Jump to content

IQ declares on IQ


durmij
 Share

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Order of Fallen Angels will fight those who choose to be continued enemy, I will help by taking control of their FA. OFA isn’t beiging (unless cycling properly) and has no intention of continuing to fight those who cease fire over continuing to be their enemy. So think Valinor should stop attacking if they’re doing so thinking nothing has changed.

Don't tell me how to live my life.
2XZJIOl

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2019 at 8:49 PM, Sir Scarfalot said:

~snip~

Dude I don't actually think they're slot-filling. I think that they are legitimately rolling their own allies. Which is legal but obviously a truly absurd strategy... that may actually get them what they want.

MR BOOTY IN DA HOUSE

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

According to Roq in the “A brave new world” thread, he disapproves of interfering in wars, especially if it prevents their opponents from attacking.

(And he’s saying this in response to ONE TFP member doing a treasure transfer)

 

So what would justify this attack of OFA?

We were fighting against OFA more effectively than Coalition A was, both within the boundaries of the current war meta (beiging is good if it happens to you, bad otherwise) and the game rules (doing significant damage is evidence of real wars).

The CB against TFP was that, by using an offensive war slot for naval attacks rather than more militarily-effective air attacks, they were hurting the war effort against TKR.

Edited by Edward I
Typos
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Edward I said:

We were fighting against OFA more effectively than Coalition A was, both within the boundaries of the current war meta (beiging is good if it happens to you, bad otherwise) and the game rules (doing significant damage is evidence of real wars).

Thank you for saving us from the menace that OFA was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

Funny, Roq said it was because it was “against the rules”. 

why do you guys give conflicting reasons?

They're not in conflict; they're two ways of saying the same thing. The objection was to the effectiveness with which the TFP nation used its war slot, which is the essence of the distinction between legal and illegal wars.

Furthermore, Roq isn't a mod. Reporting something to the moderation team isn't the same as moderation making a decision or acting on it. Reports draw the attention of the mods to potentially illegal behavior, nothing more. Moderation is as much about adjudication as enforcement.

Quote

The point of a treasure transfer/using naval is to do as little damage as possible to the person the treasure is being transferred from. Had the person transferring done significant damage with air attacks, I’m sure TKR would have them pay for the rebuild.

....and why should BK - or anyone, for that matter - care? BK is fighting a war, not refereeing treasure transfers. The politeness with which other alliances can steal treasures is immaterial to them.

Quote

Treasure transferring is and had always been within the rules. The treasure transfer wasn’t even recent (1 month ago I believe). (Not trying to derail this thread plz no ban)

Edit: Ok so apparently this was an attempted treasure STEAL by TFP, in which case you’re trying to invalidate Arrgh!’s entire game style.

No one said transferring treasures was against the rules. No one said stealing treasures was against the rules. No one said Arrgh's entire game style was against the rules.

Quote

The rules have been objectively broken in this case because NPOs intention was to prevent KETOG/Chaos/Rose from being able to declare on OFA.

In context, the rules don't state that alliances must be allowed to declare wars at will against their designated enemies.

Quote

War Slot & Espionage Filling

Declaring war on a nation without the intention of fighting them is punishable by a nation strike and additional punishment for multiple violations. You are not allowed to declare war on nations to prevent them from being attacked by other nations. This same rule applies with spies and espionage operations. Knowingly participating in having your war or spy slots filled is also considered a violation of this rule.

Moderation discretion must be applied when interpreting and enforcing this rule. An example of behavior violating the rules would be declaring war on a nation and sending attacks with minimal units, or using 'Fortify', to appear to be fighting a war, when in reality the attacker has no intention to fight and win the war.

The clear intention of that clause is to prevent ineffective wars - wars that do little damage because the aggressor doesn't attempt to damage the defender. As I've already said and as I'm sure you know, NPO's wars against OFA were quite damaging. If your claim were as "objective" as you say it is, I trust moderation would have exercised its discretion by siding with you.

Just now, Buorhann said:

Thank you for saving us from the menace that OFA was.

We live to serve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Edward I said:

They're not in conflict; they're two ways of saying the same thing. The objection was to the effectiveness with which the TFP nation used its war slot, which is the essence of the distinction between legal and illegal wars.

Furthermore, Roq isn't a mod. Reporting something to the moderation team isn't the same as moderation making a decision or acting on it. Reports draw the attention of the mods to potentially illegal behavior, nothing more. Moderation is as much about adjudication as enforcement.

....and why should BK - or anyone, for that matter - care? BK is fighting a war, not refereeing treasure transfers. The politeness with which other alliances can steal treasures is immaterial to them.

No one said transferring treasures was against the rules. No one said stealing treasures was against the rules. No one said Arrgh's entire game style was against the rules.

In context, the rules don't state that alliances must be allowed to declare wars at will against their designated enemies.

The clear intention of that clause is to prevent ineffective wars - wars that do little damage because the aggressor doesn't attempt to damage the defender. As I've already said and as I'm sure you know, NPO's wars against OFA were quite damaging. If your claim were as "objective" as you say it is, I trust moderation would have exercised its discretion by siding with you.

We live to serve.

OFA deserved it.  They need to be lead by a iron fisted hamster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Edward I Your leader actually did in another thread where he admits to threatening the TFP member with a report to the admin for not complying with NPOs wishes. 

Sorry but your government is worse than just claiming not doing what they want is against the rules, they actively threaten action (and I suspect attempt to incite moderative action) for people not doing what they want.

As, according to your own leader, he apparently wouldn't have cared if he just used airstrikes. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

@Edward I Your leader actually did in another thread where he admits to threatening the TFP member with a report to the admin for not complying with NPOs wishes. 

Sorry but your government is worse than just claiming not doing what they want is against the rules, they actively threaten action (and I suspect attempt to incite moderative action) for people not doing what they want.

As, according to your own leader, he apparently wouldn't have cared if he just used airstrikes. 

It was for helping our enemy by doing non-damaging attacks. Dalinar had attacked multiple nations who had been fighting and Alfred bailed him out from losing more air, which allowed to him to beat the ones he declared on. OFA on the other hand received more damage by losing its air and units then just getting challenged to beige by your side. It was also only select offenders who were targeted and when some got the message and agreed not to beige were peaced out with no dangling truce. It was  an unfortunate situation where we had to hold nations nominally on our side accountable doing things that aided the enemy. If anyone on your side wants to zero CoS's air like I said before, I would be happy if you did it.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

..?

BK didn't object to the fact that the TFP nation was going after a treasure. They didn't care. They only cared about how the war was fought. I can't make it any clearer.

 

35 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

@Edward I Your leader actually did in another thread where he admits to threatening the TFP member with a report to the admin for not complying with NPOs wishes.

I'm not sure what you think was "threatening" about the way Roq presented it. By this line of reasoning, any time an alliance wishes someone stopped acting in a way that alliance feels might be illegal, and informs the person in question of its belief, it would count as making a threat.

Quote

Sorry but your government is worse than just claiming not doing what they want is against the rules, they actively threaten action (and I suspect attempt to incite moderative action) for people not doing what they want.

I'm also not sure why you think moderation is more likely to act when they see themselves mentioned in a random forum thread than they are when they read about allegedly illegal activity in a moderation report, not least of all because they've said multiple times that the latter is the better way to get their attention.

If Roq wanted to incite moderation action, he would have filed a report like a normal person.

Quote

As, according to your own leader, he apparently wouldn't have cared if he just used airstrikes.  

Roq's opinion is not the same as moderation deliberation, which is a necessary criterion for rule-breaking, per the rules. However, he can use critical judgment in spotting rule-breaking just as much as you can (and are doing here).

Edited by Edward I
Typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

It was for helping our enemy by doing non-damaging attacks. Dalinar had attacked multiple nations who had been fighting and Alfred bailed him out from losing more air, which allowed to him to beat the ones he declared on. OFA on the other hand received more damage by losing its air and units then just getting challenged to beige by your side. It was also only select offenders who were targeted and when some got the message and agreed not to beige were peaced out with no dangling truce. It was  an unfortunate situation where we had to hold nations nominally on our side accountable doing things that aided the enemy. If anyone on your side wants to zero CoS's air like I said before, I would be happy if you did it.

See, at this point you're literally trying to argue that attacking allies is fine if you're the one doing it according to your strategy, and it's not fine if either A. you're not the one doing it or B. the war is being aggressively waged in a way that isn't consistent with your own personal pet strategy.

Also you attempted to bully TFP into complying with your pet strategy and not attempt to win the war by threatening to report their war. That's clearly trying to argue that their raid was against the rules, since you didn't like it. Which is directly inconsistent with your member here trying to argue that's not in fact what you're arguing...?

Tl;dr: It's legal if NPO does it and they like it, otherwise it's not.

I eagerly await NPO's reporting and blitzing BK, TCW, Infowars, NPO, and basically their entire coalition including themselves for "not airstriking and letting the war expire" on a regular basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.