannot be torn up and can help rebuild is a strategy used to help them survive. Because lets face it, there is nobody willing to war with Doomhouse in defense of NPO, so they want to make it seem like they're good allies, defending their treaty partner, but not take damage that would cripple their alliance, since they have had a rough year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='Taishaku' timestamp='1296792482' post='2618790'] So... now that ML is at war with Doom House, maybe Doom House can pre-emptively declare on Duckroll for [i]not[/i] defending their treaty partner. Because apparently that is a valid casus belli. =P [/quote] You're being dumb on purpose, aren't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1296792433' post='2618787'] If we wanted to roll Duckroll, we'd probably have done something to that effect by now. Considering we haven't, feel free to view it how it actually is: we're responding to an attack on our ally. [/quote] It wasn't to long ago your lot was saying "If we wanted to roll NPO, we'd probably have done somthing to that affect by now" So forgive some of us if we consider your word to be garbage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1296792433' post='2618787'] If we wanted to roll Duckroll, we'd probably have done something to that effect by now. Considering we haven't, feel free to view it how it actually is: we're responding to an attack on our ally. [/quote] You guys are busy with NPO at the moment. Hitting Duckroll now would not be a sound decision. Hitting them, or whoever you have next on your list, after this war concludes would be a sound decision. Because you are not going to just immediately DOW whoever is next on your "everything must die" campaign without building your infra back up and getting your warchests up when this war is over. Give it time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crushtania Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='The Big Bad' timestamp='1296791631' post='2618755'] Still feeling bad because your stuck licking MKs boots now? [/quote] It's this war's "Did you Polar too stupid to read?" Oh how wonderful that failures of syntax are continually mocked and ridiculed in the name of protecting pixels. But alas, the pixels will fade anyhow... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noob Cake Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='potato' timestamp='1296792555' post='2618792'] You're being dumb on purpose, aren't you? [/quote] [color=#2200C1][font=arial, sans-serif][size=2]Christian Coalition of Countries Logic, as expected[/size][/font][/color] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='The Crimson King' timestamp='1296791307' post='2618742'] It also appears the Umb ad MK are insisting that they have the right to declare war on any alliance they feel like without providing said alliance with a formal declaration of war, and further insist that any treaty partner of that AA who takes issue with this and strikes back in defense in turn provides them the courtesy of the same formal declaration they denied the original aa they were attacking. It's a ridiculous argument. [/quote] The problem wasn't that ML didn't post a formal declaration of war, it was that they refused to acknowledge in private that it was in fact a war and tried to keep to pretend that our members attacking TPF were rogues despite our saying, in private, otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taishaku Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='potato' timestamp='1296792555' post='2618792'] You're being dumb on purpose, aren't you? [/quote] The reason why this would be funny is that TOP intends to be on their side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crimson King Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1296792234' post='2618783'] *and are in anarchy so they can't engage. I don't know if you've heard, but there are quite a few NPO nations we're preoccupied with in that range too. Because we have a surplus of slots in that range. I'm not too sure what you were trying to prove there. [/quote] You are claiming in numerous posts that the reason you did not post a DoW was because you had no nations in range because of TPF being in pm. I was simply pointing out that this argument you were making held no merit whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebounder Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1296792449' post='2618788'] No, i'm saying that we have recognised ML's hostilities because 1) they are attacking us directly and 2) they refuse to acknowledge this fact. It helps if you read the replies. [/quote] Again your hypocrisy shines through. You rail against ML for "refusing to acknowledge" their war, but you've spent this whole thread trying to avoid acknowledging that you initiated war against TPF. [quote]The way you don't respond to my point and instead just fit my response to fit your conspiracy theory is truly fascinating. [/quote] Peace mode or not, you're still at war with an alliance. The idea that peace mode nations means that a war against an alliance somehow doesn't count as a war is simply bonkers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='Caliph' timestamp='1296792490' post='2618791'] Eh, something about that Doomhouse has the advantage in certain teirs and that keeping some of their nations in peace mode where they cannot be torn up and can help rebuild is a strategy used to help them survive. Because lets face it, there is nobody willing to war with Doomhouse in defense of NPO, so they want to make it seem like they're good allies, defending their treaty partner, but not take damage that would cripple their alliance, since they have had a rough year. [/quote] Yes, I know what they're doing. I was just responding to the line of argument that MK is able to attack TPF but, for some reason, isn't [i.e. the ones in range are taken up with NPO nations]. If TPF left its upper tier open, then we would be attacking them properly because we have the surplus slots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296792642' post='2618799'] The problem wasn't that ML didn't post a formal declaration of war, it was that they refused to acknowledge in private that it was in fact a war and tried to keep to pretend that our members attacking TPF were rogues despite our saying, in private, otherwise. [/quote]Since ML needs a DOW to hit MK, where is MK's DOW they needed to hit TPF? Since you don't do that, don't be too shocked when others don't do it either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='Taishaku' timestamp='1296792677' post='2618800'] The reason why this would be funny is that TOP intends to be on their side. [/quote] As an independent observer I have to say I speak for us all when I say: "What?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taishaku Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='Noob Cake' timestamp='1296792641' post='2618798'] [color=#2200C1][font=arial, sans-serif][size=2]Christian Coalition of Countries Logic, as expected[/size][/font][/color] [/quote] Thanks! Most people don't even expect me to be logical. ^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1296792723' post='2618803'] Yes, I know what they're doing. I was just responding to the line of argument that MK is able to attack TPF but, for some reason, isn't [i.e. the ones in range are taken up with NPO nations]. If TPF left its upper tier open, then we would be attacking them properly because we have the surplus slots. [/quote] Ya, but that would not be a good decision for TPF. It would play right into your strengths, which is never a good plan when fighting a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maleatu Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 'Eff them up good, Molon Labe! o/ 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.