/compounds/ - The Compounds of Harmony

>>3340

>breaking rule 4

He's pointing out that the clients are supplying KoE ya big dummy

>>3349

But is that relevant anymore? MTVS is dragging the Clients into this anyway.

>>3350

Hey Scarfy, you wrote the rules for our NAP. And guess who broke it? It was you, sweetie!

You're a liar and your word is worth nothing. You're just like me. I'm so proud of what you have become!

…

…

…

>>3321

>Those policies were never implemented

Of course they weren't.

Under them I'd be classified as a CB 3 for sending 25 tanks at Brightbrook in an attempt to scramble defenses right when everyone was coming out of noob week.

Since you never declared me a CB3, your initiation of aggression based on general faggotry and thinking we are week, would classify your whole gang as CB3.

You were not embargoed more than you already embargoed me anyways, we were not nation building, we had not engaged in any large scale wars, performed any activity checking.

Via general spying faggotry, you decided we were going to war.

>>3328

>That's some delicious damage control

It's still interesting. Even with Damage Control Spin in play.

>>3340

>So there was a mild hiccup in upkeep.

Yeah, that's how small groups sent regularly are designed to get you.

The trick is to… Wait, I'm at war with you at the moment, why the fuck am I being helpful?

>>3343

>or for FC to protect Ib?

Because protecting people has to factor in more options than just butts on the ground.

ib is better protected in newb week, with a group with better defenses. In FC@war he'd be a liability, and as the situation stood it was a question of when he fell, not if.

>>3350

>But is that relevant anymore? MTVS is dragging the Clients into this anyway.

>>3235

FC's Non Aggression Pact with the Coalition of Lunar Clients

1. No player in either alliance may send attacking forces at any player in the other alliance.

2. Similarly, no player in either alliance may send resources to any other player for the purposes of attacking the other alliance.

3. If any player leaves either alliance, this non-aggression pact remains binding for 24 hours after they have left. No attacking forces may be set to or from said player.

4. This NAP means that going SV is no longer a declaration of war, so long as the SV is in the NAP'ed alliance.

FC has never backed or supported TMO's attacks on CoLC specifically because of the NAP we both agreed to.

Because that's what we both agreed on.

For CoLC to support KoE's continued brutal attacks on FC, that's a clear violation of the NAP. You're apparently sharing members, radar, materials regularly. You might as well be the same alliance with a ski mask on trying.

I even wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but that seems like it was entirely engineered to garner more sympathy than you're worth.

Because, holy shit, now I'm in Bizzaro CLOP, where Loli and Bug are trustworthy, and people I used to trust are making complicated overflow alliances because they want my Texas Tea!

>>3356

>Texas Tea

Awww I feel really special right now :3

I'll make sure to make that a resource to trade somehow.

>>3356

>2. Similarly, no player in either alliance may send resources to any other player for the purposes of attacking the other alliance.

>Attacking

Yup, seems like defending to me, guess the NAP is still in place :3

>>3358

Don't know where you've been. It was agreed to be a violation and the offending player was kicked from CoLC

>>3356

> people I used to trust are making complicated overflow alliances

>>3358

>seems like defending to me

>>3360

>CoLC is supplying our defenses.

You guys attacked me on two occasions already with troops that you built specifically for defense, that you didn't want to waste because I sent a false attack against you, with the intent to force you into defense for the purpose of weakening the attack on my home base.

Ordos NeoTerra's 1st Deffender Fleet is SITTING ON MY GODDAMN FRONT LAWN!!!!

>>3365

>if TCoLC didn't give resources with the purpose to attack you, it's not their fault we used them for other things

Actually… it kind of is, considering they know there's the possibility that you'll use the resources to attack us. This constitutes criminal recklessness, and they are therefore liable.

>>3367

>Oh please cite me the >Clop legal code that says that? Oh right, that's not a thing!

The only rules state things you get banned over.

The social code is different. Things like honor and trust and emotions and friendship. You know, vague unquantifiable statements based on human interaction and history.

The problem is, unquantifiable in measurement though it is, it is my reasonable belief that you would backstab me or my allies at any point that it would be of any value to you.

Then you would try to find a loophole in the system to make the transaction okay in the eyes of the social order.

Yes I know >inb4 Mazerica, but I feel bad for doing that. It sucks when the best possible option is the shit sandwich, but that's how it goes. But rationalize it all I can, I won't not have done it.

You guys are taking money and goods from CoLC and using it to perpetuate war on FC.

Even if you're only using it on defense still means you're using it to offset costs of continuing your attacks.

And as you can see, I have both a defense fleet, and a battlefleet with Bluhtsturm's particular naming pattern all up in my shit. And I'm not getting defense subsidies from CoLC either, so that's still an attack by proxy.

>>3370

And what I'm saying is, any deniability they could claim would never hold up under official examination. When I mentioned criminal recklessness, it's essentially because it's the legal equivalent of "Yeah, right, you expect us to believe that?"

There's a reason DV chose to err on the side of caution when dealing with this, and it's because he knows he's completely accountable.

At this point, any more you could say on the matter is simply more admission of guilt.

ffs I lost my post from a board derp. This is as best as I can approximate it, I guess.

>>3369

>Attackers

>1st Deffender Fleet

I love you guys, and every moment I spend watching you play my game is a joy and a treasure

>>3371

If I was the kind of person to do that, you'd have incoming right now. So how about you butt out, k?

>>3372

Fair enough. and yet they still haven't broken anything, and I imagine they're still fine with upholding the NAP.

>>3373

We love you too admin! :3

>>3374

So please explain to me why you haven't yet? Is it because i'm not worth your time?

Hey, guess what? Neither is starting 3 fucking wars with 3 fucking alliances.

>>3377

Being a good person is always something I would love to be.

But not everyone thinks the same like that. I want peace between all. I'll fight for that any day.

But once the boat has sailed, the course is set into place. Don't let me set sail like that.

>>3369

Minty. . . You of all people should know that there is always a proxy supplier in any war in >CLOP.

>>3380

NAP's. . . Peace treaties. . . . Non-aggression pacts. . . . These are by far the least useful things in >CLOP. I have never seen one actually do any good in this game.

Anyway, hope you get to ascend a second time.

>>3327

>I mean really despite having two accounts both Bug and Loli are failing xD

>12 hours later loses war.

This is some historically bad timing.

>>3386

>>3279

>You're welcome!

>Let's see if you're still so grateful in a months time eh?

Could you at least hold up for at least 48 hours after saying something like that? Please?

>>3382

> I have never seen one actually do any good in this game.

That's all paper and legal bullshit. The part that matters is the handshake and the intent behind them.

Now all I have is a bunch of troops with no targets, and a burning question…

If TKoE and DocViper went into stasis at 23:37 and 23:53, why did I still have to fight their troops at 00:00:07?

Is Stasis aggression intentional?

>>3388

Okay

>>3387

Don't worry about it, I was only here because Scarf wanted me to help and once we saw that there was no way to survive until tomorrow, I decided to just concede.

Anyway. . . .

>>3391

I guess you'll never strike us off the list~

>>3392

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFqfglY45kY

>>3394

methinks you are of the caring~

>>3396

The parting words of a loser. Goodbye.

>>3396

>I'm just sorry to let down the Admin.

Unless Admin asked you to stir up shit, there's not much to let him down with.

>due to the now inflated production capacities of FC/MTVS/TMO.

Umm, just from the trenches in FC and all, but we were doing what we did from via communication and coordination.

I couldn't do it without help from my friends, and we couldn't have done it without your laser like focus on trying to bury us under a small number of unit types.

>there's no more drama to keep the game running.

That's an inflated sense of self you've got there. There's always someone with more drama.

I'm not going to say I'm not glad I don't have to fight 1.5k troops every 12 hours consistently for weeks on end though.

Next time you should let Cloud Kicker take the lead. At least he survived an entire week against me.

You're an even bigger failure than he is and that really says something.

>>3279

I hope I can grab some nice nations. You may have entered stasis but I think most people can remember what I did to THK after killing Merchant.

>>3395

Well, he cared enough to make a list in the first place.

Maybe we should make one, too. There are lots of players that need to get raped if they ever leave stasis/noob protection again.

So Rule four includes crimes against equinity now?

Like aiming for a -10168 tick out of stasis to avoid retribution?

I feel sort of bad about it really. In one way Bluhtsturm clearly just wants to end the conflict.

In another, it seems like he's just trying to avoid reprisal.

Yet another plan to seek vengeance has failed so spectacularly, that it's now even less likely to be an viable option. There's really no way to fix it now as well. He made the decision to stasis to avoid an attack, then he made the decision to self distruct and kill everything instead of dealing with his problems directly.

He also decided to attack me for about a week non-stop, which any observer could have told him while he was insulting my troop choices in his naming conventions that he could not sustain an attack while they had still declared war on another, traditionally more violent army.

Technically he decided to move forward with a vengeance plan lead by individuals of questionable logic, that was clearly spinning out of control, and with the failure of that plan he decided to try talking his way out of military response , because social standards currently thinks saying you're sorry has more value than not doing that harm in the first place.

So in the end, I'm pretty sure this was just a yet another horrible decision, at the end of a string of very bad decisions.

And while I do accept the apology for the very very questionable army sitting on my lawn for days on end, shooting up everything; I feel the sudden ejection when no one is looking to be a cheap tactic to avoid other people receiving restitution for billions spent dealing with your bad decisions.

Sry for beating a dead horse but I have found this gif about an hour ago and I couldn't keep myself from modifying it. Now I want to share my work with the world because I'm that desperate for attention.