Confusion Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 Guppy, As a proud supporter of the Fellowship, I pledge to defend the Fellowship against any attacks. (As long as they're in my NS range) Confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggernaut123 Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 Wth does this have anything to do with RE, since when did you beat us 1:20 lmao. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
augustus334 Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) Edit: I put the post somewhere more valuable Edited March 17, 2011 by augustus334 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
augustus334 Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Mark Reynolds' timestamp='1299994422' post='2662474'] When I authorised retaliatory strikes against all members of your alliance, we had four members who were not in anarchy. Within a few hours, each person had declared war against three of your members. The other guy launched three wars as soon as he got out of anarchy. You had already used airstrikes and CM attacks along with issuing threats of nuclear attacks before we began our counterattack, threats that you went ahead with even though we had no nuclear capable nations. You have claimed in this thread that this was some sort of border skirmish and you are only now recognising a state of total war. We maxed out our offensive war slots and you didn't take the hint? Or are you trying to come up with a facesaving excuse for the fact that [size="6"][b]despite having no nukes (unlike your alliance) and being outnumbered by four to one, we are hurting your alliance?[/b][/size][/quote] Grey Council: March 8- 25,329 NS, they declare war on The Fellowship, March 17- 5,922 The Fellowship: March 8- 99,786 NS, we are declared war on by Grey Council because someone who isn't even in our alliance and has been ghosting for the last several rounds attacked them, March 17- 101,678 It's nothing personal guppy, it just seems that you always get us into something. Best of luck to all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Reynolds Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='augustus334' timestamp='1300389322' post='2667991'] Grey Council: March 8- 25,329 NS, they declare war on The Fellowship, March 17- 5,922 The Fellowship: March 8- 99,786 NS, [b]we are declared war on by Grey Council because someone who isn't even in our alliance and has been ghosting for the last several rounds attacked them,[/b] March 17- 101,678 It's nothing personal guppy, it just seems that you always get us into something. Best of luck to all [/quote] I just want to be clear about the bit that I have bolded: are you saying that Guppy has been ghosting your alliance for the last few rounds even though he is declaring war and negotiating peace on behalf of you guys? I am not trying to have a go at either you personally or your alliance. We have made multiple attempts to negotiate peace and we haven't gotten anywhere because of the seemingly confused state of your alliance, so I would appreciate it if you could help to clarify your internal structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stelios Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 Yea... If you want to see RE just let me know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guppy Fish Posted March 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Mark Reynolds' timestamp='1300393524' post='2668084'] I just want to be clear about the bit that I have bolded: are you saying that Guppy has been ghosting your alliance for the last few rounds even though he is declaring war and negotiating peace on behalf of you guys? I am not trying to have a go at either you personally or your alliance. We have made multiple attempts to negotiate peace and we haven't gotten anywhere because of the seemingly confused state of your alliance, so I would appreciate it if you could help to clarify your internal structure. [/quote] No, I am not ghosting. The peace is not complicated. I'm negotiating it, and I've agreed to YOUR terms (or rather, the ones Master Ninja presented to me), but nobody from your alliance has agreed to MINE. And I'm sure you know them, so please don't shoot something back saying that I was disorganized and didn't tell you any. @Sulucia, it's not my fault... This round, I'm just trying to prevent LAST round's debacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Reynolds Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 Our terms are pretty simple to understand: we don't want your lot raiding us in future. Ever since the start of this war, we have made it clear to you guys that we would peace out the moment that your government agrees to this simple measure. I might add that despite the damage your allliance has inflicted upon us, you have managed almost no growth in the time since we launched our intial counter attack that saw the four GC members who were not in anarchy launch an attack that anarchied five of your guys. And that is despite our being horribly outnumbered, outgunned in terms of nukes and you having a net membership gain from 18 to 21 members in the course of this war. We have earned the right to be negotiated with on a basis of equality. Your behaviour in diplomatic negotiations has been so bizarre that we simply do not understand what your 'terms' for ending this war actually are. Neither do we understand what authority you hold in your alliance. You made a redundant declaration of war on behalf of your entire alliance and you continue to claim to only hold a de facto authority over a small group of TF members, so why do you make group decisions involving the other TF members? One of your members has even publically stated that you have been ghosting them for several rounds. I might add that two of your other members have offered individual surrenders and your emperor continues to share my desire for a swift resolution to this needless war. [quote]@Sulucia, it's not my fault... This round, I'm just trying to prevent LAST round's debacle. [/quote] And your plan to prevent this from happening is to create a [i]different[/i] debacle for your alliance to endure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander The Second Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 this much arguing in TE really? Just fight already!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guppy Fish Posted March 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Mark Reynolds' timestamp='1300429679' post='2668840'] Our terms are pretty simple to understand: we don't want your lot raiding us in future. Ever since the start of this war, we have made it clear to you guys that we would peace out the moment that your government agrees to this simple measure. I might add that despite the damage your allliance has inflicted upon us, you have managed almost no growth in the time since we launched our intial counter attack that saw the four GC members who were not in anarchy launch an attack that anarchied five of your guys. And that is despite our being horribly outnumbered, outgunned in terms of nukes and you having a net membership gain from 18 to 21 members in the course of this war. We have earned the right to be negotiated with on a basis of equality. Your behaviour in diplomatic negotiations has been so bizarre that we simply do not understand what your 'terms' for ending this war actually are. Neither do we understand what authority you hold in your alliance. You made a redundant declaration of war on behalf of your entire alliance and you continue to claim to only hold a de facto authority over a small group of TF members, so why do you make group decisions involving the other TF members? One of your members has even publically stated that you have been ghosting them for several rounds. I might add that two of your other members have offered individual surrenders and your emperor continues to share my desire for a swift resolution to this needless war. And your plan to prevent this from happening is to create a [i]different[/i] debacle for your alliance to endure? [/quote] Sorry, but if you don't know the background, don't comment. As for the terms, ONCE AGAIN: Yours have [b]already been accepted[/b]. Need to see mine, [i]again?[/i] -That my points in the post in the topic [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=99677]here[/url], in post 5, are recognized. Specifically, that the PM was threatening and insulting. Not that I [i]felt[/i] it was, but that it [i]was[/i]. This has been discussed, and the understanding was clear. At least, to Master Ninja and Dolphin, it was... It seems, however, that everything that needs to be clear is clear, and everything that needs to be not clear to you... conveniently isn't. It [b]is[/b] clear, however, so don't create complications and broadcast them, please. @Alexander the Second: I noted that before, but they wouldn't stop. -Note: I make group decisions on certain things because I can, and nobody else is there to do it. So far, when I've done so, they've listened. >_> EDIT: Also, note - Had our entire alliance been fighting you, you would've been crushed a long time ago. Only three of our members are attacking five of yours right now. Edited March 18, 2011 by Guppy Fish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts