MensaHq Slaughters the Innocents.

[Sephiroth]

I'm actually going to tell you that you're wrong on that.  We attacked because orders were given to do so after Pfeiffer was attacked.  Size didn't matter.

 

Than to get orders to roll a small alliance is even sadder..... tis tis...... I expected a lot from Mensa given the alliance strength

Edited April 14, 2015 by Brian Hurlston

[Cromstar]

Actually its more like if the USA attacks all the cities on the mexican borders and expects the mexicans to lay down and just die

 

Not really. We don't condone or condemn raiding by our members, hence why we willing repay for damages done when someone raids those who they aren't supposed to. You are implying that the acts of a small number of our alliance is a policy of our alliance and speaks for all of us. It isn't. We've booted people who couldn't comply with our policies in the past (the OP of this thread is a good example in fact), which includes a form of 'three-strikes' policy.

 

Implying that the acts of a few are our official actions as an alliance is pure bullshit and you know that. It would be like implying that your comments in this thread are official BOC policy. Or that chickensguy speaks for rose. If that's the case, I'm sure rose would love to explain why they fell this is worthy of holocaust comparisons.

[Spite]

I joined this game on 30th January this year, in the first wave of Mensa guys. It seemed pretty interesting, if a little slow to start with.

 

I waded through the 99% raid region pretty quickly thanks to a bit of whaling on the donate button, and since then I've focused on building my military presence. That's one of the biggest focus of Mensa.

 

We worked out pretty early that it doesn't matter how big you are, what matters is that you're stronger than other people in your point range, and better organised. 99% taught us that- thanks guys. Honestly think you're some of the smartest players in this game.

 

We watched Guardian, TEst and friends go to war in the recent big conflagration. What did that tell us? It taught us that organisation matters. A lot. We organised, we built up. Some of us are more inclined to raid- I've never done it but some do. For the most part if someone complains we do repay damages if the person aggrieved asks for it. 

 

What if <insert big alliance> picked on Mensa? What if they did. The point is that in the range we're in we're strong- as strong as we can be. We have friends and supporters. We'd fight our best and if we lost we'd build up stronger and come back for round two. That's why despite the whining, most people don't really care that much about what we've done.

 

This is the first time that the Mensa war machine has had to be activated. Our alliance leader was attacked over what was essentially a petty dispute, mercs hired. Missiles are standing ready to be fired. What should we do? As a new, untested alliance there cannot be any show of weakness. So we responded. If the leaders of SI choose to negotiate, perhaps the damage can be minimised. If not we'll take the war to it's natural conclusion, build up and prepare for the next one.

 

I only speak for myself on this issue- though my views are shared by the vast majority of Mensa. I don't hold any grudges against SI. I didn't even know jack about you until Pfeiffer was attacked, other than a couple members here. We are right now fairly neutral and open to all advice, friendship proposals and so on. Finding our feet. Personally I am a little taken aback by the unremitting hostility coming from what I see as a natural response to the decision to take diplomacy to the battlefield by SI leadership. The response to a military challenge to a new power must be overwhelming force. It has to be- that is basic politics.

 

Now I know some players- most of whom don't come to these forums much- agree with us on this. I know some of you just don't like us because we're fighting your friends. Be assured it's not personal, and although we will fight on we are open to diplomatic solutions. Pfeiffer will speak to anyone who is willing to come to the table.

 

Thanks for reading

[Big Ounce Swanson IV]

i hate &#33;@#&#036;s like you.  the !@#$ being you chickenguy

Truer words have never been spoken. I tip my blunt to you, sir.

[Sephiroth]

Not really. We don't condone or condemn raiding by our members, hence why we willing repay for damages done when someone raids those who they aren't supposed to. You are implying that the acts of a small number of our alliance is a policy of our alliance and speaks for all of us. It isn't. We've booted people who couldn't comply with our policies in the past (the OP of this thread is a good example in fact), which includes a form of 'three-strikes' policy.

 

Implying that the acts of a few are our official actions as an alliance is pure !@#$ and you know that. It would be like implying that your comments in this thread are official BOC policy. Or that chickensguy speaks for rose. If that's the case, I'm sure rose would love to explain why they fell this is worthy of holocaust comparisons.

 

First of all you are aggressors that refused to compromise, second of all your policy's aren't ANYTHING to other alliances unless you are directly associating with them in this case you were raiding SI therefore associating with them and you were breaking their policy. You attacked SI (when their alliance Bio CLEARLY says you cant raid and expect no retaliation), and then you want to come here and blame it all on SI because they retaliated to your raid............... is stuff going in through one ear and coming out of the next for you?

 

:popcorn: Please tell me more of how this is all Si's fault :popcorn:

Edited April 14, 2015 by Brian Hurlston

[Vanek26]

Now I know some players- most of whom don't come to these forums much- agree with us on this. I know some of you just don't like us because we're fighting your friends. Be assured it's not personal, and although we will fight on we are open to diplomatic solutions. Pfeiffer will speak to anyone who is willing to come to the table.

 

Thanks for reading

 

I'd like to add that I am open to negotiations if anyone wants to talk with me about it either through PM or IRC. 

[Avruch]

First of all you are aggressors that refused to compromise, second of all your policy's aren't ANYTHING to other alliances unless you are directly associating with them in this case you were raiding SI therefore associating with them and you were breaking their policy. You attacked SI (when their alliance Bio CLEARLY says you cant raid and expect no retaliation), and then you want to come here and blame it all on SI because they retaliated to your raid............... is stuff going in through one ear and coming out of the next for you?

 

:popcorn: Please tell me more of how this is all Si's fault :popcorn:

 

Responding to this in detail would be a waste of time, as would continuing this topic in this thread.

[Battle Dino]

[Anneal]

Politics don't matter, I want to see bloodshed.

 

Nation blasting is fun.

[Blande]

I almost went to take out the popcorn, then realized I was actually involved in this war and had to go back to the battlefield.

 

On to more important things, a lot has been said about this game being about Politics and War, so let's look at the situation from that point of view.

 

A few members of Mensa HQ go out and raid members of SI. It's the war part of the game. It can be handled in two ways. The SI members can retaliate against the raiding parties, or they can try diplomacy.

 

The leader of SI takes the Politics route. If you are going to play Politics you have to understand how politics works. When you go into a diplomatic negotiation you have to understand the power structure in the talks. You have to know what leverage you control (where's your competitive advantage). SI goes into diplomacy from a weak position (they are weaker than Mensa HQ, the only thing going for them is that they have a case to make that Mensa HQ raided them. When you go into a negotiation with a weak hand you have to be willing to take what you get (what else can you really do?). Mensa HQ offers to only pay reparations if the people who were attacked personally message for reparations (Hint: SI, you are weaker than Mensa, diplomacy dictates that you accept the conditions being put on you by the stronger person - they hold the best cards). Instead of accepting this offer, the leader of SI attacks the leader of Mensa HQ (why would you do something like that when you know you are weaker?). Now Mensa HQ decides to respond to that attack. The result is full scale WAR.

 

Basically, we are looking at very poor politicking by SI. If you are going to play politics, you better know what your hand is and make sure you don't overplay it. Anyone who has done any bit of diplomacy understands this. You cannot play a hand bigger than you have.

 

For those who think Mensa HQ is going to get a bad rep for this, you are being short-sighted. At the end of the day, politics calls for forming alliances with people you know will be there in times of need. The real thing which will be taken out of this when all is said and done is the organization and activity of Mensa HQ. How many alliances have been able to swiftly launch into a full war in such a short time frame as Mensa HQ just did? We are showcasing to our allies our ability to effectively take care of the War side of things, while at the same time offering our members an opportunity to practice.

 

We want to thank SI for giving us to this opportunity to fine tune our machine. It's a learning experience for us and it will only make us better in the future. 

[Sephiroth]

-snip-

 

You are almost right except that you dont need any level of organization to fight a war against 18 players when you have 73 thus you could have simply said hit anything in range.............. that really doesn't sound like organization to me.

Also you gotta remember that politics even involves all the alliances that aren't directly involved in the conflict!

How many alliances do you think will want to ally with you if all you proved is that you can beat up a little alliance for their money?

[Diakun]

You are almost right except that you dont need any level of organization to fight a war against 18 players when you have 73 thus you could have simply said hit anything in range.............. that really doesn't sound like organization to me.

Also you gotta remember that politics even involves all the alliances that aren't directly involved in the conflict!

How many alliances do you think will want to ally with you if all you proved is that you can beat up a little alliance for their money?

i seem deludedly bitter

[Geronimo]

I almost went to take out the popcorn, then realized I was actually involved in this war and had to go back to the battlefield.

 

On to more important things, a lot has been said about this game being about Politics and War, so let's look at the situation from that point of view.

 

A few members of Mensa HQ go out and raid members of SI. It's the war part of the game. It can be handled in two ways. The SI members can retaliate against the raiding parties, or they can try diplomacy.

 

The leader of SI takes the Politics route. If you are going to play Politics you have to understand how politics works. When you go into a diplomatic negotiation you have to understand the power structure in the talks. You have to know what leverage you control (where's your competitive advantage). SI goes into diplomacy from a weak position (they are weaker than Mensa HQ, the only thing going for them is that they have a case to make that Mensa HQ raided them. When you go into a negotiation with a weak hand you have to be willing to take what you get (what else can you really do?). Mensa HQ offers to only pay reparations if the people who were attacked personally message for reparations (Hint: SI, you are weaker than Mensa, diplomacy dictates that you accept the conditions being put on you by the stronger person - they hold the best cards). Instead of accepting this offer, the leader of SI attacks the leader of Mensa HQ (why would you do something like that when you know you are weaker?). Now Mensa HQ decides to respond to that attack. The result is full scale WAR.

 

Basically, we are looking at very poor politicking by SI. If you are going to play politics, you better know what your hand is and make sure you don't overplay it. Anyone who has done any bit of diplomacy understands this. You cannot play a hand bigger than you have.

 

For those who think Mensa HQ is going to get a bad rep for this, you are being short-sighted. At the end of the day, politics calls for forming alliances with people you know will be there in times of need. The real thing which will be taken out of this when all is said and done is the organization and activity of Mensa HQ. How many alliances have been able to swiftly launch into a full war in such a short time frame as Mensa HQ just did? We are showcasing to our allies our ability to effectively take care of the War side of things, while at the same time offering our members an opportunity to practice.

 

We want to thank SI for giving us to this opportunity to fine tune our machine. It's a learning experience for us and it will only make us better in the future. 

 

So, those are the real reason behind this drama.

[Spite]

You are almost right except that you dont need any level of organization to fight a war against 18 players when you have 73 thus you could have simply said hit anything in range.............. that really doesn't sound like organization to me.

Also you gotta remember that politics even involves all the alliances that aren't directly involved in the conflict!

How many alliances do you think will want to ally with you if all you proved is that you can beat up a little alliance for their money?

Try organising 17 simultaneous attacks from potentially 70 nations across a 600 point range in 45 minutes and tell me it's easy.

[Avruch]

You are almost right except that you dont need any level of organization to fight a war against 18 players when you have 73 thus you could have simply said hit anything in range.............. that really doesn't sound like organization to me.

Also you gotta remember that politics even involves all the alliances that aren't directly involved in the conflict!

How many alliances do you think will want to ally with you if all you proved is that you can beat up a little alliance for their money?

 

We could have done it that way, but we didn't. Anyone who knows anything and is looking at the war pages will see and understand what we've done. 

[Vanek26]

I think we can all agree that this has all been a bit over-dramatic, but you know, that's why we play the game, for a bit of drama.

 

On behalf of Mensa HQ, I'd like to offer terms to individual members of the Socialist International that wish to opt out of the conflict. I've two thought on how we can go about this, one being a simple truce and that's it,  the other is allowing 1 player to ground attack and beige the player, and then be compensated for any loses incurred post-surrender. 

 

If anyone in SI, or in particular any of their leadership, has any thoughts, I'd be happy to discuss it in private on IRC or through messages. 

 

I look to resolving this and putting this behind us. 

[Fox Fire]

Try organising 17 simultaneous attacks from potentially 70 nations across a 600 point range in 45 minutes and tell me it's easy.

lol. Only 17? 

*Rolls eyes*

 

 

I joined this game on 30th January this year, in the first wave of Mensa guys. It seemed pretty interesting, if a little slow to start with.

 

I waded through the 99% raid region pretty quickly thanks to a bit of whaling on the donate button, and since then I've focused on building my military presence. That's one of the biggest focus of Mensa.

 

We worked out pretty early that it doesn't matter how big you are, what matters is that you're stronger than other people in your point range, and better organised. 99% taught us that- thanks guys. Honestly think you're some of the smartest players in this game.

 

We watched Guardian, TEst and friends go to war in the recent big conflagration. What did that tell us? It taught us that organisation matters. A lot. We organised, we built up. Some of us are more inclined to raid- I've never done it but some do. For the most part if someone complains we do repay damages if the person aggrieved asks for it. 

 

What if <insert big alliance> picked on Mensa? What if they did. The point is that in the range we're in we're strong- as strong as we can be. We have friends and supporters. We'd fight our best and if we lost we'd build up stronger and come back for round two. That's why despite the whining, most people don't really care that much about what we've done.

 

This is the first time that the Mensa war machine has had to be activated. Our alliance leader was attacked over what was essentially a petty dispute, mercs hired. Missiles are standing ready to be fired. What should we do? As a new, untested alliance there cannot be any show of weakness. So we responded. If the leaders of SI choose to negotiate, perhaps the damage can be minimised. If not we'll take the war to it's natural conclusion, build up and prepare for the next one.

 

I only speak for myself on this issue- though my views are shared by the vast majority of Mensa. I don't hold any grudges against SI. I didn't even know jack about you until Pfeiffer was attacked, other than a couple members here. We are right now fairly neutral and open to all advice, friendship proposals and so on. Finding our feet. Personally I am a little taken aback by the unremitting hostility coming from what I see as a natural response to the decision to take diplomacy to the battlefield by SI leadership. The response to a military challenge to a new power must be overwhelming force. It has to be- that is basic politics.

 

Now I know some players- most of whom don't come to these forums much- agree with us on this. I know some of you just don't like us because we're fighting your friends. Be assured it's not personal, and although we will fight on we are open to diplomatic solutions. Pfeiffer will speak to anyone who is willing to come to the table.

 

Thanks for reading

Guardian and TEst steam roll some peeps and THAT is where you learned that organization is important in these games?

&#33;@#&#036;ing Christ, you people really are genius.

 

 

We could have done it that way, but we didn't. Anyone who knows anything and is looking at the war pages will see and understand what we've done. 

Yeah. You've outnumbered us ridiculously. Good job.

 

 

I think we can all agree that this has all been a bit over-dramatic, but you know, that's why we play the game, for a bit of drama.

 

On behalf of Mensa HQ, I'd like to offer terms to individual members of the Socialist International that wish to opt out of the conflict. I've two thought on how we can go about this, one being a simple truce and that's it,  the other is allowing 1 player to ground attack and beige the player, and then be compensated for any loses incurred post-surrender. 

 

If anyone in SI, or in particular any of their leadership, has any thoughts, I'd be happy to discuss it in private on IRC or through messages. 

 

I look to resolving this and putting this behind us. 

Is this because of the message I sent Pfeiffer?

[Blande]

So, those are the real reason behind this drama.

They are not the real reason behind it. They just happen to be what I think are the major benefits Mensa HQ is reaping from it.

[Vanek26]

Is this because of the message I sent Pfeiffer?

 

A few of your alliance members have inquired. 

[Callisto]

Try organising 17 simultaneous attacks from potentially 70 nations across a 600 point range in 45 minutes and tell me it's easy.

 

Hey, hey guy, Try Organizing over 150 across 70 nations. Rose did that last war, 17 attacks is nothing. 

[Adama]

Try organising 17 simultaneous attacks from potentially 70 nations across a 600 point range in 45 minutes and tell me it's easy.

 

Haha. Hahaha. Lol. Haha. 

[Caillou]

Over 200 active wars between The Atlas Confederacy and Empire of Spades in the first turn of war back in the War of Debatable Aggression. 

[Jodo]

Swagger and name dropping Guardian and TEst?

 

Bold strategy cotton.

[Vanek26]

Hey, hey guy, Try Organizing over 150 across 70 nations. Rose did that last war, 17 attacks is nothing. 

Got to start somewhere. It was 41 actually, not sure he got 17 from. 

 

That's pretty impressive, kudos to your war guys. 

[Fox Fire]

A few of your alliance members have inquired. 

I'll just wait to hear back from Pfeiffer. Assuming he replies.