Jump to content
Hereno

Notice of Reclamation

Recommended Posts

inb4: Hereno gets rolled, Malone makes Justice comment, zero !@#$ are given, ect, ect.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imho, I think MensaHQ should pay the reps to SI. There is no reason why they shouldn't pay the reps to SI, though.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait wait wait. Hereno and I are on the same side of a conflict?

 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you forgot a vital piece of information, Hereno. Pfeiffer offered to pay reparations if those attacked logged on and messaged him. You disagreed to such and stated you wanted the money. I would like to point out, Hereno, that an alliance's sole purpose is to protect its members not its bank.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you forgot a vital piece of information, Hereno. Pfeiffer offered to pay reparations if those attacked logged on and messaged him. You disagreed to such and stated you wanted the money. I would like to point out, Hereno, that an alliance's sole purpose is to protect its members not its bank.

And as a government member, it's his job to negotiate on their behalf. Further more, our alliance bank does not belong to Hereno, smart one. It belongs to our alliance, so by protecting it, we are in fact, protecting our alliance as a whole. Hereno offered perfectly reasonable terms by any reasonable persons standards.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you forgot a vital piece of information, Hereno. Pfeiffer offered to pay reparations if those attacked logged on and messaged him. You disagreed to such and stated you wanted the money. I would like to point out, Hereno, that an alliance's sole purpose is to protect its members not its bank.

 

nice spin. his original response to my wanting reparations was to say he wouldn't even have the offers sent unless those nations logged on and messaged him. i told him i wanted the money stolen sent to our bank to be handed out, and he began to lecture me on the risks of having inactives in an alliance, among other choice statements.

 

he must be unfamiliar with the way we cleaned up the red sphere prior to the color bonus change.

 

to be clear, though, the door for negotiations has not closed. i'm ready to talk at any time.

 

 

Wait wait wait. Hereno and I are on the same side of a conflict?

 

 

i actually didn't know until i went to the forums to make my post, but it was a pleasant surprise to be sure.

 

/me waves from across the trench

 

edit:

 

oh, and by the way, @mensahq:

 

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=5887

 

this member was active within the past 14 hours; he was active when he was raided.

 

the other guy was only 5 days inactive when he was raided.

 

we can start re-negotiating at all money returned to our bank, plus full damage cost.

Edited by Hereno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is all pretty unrelated to why I'm dancing with Pfieffer (and assistant), but based on the details here... well, its of my small opinion that Hereno is in the right here.

 

Not that my opinion matters much.

 

Out of curiosity, what was the bank value that they looted? Or if you prefer, what are you asking for sum wise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mensa should just roll you.  :ph34r:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a Mensa guy mistakenly raid us recently, I approached Pfeiffer about it and he was nothing but reasonable and polite. We were sent reps immediately. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier today I approached Pfeiffer about getting reparations for five separate attacks on SI nations that were coordinated by members of Mensa HQ on members of our alliance. At the time of the raid, neither target was over seven days inactive, and yet I only asked for the money stolen to be returned to the Socialist International bank, to be handed out to our nations when they have their military forces back up to par after the raids. Pfeiffer refused, saying that he won't allow me to "personally profit" off of their raids, and asking if I was scared to attack him.

 

The answer to your question is "no". You clearly don't understand how an alliance is to be led, and so I'm going to show you by extracting our reparations through military force against your nation. Any sanctioned attacks by Mensa HQ on the Socialist International in retaliation, raiding, or otherwise will bring about further retaliation.

 

 

It says it right there in the alliance bio. I'm not sure what gave you the idea that you'd be able to raid members not even a week inactive and get away with refusing the light reparations I requested, but I have a feeling this isn't going to be a problem in the future.

 

Mensa has been a pain for many so far.

 

I think the funniest example is when a Mensa member made a post saying he didn't want to be raided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raiding on inactives is a common practice in this game. 

 

Your reaction to Pfeiffer's offer to pay back if the said inactives logged back in and messaged him implies that you are perfectly aware that the chances of this happening are low. If you know that you have inactives, you are better off kicking them out of the alliance in order to allow for your own alliance members to raid them. If you say that they aren't inactive, then why didn't you accept the offer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh.  Inactive players are inactive.

 

It's always seemed odd to me that people get upset about inactives being raided.  I understand their reasons but just disagree with them on it.

 

You're all welcome to raid me if I'm inactive for over 3 days and my status is "active within the last 7 days".  Hell, have a bash if it says 3 days.

 

Anyway, I fail to see how this is going to make them their money back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with making money when you don't have any soldiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh.  Inactive players are inactive.

 

It's always seemed odd to me that people get upset about inactives being raided.  I understand their reasons but just disagree with them on it.

 

You're all welcome to raid me if I'm inactive for over 3 days and my status is "active within the last 7 days".  Hell, have a bash if it says 3 days.

 

Anyway, I fail to see how this is going to make them their money back.

>Raiding is common therefore we're right to raid

You do realize that causes consequences, right? I hope you're pretending to be retarded.

Edited by Vlad the Implier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said I would pay the people raided, if they asked. Why would I pay your alliance bank? If you had asked specifically for whatever the amount was that came out of the bank, ok, yea...I can see that. But you wanted the money that came from the individual, which is just dumb. The offer to pay them individually stood until you declared war.

 

Now we dance.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The general rule of thumb when it comes to your members raiding other alliance members is typically you don't raid active and established alliances. As long as they have that alliance affiliation (and some kind of standing in the community) it's typically taboo active or not. There are of course exceptions to this trend (Arrgh!) and if you do decide to break the trend and raid them you have to accept the consequences of doing so which will result in retaliation.

Edited by Adama
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The general rule of thumb when it comes to your members raiding other alliance members is typically you don't raid active and established alliances. As long as they have that alliance affiliation (and some kind of standing in the community) it's typically taboo active or not. There are of course exceptions to this trend (Arrgh!) and if you do decide to break the trend and raid them you have to accept the consequences of doing so which will result in retaliation.

 

This is the part I find odd. I'm new to this game, but there doesn't seem to be any reason in the game mechanics that this would be the custom. The name of the game is politics and war, why is war activity taboo? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the part I find odd. I'm new to this game, but there doesn't seem to be any reason in the game mechanics that this would be the custom. The name of the game is politics and war, why is war activity taboo? 

 

War isn't taboo, you just have to accept the consequences of what happens when you do it. The game mechanics are only half the game, the more important half is the alliance politics and alliances don't like to be raided, so if you do it, it will normally blow back on the raiding party. There's nothing wrong with raiding, you can raid anyone you like or war anyone you like, but Mensa's political capital will suffer for it.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.