Tiberius Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, Bjorn Ironside said: and you have a 100 paying 100/100 whats your point, 30 nations paying 100/100 or 100 nations paying 100/100 it takes the same amount of time It's not as simplistic as that, by the 10-30 member alliance I was referring to the whale alliances. I suppose I should have been more clearer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elijah Mikaelson Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 (edited) 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: It's not as simplistic as that, by the 10-30 member alliance I was referring to the whale alliances. I suppose I should have been more clearer. My mistake, I thought you meant Yakuza who i boosted from 13 city avg to 20 city avg in less than 2 months. Yes a 30 man whale alliance would most likely make more money than NPO if they stick to 2k infra builds. Edited January 21, 2020 by Elijah Mikaelson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 4 minutes ago, Bjorn Ironside said: My mistake, I thought you meant Yakuza who i boosted from 13 city avg to 20 city avg in less than 2 months. Yes a 30 man whale alliance would most likely make more money than NPO if they stick to 2k infra builds. There are many variables to be factored in too. It's not as clean cut and simplistic as you make out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elijah Mikaelson Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, Tiberius said: There are many variables to be factored in too. It's not as clean cut and simplistic as you make out. not saying it is, but its very doable if one set his mind to making it happen, the hardest part is making sure people are active, like if you need to wait for people to log on or use a bot to do commands and such then yes i agree it would cause problems than simply taxing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT Jag Posted January 21, 2020 Author Share Posted January 21, 2020 The grace period included in Clause 5 has passed, and so Clause 5 has now expired. All future additions to the NAP must follow the guidelines of Clause 4. 1 Quote ONE WORLD OR NONE CyberNations veteran, Co-Pilot Emeritus Hambassidor (Head Ambassador (Minister of Foreign Affairs)), Head of the Ministry of Log Dumping, GOONS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 2 hours ago, JT Jag said: The grace period included in Clause 5 has passed, and so Clause 5 has now expired. All future additions to the NAP must follow the guidelines of Clause 4. I really don't see any point in you trying to make any promises at this juncture, they mean less than nothing. I have every confidence that you will violate any or all NAPs for no reason, as you and yours have done, constantly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard J Crabs Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Sir Scarfalot said: I really don't see any point in you trying to make any promises at this juncture, they mean less than nothing. I have every confidence that you will violate any or all NAPs for no reason, as you and yours have done, constantly. name three 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 59 minutes ago, Leonard J Crabs said: name three BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh MAN that's rich. Top meme, right here lads. Has to put the goalposts that far back bahahahahaha ok yeah, I really can't make a better argument for my side than you've made yourself. GG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 1 hour ago, Sir Scarfalot said: BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh MAN that's rich. Top meme, right here lads. Has to put the goalposts that far back bahahahahaha ok yeah, I really can't make a better argument for my side than you've made yourself. GG. Ok I'll rephrase for Leonard, name all the times we have constantly violated NAPs. I'm expecting a big list of consistent NAP violations here after your claim. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 I'm biased but "name three" was a pretty bad play. 1 Quote Worst Poster Ever (2011) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 (edited) 1 Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 30 minutes ago, Epi said: Ayyslamic Crusade: Rose mass spied Yakuza post-war, whilst they were a BK protectorate Escalation: The Immortals admitted they were going to attack us in this war, without a treaty to TCW, resulting in the preempt. North Point: Broke the conditions of their earlier surrender, by attacking one of the alliances they surrendered to, BoC and by extension Coalition B. again as they had a Camelot MDP. The Lost Empire: After being attacked by GOONs you surrendered and signed a NAP, then they protected you for over a month... only for you to betray them. NPO only broke 1 agreement by comparison, that being not to let BK get rolled by 3/4ths of EMC. NPO broke a hell of a lot more than that on multiple occasions, slotting and beiging their own allies this war alone. You're also neglecting the fact that Goons attacked TLE, not the other way around, TI never actually broke their pact which means that you actively did, undercutting your point entirely. I'm not familiar with the specifics regarding #1 or #3 so I'll not comment on those, but there's zero way around the fact that NPO, Goons and BK 100% violated their active alliance with T$. Thus, I'd say that pacts no longer have validity. Anyone is free game for anyone else, since that is the environment IQ has deliberately created with their bad faith agreements with basically everyone. It's entirely on you that we're at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard J Crabs Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 14 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: NPO broke a hell of a lot more than that on multiple occasions, slotting and beiging their own allies this war alone. You're also neglecting the fact that Goons attacked TLE, not the other way around, TI never actually broke their pact which means that you actively did, undercutting your point entirely. I'm not familiar with the specifics regarding #1 or #3 so I'll not comment on those, but there's zero way around the fact that NPO, Goons and BK 100% violated their active alliance with T$. Thus, I'd say that pacts no longer have validity. Anyone is free game for anyone else, since that is the environment IQ has deliberately created with their bad faith agreements with basically everyone. It's entirely on you that we're at this point. and you literally can't name three times they've broken NAPs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt Meat Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 12 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: You're also neglecting the fact that Goons attacked TLE, not the other way around, 49 minutes ago, Epi said: The Lost Empire: After being attacked by GOONs 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard J Crabs Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 you've said we've done it constantly, name three times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Leonard J Crabs said: and you literally can't name three times they've broken NAPs Actually, I did. NPO blitzed their own allies plenty of times this war, directly attacked their allies in T$, you broke your NAP with TLE and with TI. That's four right there. There's more than even that, so yes, you're constant pactbreakers. Edited January 22, 2020 by Sir Scarfalot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt Meat Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 Gonna have to ask for any single shred of evidence that we broke the TLE NAP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hope Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 5 minutes ago, Salt Meat said: Gonna have to ask for any single shred of evidence that we broke the TLE NAP. I spoke directly to God and I can confirm my vassal GOONS broke no such NAP. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 12 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: Actually, I did. NPO blitzed their own allies plenty of times this war, directly attacked their allies in T$, you broke your NAP with TLE and with TI. That's four right there. There's more than even that, so yes, you're constant pactbreakers. Still waiting for evidence of constant NAP breaking....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard J Crabs Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 (edited) 10 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said: Actually, I did. NPO blitzed their own allies plenty of times this war, directly attacked their allies in T$, you broke your NAP with TLE and with TI. That's four right there. There's more than even that, so yes, you're constant pactbreakers. uh no, we did not break our NAP with TLE. They blitzed us. Edited January 22, 2020 by Leonard J Crabs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT Jag Posted January 22, 2020 Author Share Posted January 22, 2020 12 hours ago, Salt Meat said: Epi is not wrong, we did attack TLE... two months ago, as a result of a botched TLE raid that they refused to negotiate on. And then protected them for a period of time as they paid reps. TLE subsequently broke the agreement they made with us and attacked during the NAP period. 2 Quote ONE WORLD OR NONE CyberNations veteran, Co-Pilot Emeritus Hambassidor (Head Ambassador (Minister of Foreign Affairs)), Head of the Ministry of Log Dumping, GOONS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, JT Jag said: Epi is not wrong, we did attack TLE... two months ago, as a result of a botched TLE raid that they refused to negotiate on. And then protected them for a period of time as they paid reps. TLE subsequently broke the agreement they made with us and attacked during the NAP period. Don't be silly, facts don't matter. We're clearly evil monsters who cannot be trusted. Accusing us of violating a NAP by being attacked by the other signatory of the NAP is a pretty dumb argument even from you Scarfs. Why don't you go full hog and just say we've broken the contract of peace within men's hearts? Edited January 22, 2020 by Sardonic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooper_ Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 On 1/21/2020 at 10:45 PM, hope said: I spoke directly to God and I can confirm my vassal GOONS broke no such NAP. Yes, our discussion was a lively one, Hope. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Roquentin Posted January 23, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) On 1/21/2020 at 7:31 PM, Sir Scarfalot said: Actually, I did. NPO blitzed their own allies plenty of times this war, directly attacked their allies in T$, you broke your NAP with TLE and with TI. That's four right there. There's more than even that, so yes, you're constant pactbreakers. When did we blitz our allies? tS cancelled and there were no wars on them before. On the slotting thing in your other post. Your coalition is entirely reliant on slotfilling and beiging. Our side had a few people do it as a protest and it was punished relatively quickly for a small scale action. At this the A in Coalition A stands for Akuryo. Just don't forget that any resurgence for tS or anyone beiged here is just due to blindness and illegitimate. The issue is being addressed too late but that is the case. If people will cheat while the ref is snoozing how can they be trustworthy? Edited January 23, 2020 by Roquentin 1 1 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 3 hours ago, Roquentin said: When did we blitz our allies? tS cancelled and there were no wars on them before. On the slotting thing in your other post. Your coalition is entirely reliant on slotfilling and beiging. Our side had a few people do it as a protest and it was punished relatively quickly for a small scale action. At this the A in Coalition A stands for Akuryo. Just don't forget that any resurgence for tS or anyone beiged here is just due to blindness and illegitimate. The issue is being addressed too late but that is the case. If people will cheat while the ref is snoozing how can they be trustworthy? Ehh, I think you'll find most of us were getting plenty of beige from your allies. I know I certainly did. Quote [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though. 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.