So you guys are at war but no attacks yet? I'm confused.

Clearly I am going to have to settle this for everyone.

I have the largest penis. You can all stop arguing now. You're welcome.

When a war alliance wants to kill netters the netters turn into whatever the war alliance says they are. Bunch of bullies.

Creampies? Really? Go kill some netters to proof to yourself you still have a purpose in this game

If I take responsibility for the spy ops, do we get to farm and kill imag?

I saw a couple nice LG's.

Xelah apparently has won this thread.

Zahc, so we should just allow them to diffuse our missiles and remove our troops?? SoF didnt allow PDM to do that, we are not setting a standard, we are protecting our members, its as simple as that.

Hell we havn't even hit yet, we just let them know we now consider ourselves at war with them and bassically gave them a set amount of time to prepare for us to hit them, i dont see many other war alliances doing that.

I understand what your trying to say but we are not the ones who caused this, I was completely against warring sanct without a good reason to, i think them doing harmfull ops is a good reason. Not to mention the fact I had been told by a few people that Sanct was going to FS us.

Yes i did tell you that after the first two instances, but my first set in imag i made a post on AT advising that l:l would only be authed by myself upon contact. I have advised a few alliances of the same since.

Wahoo, go get em imag'rs.

Chaz cannot spell?....proof = prove?
Spelling police out!

Here's what daddy gave you.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/...5214928462_f92ec7638e.jpg

one other note I just want to make.

I can fully understand where sanct is coming from, they would be under the impression that an unpacted war alliance without a war target, that is not offering them l:l and then failing spy ops on them could be seen as belligerent and they took measures to protect themselves, but I would like to assure sanct and the community that this was not the case.

I would of only dec'd on Sanct IF we had a good reason, up until the sabotage missiles and the CD's (I am yet to see substantial evidence the CD's of our troops was not sanct, if someone can show me otherwise i will admit i was wrong, however the failed sabotage missiles by sanct is more than enough reason) we didnt have a good reason and I made it clear to the leaders we would not go to war against them without one.

No contact was made about the failed ops or the increase in grabbing from the imag members on sanct, the grabbing however was legitimate, it may be considered excessive, how ever it was individual members acting on their own well within the grabbing rules of imag, due to the amount of grabs we could of looked at a temporary DNH to halt grabs and give sanct a chance to retal, they choose to take this action, I would of done the same so kudos to them.

I am an ex Sanct head from swirve days, I know a few of their members well, I am not going to authorise a war on sanct for no reason even if members are restless. Last set we had grabbing issues and AxA and myself talked, we did not agree but we settled on a uNap for the rest of the set to simmer things down. I would like to think that during my discussions with AxA and my dealings with Wharfed over the landgrabs this set, that I acted reasonably to try and resolve the issues well also protecting my alliances policies and members.

The last thing Wharfed said to me in private after the discussion on topfeeds was:
[18:33] <Wharfed> ok
[18:35] <Wharfed> most of the things you have said have been reasonable. I guess we're done here for the night.
[18:36] <Wharfed> have a good night
01[18:36] <iScode> night bro

I have not talked to any sanct leaders since then.

Why does imag need to get cruise missiles?

cause sanct got rid of all ours :(

<3 Scodey.

Too bad I was AWOL all set or this ruckus probably wouldn't have ensued. Scode still has a warm tingly spot for SancT deep down. We could probably still talk and come to a more pleasant conclusion, but I have also relieved myself of the power to make such decisions within SancT *Points at sig*

:(
I was just asking scode where you was hiding at this set.

I win all threads. Sometimes I deign to inform the rest of you on a thready by thread basis.

Bugger it. meant to push edit, not quote. Oh well. I still win.

you just lost

Just once, I'd like to post something on AT without it ending in some strange spiral that I had not intended. fluff you AT. fluff you.

Well played Xelah, very well played!

Failah

Out of 4m troops cded their wasnt one failed op? Exactly how many missiles got defused?

On which side now? There is several failed ops, and many disabled missiles, someone poisoned the water hole and then there is that mysterious 4m troops.

There is also a snake in my boot

Seems like your not exactly sure who was cding but if their was failed ops how do you not know if it was sanct or not. Seems to me that you guys made it clear you wanted to kill sanct(even before na) so they did what they could to delay their detah

there wer failed ops from the sabotage missiles, none for the CD. Regardless sabotaging our missiles (quite a few, dont know the next number but easily over 100).


One member expresses his desire to hit sanct and it our alliances fault? he doesnt speak on behalf of leadership. Old vets of alliances say they want to kill people all the time and those alliances dont have that held against them.

Read the thread, the last time I talked to Wharfed I never even threatened war or gave the slightest inclination that we wanted to war sanct, I advised I was prepared to protect our policy, thats it. If its wrong to say you will protect your policy, so be it...

Zahc is the pot calling the kettle black.

Zach Sanct, just like any other alliance we are not pacted to is always on the table.

I can say hands down that the whole imag leadership TEAM had done a great job in helping scode choose our targets for a good reason. Most of the time it will be for a retal issue i feel. Scode always has the final say in who we war.

So non pacted clans let me say : we do not accept L:L - We do not recognize the term topfeed. If you feel you have an issue please find myself, galleri or scode before you go do something stupid. Sometimes we will agree and allow a country to get their land back if a mistake has truly been made.

ive done my fair share of netter killing. Its always the netters fault somehow, just saying i could easily get 20-30 laf/sof countries to war with you guys and actually have a good time instead of killing reps demos and theos. If you want to fluff em up for trying to protect themselves than go for it, have fun! i really could gives two sheets about sanct tbh. im just sick of not being able to hit these tiny lil sperm and am jealous that im stuck hitting the cash button instead of attack again button

lol at Chaz i knew there was another reason you was talking like that =p

so iMag's assertion here is that SancT decided to defuse iMag's missiles for no reason, because according to iMag here SancT wouldn't have had reason to believe that iMag was going to FS them?

or is iMag saying that SancT were the ones who wanted to war iMag, but just decided to skip FSing and defuse your missiles instead?

tic-toc

Sanct planned to war us anyhow. It was told to us. We were also informed there were would be harmful ops and an AB run FS like PDM had done. Oddly enough a few hours later, the harmful ops started. Like we said, we had no plans to war sanct.
Zhac I am not sure where you are coming across. Sanct is not rep, casher, theos. They clearly started switching to indy heavy back around the 20th and gaining a LOT of tanks. This was before we started doing some landgrabs a few days ago.
You should go back and see what scode wrote above.
So let me start a timeline for you:

Two instances where there was FA talks.
From the last talk Scode seemed to feel all was fine with wharfed and we carry on. We went to war with NA.

We come out of war with NA.

We start wargaining again while we figure out if we were going to do a friendly with SOF if they end in their war, seeing if anyone FS's us or just makes us mad in general, or an imag civil war.

Sanct switches from to heavy Indys and tanks with high SPAL around the 20th.

Landgrabbing starts because we have slim to none pickings due to wars and pacts out there.

A few people start giving us heads up about Sanct.

We start spying to see if it is true. We fail ops, because the so called netting clan switched and now has HIGH SPAL.

More people warn us about Sanct.

Harmful ops begin by sanct on imag.

We give them the notice on AT that we now consider them and us at war, without FSing yet.
This gives them notice to prepare, though they don't need it.

I may have missed some things here, someone like scode, soviet, or zip will be along to fill in blanks or some goodies.

axa misses my doodie

as do i

very convenient that galleri makes the landgrabs start after SancT switches strats... when the likely story is that the landgrabs were a sign that iMag is just out to start trouble and SancT switched to warring strats in response.

dammit all I wanted to do was kill scode!!!!!

I offered a friendly to SoF and they said they were unable to help our sorry mate.

"Pontius Pirate
Member
Posts: 892
Quote Post
Jul 26th 2012, 16:54:03
or is iMag saying that SancT were the ones who wanted to war iMag, but just decided to skip FSing and defuse your missiles instead?"

Thats exactly what i am saying.

With regards to galleri's timeline, I talked to sanct just after our war with NA, the last thing i was told by sanct was that i was being reasonable, then after that chat they start switching.

Between that time hardly any hits were made on sanct by imag members. members asked if they could still grab, i said yes, as long as its with in the rules of the alliance, when we started op'ing it was obvious sanct was getting ready to do something, and we were the only targets they could possibly hit.

when they didnt contact us over the landgrabs and they started buying up tanks/ going spy heavy it was obvious what they were doing.

If that isnt enough I have a copy of their new president admitting this?

I played with you in sanct PP, you dont really think I would want this do you?

I approve this message

"Between that time hardly any hits were made on sanct by imag members."

This is where you are incorrect in your statement. And this is why the decision was made in the first place.

This is not hardly any. Especially when all time previous to this accounted for 2 hits, maybe 3.
Jul 22/12 2:59:31 AM PS Predator (#661) (iMagNum) Game of Space Thrones (#160) (SancT) 976 A (+1523 A)
Jul 20/12 5:58:55 AM PS a good day to die (#49) (iMagNum) LinksSaltyNuts (#588) (SancT) 4039 A (+1974 A)
Jul 19/12 2:11:52 AM PS Predator (#661) (iMagNum) Game of Space Thrones (#160) (SancT) 1085 A (+1559 A)
Jul 19/12 1:14:50 AM PS SIEGREICHER MARSCH (#480) (iMagNum) Imperialism (#589) (SancT) 4427 A (+3472 A)
Jul 19/12 1:05:24 AM PS GOD HIS SON AND HOLY WHORE (#479) (iMagNum) damnit im a doctor not a (#257) (SancT) 4473 A (+2504 A)
Jul 16/12 1:30:46 PM PS 48 (#93) (iMagNum) Imperialism (#589) (SancT) 3324 A (+2843 A)
Jul 16/12 6:36:14 AM PS a good day to die (#49) (iMagNum) BlockParty (#395) (SancT) 3257 A (+1539 A)
Jul 16/12 3:50:57 AM PS Waka waka (#713) (iMagNum) Game of Space Thrones (#160) (SancT) 1375 A (+1000 A)
Jul 14/12 6:11:37 PM PS xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (#109) (iMagNum) Game of Space Thrones (#160) (SancT) 1109 A (+1193 A)


I didn't contact you because there was no point. There is no point in arguing with someone who doesn't understand the point of a compromise. You say you are protecting your members. I am doing THE EXACT SAME THING. I have a retal policy that I am going to uphold regardless of your reasoning. When all you tell me is that I should have contacted you before taking L:L, all I think is you are trying to cover for some members of yours who don't know how to read a retal policy. I managed to reach a compromise with Galleri. But not you.

I am reasonable and willing to compromise. You aren't. I asked for some kind, any kind of pact, and you said no. Even if the pact stated 1:1 on all grabs, I would have probably been ok with that. Hell, I even held off on telling one of my low land commies to hit one of your guys with like 35k acres simply because I figure you to be the kind of person to be a hypocrite and then try to use my policy against me.

Yes, we may be viewed as the agressors. But it was your actions and your actions alone that led me to making the decisions I have.

less talk more hits and fluff

"When all you tell me is that I should have contacted you before taking L:L, all I think is you are trying to cover for some members of yours who don't know how to read a retal policy. I managed to reach a compromise with Galleri. But not you."

My members knoww how to read our retal policy, we dont care what your policy is, you retal us by our policy.

iMag retal policy: "you hit us, we hit you back as much as we want to."

And I agree sanct did not use your policy, we hit you way less than we wanted to.

no thats for alliances hitting us. Our policy is we dont recognise topfeeds so therefor can only be retalled 1:1 escalating.

So you did want to war, just not with someone with someone who will most likely kill you?

See, here is the reason we ended up warring in summary. Basically you guys kept hitting us well into the stocking phase, thus ruining our sets...so why try to net when we aren't allowed to? If I'm a leader and I see that happening, I have two choices...let it continue and end up warring that alliance, or put an end to it. I suppose imag does take pride in warring smaller netting alliances...