Recognition of aggressive acts

[Avruch]

Mensa has been raided by Lordaeron, including by two members of its high government. When we defended ourselves, we were informed that Kastor told his members they had my permission to raid applicants (which, of course, they do not - we have never given such permission, nor will we). 

 

Kastor has decided that Mensa is at fault for defending ourselves, since even though Lordaeron's leadership attacked us they are much smaller and should be left alone. That's not really how this works, but until Kastor comes back to his senses (if that is possible) we will continue to defend ourselves against the aggression of Lordaeron. 

 

~Avruch, Chairman, Mensa HQ

Edited February 13, 2017 by Avruch

[Buorhann]

What is with people trusting Kastor?

 

Who knows.  What I do know, is that I'm going to have fun with this.

 

 

Let it be known to anybody who decides to follow Kastor, you're entrusting your time and your nation with someone who is known to start shit.  If this is what you want, well, feel free to join in.  We won't complain.

[LordStrum]

good shit goà±¦Ô sHit thats ✔ some goodshit rightth ere right✔there ✔✔if i do ƽaÒ¯ so my sel i say so thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: ʳᶦáµÊ°áµ— ᵗʰᵉʳᵉ) mMMMMᎷМ ÐO0ОଠOOOОଠଠOoooáµ’áµ’áµ’áµ’áµ’áµ’áµ’áµ’áµ’ Good shit

[hidude45454]

I'm inclined to think that based on how the chatlogs are interpreted, different people will reach different conclusions as to what they imply, so I will hold off on believing your rewording as it is.

Furthermore, by putting your inactives in the applicants pool, it can be inferred that you don't want raiders to steal your bank if you're beiged, but by being unwilling to remove them completely, you're using them as bait so that anyone who raids them will give your members an opportunity to declare war.

Not saying defending your inactives isn't a valid CB (it is), but I can't help thinking that your boredom at a lack of war is a greater reason.

[Avruch]

"We were under the impression from our Leader Kastor that you had given us permission to raid applicants." That is pretty unambiguous. We put some people at applicant while they are temporarily inactive, it has several effects, one of which is preventing raids against them from harming the bank. That does not mean, nor has it ever, that they are open to raiding. For years it has been common practice for alliances to protect their applicants, and for us that hasn't changed. Many have recently asked us if that is still true, and we've consistently said that it is. 

[Micchan]

I'm inclined to think that based on how the chatlogs are interpreted, different people will reach different conclusions as to what they imply, so I will hold off on believing your rewording as it is.

Furthermore, by putting your inactives in the applicants pool, it can be inferred that you don't want raiders to steal your bank if you're beiged, but by being unwilling to remove them completely, you're using them as bait so that anyone who raids them will give your members an opportunity to declare war.

Not saying defending your inactives isn't a valid CB (it is), but I can't help thinking that your boredom at a lack of war is a greater reason.

True.

I also think that inactives (when they are inactive for over than 3-4 weeks) should not be defended.

 

But since it's Lord a aron I don't care and I just say "GO MENSA!"

[Floating Hippo]

 

Any CB on Kastor is valid to me. (Even no CB)

Edited February 13, 2017 by Floating Hippo

[Seeker]

"We were under the impression from our Leader Kastor that you had given us permission to raid applicants." That is pretty unambiguous. We put some people at applicant while they are temporarily inactive, it has several effects, one of which is preventing raids against them from harming the bank. That does not mean, nor has it ever, that they are open to raiding. For years it has been common practice for alliances to protect their applicants, and for us that hasn't changed. Many have recently asked us if that is still true, and we've consistently said that it is. 

Yeah, VE does the same thing.  If we determine that they just left the game because they are a new join that went entirely inactive then we just kick them from the alliance.  If you can't read an alliances raiding policy then raid that alliance, you made your bed and now you got to lay in it.

[Bhuto]

well after mensa already posted https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/18350-hello-orbis-a-friendly-message-from-hippo-of-mensa-hq/ this more than 2 weeks ago I can't see why there is even any chance of misunderstanding 100% valid CB roll them  

[Tali]

Does this mean we get to see bourhan in action again?

 

[Buorhann]

I'm inclined to think that based on how the chatlogs are interpreted, different people will reach different conclusions as to what they imply, so I will hold off on believing your rewording as it is.

Furthermore, by putting your inactives in the applicants pool, it can be inferred that you don't want raiders to steal your bank if you're beiged, but by being unwilling to remove them completely, you're using them as bait so that anyone who raids them will give your members an opportunity to declare war.

Not saying defending your inactives isn't a valid CB (it is), but I can't help thinking that your boredom at a lack of war is a greater reason.

 

 

Even if we were "baiting", you'd be pretty stupid to make that move.

 

Then again, it is Kastor telling his members that Avruch gave permission.

[Kastor]

I'm more inclined to ignore the "CB" you have for this. You're bullying, Orbis knows you're bullying, and thats the way it is. Let's not ignore why you're really doing this, your first 2 posts make it obviously clear. Drop the BS, say you were bored, and lets get this show on the road.

[Harrison Richardson]

I haven't been really logging in frequently but Kastor is a great shitposter so I'm down to do this war just to rustle his jimmies.

 

Perhaps as part of reps we can mandate a remedial level reading course.

[Tali]

I'm more inclined to ignore the "CB" you have for this. You're bullying, Orbis knows you're bullying, and thats the way it is. Let's not ignore why you're really doing this, your first 2 posts make it obviously clear. Drop the BS, say you were bored, and lets get this show on the road.

[Thedark]

What do you mean we can't raid alliances stronger than us?

[Dalinar]

I'm more inclined to ignore the "CB" you have for this. You're bullying, Orbis knows you're bullying, and thats the way it is. Let's not ignore why you're really doing this, your first 2 posts make it obviously clear. Drop the BS, say you were bored, and lets get this show on the road.

They posted a thread on the 29th of January laying out their intentions. To quote the hippo: "While we appreciate that people are asking, before actually attacking (Unlike people from certain "paperless" alliances), I just want to state that we will build up and come drop a steamroller on your alliance members asses if you do.  Please, give us a reason to drag our inactives back into activity."

 

Lordaeron then raided Mensa, what did you expect was going to happen?

[James XVI]

I guess that explains the grit in my eyes and the sand in my mouth. Arrgh!, For the oil!, For Steve!, For Lord A Aron! It's nice to have a change from pixel farming I guess.

[Spaceman Thrax]

Blast 'em, Mensa.

 

I'm more inclined to ignore the "CB" you have for this. You're bullying, Orbis knows you're bullying, and thats the way it is. Let's not ignore why you're really doing this, your first 2 posts make it obviously clear. Drop the BS, say you were bored, and lets get this show on the road.

 

You attacked them after lying to your own gov, and they're bullying by retaliating?

 

Try again.

[Lordship]

It is common practice to defend your applicants and for them to be off limits from raids, especially after the bank looting update.

[Keegoz]

So Rose, who is the better friend?

[Kastor]

You're all expecting me to get on and defend Lordaeron's actions, I'm not. Mensa and Lordaeron both know the reason they declared, and made it obvious in their first 2 posts(looking at you hippo). So lets stop all the blaming, and just have a fun fight. 1v1(if you guys can do that, you're used to 8 alliance blitzes), and see what happens going forward. The way we see it, we're defending ourselves, the way they see it, they're defending themselves. Lets fight it out and go from there. I really wish Mensa hadn't have made an OWF topic over this, but hey, anything to make me look bad, Bourhann's had a boner for me for about a year if not longer.

 

Honestly, we don't care, everyone in Lordaeron has been begging for a war for awhile. Lets get it poppin.

[MrsPigeon]

I'm curious if you guys attempted to resolve this in private or if both of you kind of just... went for it. I'm going to assume the former.

 

Idk what kind of move this is on Kastor's part but it ain't a smart one, I can say that much.

[Bhuto]

So Rose, who is the better friend?

Rose need some invisibility cloak now  

[Avruch]

I'm curious if you guys attempted to resolve this in private or if both of you kind of just... went for it. I'm going to assume the former.

 

Idk what kind of move this is on Kastor's part but it ain't a smart one, I can say that much.

 

Kastor's approach in private is about what it has been on this thread - somehow its all our fault and he seems to think he was in a position to be demanding and accusatory. 

[Buorhann]

I'm curious if you guys attempted to resolve this in private or if both of you kind of just... went for it. I'm going to assume the former.

 

 

We made it explicitly clear that any raids on any person under Mensa will be retaliated to the fullest of our capability.

 

I did express to a few members of Lordaeron that had this been one or two isolated raids, diplomacy may have been considered first due to us having a mutual ally (Rose).  But it wasn't.

 

It was a gang up on some of our members, with some of their gov involved in it too.  As well as Kastor lieing to people saying that Avruch approved of them (He did not, nor would we).

 

So if they want to gang up on a couple of inactives... we'll gang up on a lot of their actives.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Buorhann