Notice of Reclamation

[Kastor (Old Account)]

Oh, btw everyone. Mensa will be involved in a war. One of my predictions.

[Magicboyd25]

Oh, btw everyone. Mensa will be involved in a war. One of my predictions.

 

I will make a prediction: Kastor will try to make himself the big hit of another thread.

 

Stop please Kastor. 

 

=======================

 

Honestly SI I get that there was drama on this, but why did this need to be posted here? Sounds like there were a lot of misunderstandings and of which could be easily solved. Mensa aren't idiots. Neither are you guys. You both are established alliances. Not too hard to fix without causing drama.

[Buorhann]

I just find it amusing that Pfeiffer always offers to pay reparations, either personally or through our alliance bank, to nations that message him if they get raided.

 

This guy wanted all the money taken from the inactives/quasi-actives instead.  Not the alliance bank that was taken, but the personal bank that was taken.  All he had to do was tell his members to message Pfeiffer and he would've ponied it up.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Buorhann

[Garmr]

What terrible misunderstandings must lay at the fundament of this altercation. I know Pfeiffer as a gentleman who would rather overpay than underpay to settle a raiding dispute.

[Conroy]

I just find it amusing that Pfeiffer always offers to pay reparations, either personally or through our alliance bank, to nations that message him if they get raided.

 

This guy wanted all the money taken from the inactives/quasi-actives instead.  Not the alliance bank that was taken, but the personal bank that was taken.  All he had to do was tell his members to message Pfeiffer and he would've ponied it up.

 

I don't see why it matters whether you sent the money to their alliance bank or to their members, either way your paying the same amount and you obviously don't care about the nations sense your raiding them. It's nothing more than just a weak justification for not wanting to pay the reps.

[Geronimo]

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.

 

Adama just said it very well and I totally agree with him. There is nothing wrong with raiding, you can raid anyone you like, but you have take the consequences of it.

[Cromstar]

I don't see why it matters whether you sent the money to their alliance bank or to their members, either way your paying the same amount and you obviously don't care about the nations sense your raiding them. It's nothing more than just a weak justification for not wanting to pay the reps.

 

Yeah, except as a number of people around can testify, we always willing pay reparations when our people attack nations they really shouldn't have.

 

If I had to venture a guess, I'd say Hereno was less-than-polite and Pfeiffer responded to that the way he normally does: with equal levels of rudeness, which ensured that neither was interested in coming to a solution.

[Avruch]

I don't see why it matters whether you sent the money to their alliance bank or to their members, either way your paying the same amount and you obviously don't care about the nations sense your raiding them. It's nothing more than just a weak justification for not wanting to pay the reps.

 

Even I can see the reason for this - Hereno is claiming they aren't inactive. By having them ask for reps, its proving that they are in fact not inactive. If they can't do that... then they are legit inactive raiding targets after all. 

[Phiney]

Even I can see the reason for this - Hereno is claiming they aren't inactive. By having them ask for reps, its proving that they are in fact not inactive. If they can't do that... then they are legit inactive raiding targets after all.

Just because you see in actives as raiding targets doesn't mean the alliance with them in does.

[Pfeiffer]

Just because you see in actives as raiding targets doesn't mean the alliance with them in does.

 

Agreed, but it usually factors in to whether they will go to war over them.

[Geronimo]

Even I can see the reason for this - Hereno is claiming they aren't inactive. By having them ask for reps, its proving that they are in fact not inactive. If they can't do that... then they are legit inactive raiding targets after all. 

 

Wow, I'm really impressed by Mensa's logic.

[Phiney]

Agreed, but it usually factors in to whether they will go to war over them.

Oh completely, just saying you can't use your own opinions as reasons why an alliance should or shouldn't do something, everyone's different. Regardless, I am entirely in favour of this for 1 reason and 1 reason only.

 

Blood for the blood god.

 

If we had our way every alliance would settle all disputes with war.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Phiney

[Buorhann]

That's a wild idea?

[Kadin]

MensaHQ, incompetent since 2015.

 

 

Even I can see the reason for this - Hereno is claiming they aren't inactive. By having them ask for reps, its proving that they are in fact not inactive. If they can't do that... then they are legit inactive raiding targets after all. 

Doesn't matter if the nation is inactive or not. The right thing to do is end the war and pay reps. The mere fact that a nation is inactive does not make them a legitimate target.

 

Mensa not understanding this is not anyone's fault but their own.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Estelle

[Avruch]

I don't know herm, that just sounds like basic game theory. You could also say that a little alliance risking war with a much larger alliance over raiding a couple of inactives is not great strategic thinking. I don't know how many people would be pissed at Mensa in that scenario, especially since Pfeiffer was actually willing to pay reps to any nation that asked - not an ungenerous policy, considering SI isn't exactly a world power. 

 

Edited to reply to Estelle... If you notice, reps were offered. They were refused. 

Edited April 14, 2015 by Avruch

[Comrade Joe]

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?

I believe we will run our alliance the way we want to and not take your suggestions. Thanks for offering your (unwanted) opinion though!

[Legend]

There were terms for reps.  The whole, "make them message me" stipulation just sticks in my craw the wrong way.

[Kadin]

I don't know herm, that just sounds like basic game theory. You could also say that a little alliance risking war with a much larger alliance over raiding a couple of inactives is not great strategic thinking. I don't know how many people would be pissed at Mensa in that scenario, especially since Pfeiffer was actually willing to pay reps to any nation that asked - not an ungenerous policy, considering SI isn't exactly a world power. 

 

Edited to reply to Estelle... If you notice, reps were offered. They were refused. 

Reps were not "just" offered. Your alliance felt it necessary to make the victim of your alliance's lack of self-control jump through hoops to get the reps they are entitled to. That is arrogance and incompetence at its finest.

 

I love might makes right just as much as the next guy, but paying reps to alliances you've wronged is pretty common practice. If you don't, then you get stuff like this, and everybody knows you're a !@#$.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Estelle

[Pfeiffer]

Reps were not "just" offered. Your alliance felt it necessary to make the victim of your alliance's lack of self-control jump through hoops to get the reps they are entitled to. That is arrogance and incompetence at its finest.

 

I love might is right just as much as the next guy, but paying reps to alliances you've wronged is pretty common practice. If you don't, then you get stuff like this, and everybody knows you're a !@#$.

 

>wronged

 

lel

 

If he had asked specifically for anything taken from their bank to be returned to the bank, I'd have probably done that. Demanding that cash and/or infra lost by inactive nations be paid to the bank is just him looking to turn a profit on the raid. If they want reps, they need only send a single message.

 

I've had multiple smaller alliances approach me for reps, and saying 'have them message me' has never been a problem before.

[Sephiroth]

Inactives still bring in money to the alliance (regardless of activity or not) thus you raiding them destroys the tax they produce and also raids the alliance bank.

You are hurting the source of income and you are also hurting the alliance as a whole by attacking inactives.

 

Rolling raiders is normally the best way to react, regardless of being over an active or inactive member.

UNLESS* they are willing to pay for the damage and the money they stole

[Khestra]

[Thedark]

jump through hoops to get the reps they are entitled to.

 

[Hysteria]

Yeah you can reclaim deeze

 

Deeze fking nuts

[Diakun]

[Buorhann]

There were terms for reps.  The whole, "make them message me" stipulation just sticks in my craw the wrong way.

 

 

In which a smaller alliance making demands to a bigger alliance to pay up.  Pfeiffer offered a compromise to settle the situation.  Have the nations that were attacked to send him a message and he would personally pay them back.  They didn't.  Instead, he got attacked.

 

The "raiders" didn't get attacked.  He did, after he tried to compromise with them.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Buorhann