EVE Search - RULE going rogue?

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

RULE going rogue?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Nex Angelus Caldari Ginnungagaps Rymdfarargille Tre Kroner	Posted - 2007.04.18 01:34:00 - [1] Edited by: Nex Angelus on 18/04/2007 01:30:36 [TRE] under siege As of April 18 Rule of three has breached protocol and committed hostile acts against a friendly alliance. TRE has taken the only appropriate action and declared them an enemy of the alliance. April 17 RULE decided to POS-spam our home system MK-YNM. They took the opportunity to get these POS-es in place at the same time 2 of our membercorps left the alliance, and thus left some moons open. They committed this act of war while they were still listed as our friends. TRE immediately called in our diplomats, and tried our very best to resolve this matter in a non-violent way. After spending 11 hours in diplomatic talks, they approached us with their final offer; TRE was to be RULE pets. Naturally, TRE couldn't stand for this, and declared that we would take action, and the RULE response came swiftly: "We have put you to red." It is apparent that RULE is not to be trusted as a friendly alliance, since they have exploited our good will, and the freedom they have had to rat and moon-mine in our systems, and instead used this freedom to scout our POS-es. We look forward to our allies responses to this, and we will seek a diplomatic solution to this if possible. For the time being, we will defend ourselves. For TRE-Kroner //Nex signature removed (max size 24000 bytes) No, it's 21 482 bytes, PHP-script exclude
Venix An Eye For An Eye Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.04.18 01:37:00 - [2] You had 2 towers in system. Try again, you were a problem. Ni4Ni Join Ni4Ni Today! Public Channel: Ni4Ni
Stamm Amarr Three Holdings Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.04.18 01:39:00 - [3] Edited by: Stamm on 18/04/2007 01:37:07 You left 18 out of 20 moons open, 6 jumps from our home system. When there are 14 moons open, you do not need to take down towers to make more room for more - which is what we were told. We offered you a position where you had everything you had now, but didn't have to fuel the towers. You keep your offices, you keep your ratting rights, you keep your mining rights. And RULE get the security we want in our home region. You refused the offer - you refused to even speak to your alliance about it. As I said in your other thread, I am sorry, but there was no other choice for RULE. Galaxian Recruitment Info
Tomcatt Amarr STK Scientific Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.04.18 01:42:00 - [4] Good Luck Tre-K See you in space!
Wu Xiang Prospero Incorperated	Posted - 2007.04.18 01:43:00 - [5] Duuur dun..... Duuuuur dun.... dur dun dur dun dur dun dur dun
Brka Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.04.18 01:44:00 - [6] Security Risk = Problem. Bad Communication = Problem. Things not adding up = Problem. We solved the problem. We have a history of removing alliances in the new regions that are one way or another a security threat. You have no capital fleet that you could speak of and you are not the Tre Kroner that was given that space months ago. I think that sums it up.
Leandra Anor Minmatar Asguard Security Service Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.04.18 01:48:00 - [7] Nearly 3 weeks ago we went to Tre Kroner and advised them that their coverage of moons in MK- was not acceptable. We gave them nearly THREE WEEKS to remedy this situation. We told them what would happen if they didn't comply. Not only did they not comply but the moons that they DID have covered dwindled from 7 to 5 to 2. We would not be protecting our space well if we let this continue! We didn't want to fight you Tre Kroner, but since you don't care to respect your neighbors by keeping your station system protected with 51% coverage of moons AND you don't care to accept our more than generous offer then war it will be. BRING IT ON! ~Leandra Anor~ ______________________________________________ ~And YES already... I am a RL female gamer!!~
Graalum Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.04.18 02:06:00 - [8] Edited by: Graalum on 18/04/2007 02:03:25 this is an interesting casus belli, you decide to take your allies outpost because you don't think they are doing a good enough job protecting their outpost? Sounds more like a blatant land grab to me. Obviously my views represent me, and only me, unless someone agrees with me.
Joshua Foiritain Gallente Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.04.18 02:07:00 - [9] Originally by: Graalum this is an interesting casus belli, you decide to take your allies outpost because you don't think they are doing a good enough job protecting their outpost? Sounds more like a blatant land grab to me. Technically its pretty smart as it would prevent the enemy from getting an easy foothold. ----- [Coreli Corporation Mainfrane]
Gullegumman Caldari Ginnungagaps Rymdfarargille Tre Kroner	Posted - 2007.04.18 02:09:00 - [10] First of all, I'd like to commend those in RULE who are trying their best to keep communications civil. Venix and especially is a beacon of taste at the moment. As a whole, portraying RULEs actions as open and honest is a thinly veiled attempt to cover themselves politically. Even their own members are laughing outright in our systems local chats about how they nailed us. Comments like "Sha Kharn > WTS refinery outpost in new drone region" (followed by quite the bidding war among RULE corps I might add) and "RIPZeus > i think we gave tre surpise butt secks" simply aren't in line with the premise that they are reluctant saviors of the area. Quite simply, they used their status as allies and trusted friends, including their docking rights in our station, to set this up. They used the moment at which two large corporations left our alliance as an excuse to expand their own territories. This is quite obvious from the fact that every single moon in our outpost system which is not taken by a RULE POS, is taken by a TRE POS (8 at last check, not 2). Their claims about our lax stance toward regional security are completely moot in light of that. I'd like to thank RULE for their previous services and longstanding friendship. This extends especially to those members of NI4NI whom I proudly fought alongside against Tau-Ceti. However, I hope that their members understand that, with all possible security measures taken, TRE is not a security risk at this time. As such, their actions can only be interpreted as wanton aggression or will to expand their (pardon the expression) rule in the region. Thank you for your time, Gullegumman, Field Marshall, GgRG.
Nex Angelus Caldari Ginnungagaps Rymdfarargille Tre Kroner	Posted - 2007.04.18 02:11:00 - [11] I just want to make a few comments before going to bed (11 hours of diplomatic talks is actually quite exhausting) - Yes, you spoke to one guy; me. I spoke to at least 6-7 of you guys, and none of you could give me straight answers for 11 hours. In this matter I spoke for the entire alliance, and had advisors with me on TS. - We were very forthcoming and gave you all the intel you asked for. Even intel that wasn't any of your business. And finally: - I have screenshots of every convo. signature removed (max size 24000 bytes) No, it's 21 482 bytes, PHP-script exclude
Graalum Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.04.18 02:15:00 - [12] Originally by: Joshua Foiritain Originally by: Graalum this is an interesting casus belli, you decide to take your allies outpost because you don't think they are doing a good enough job protecting their outpost? Sounds more like a blatant land grab to me. Technically its pretty smart as it would prevent the enemy from getting an easy foothold. Possibly, but this sounds like more of a blatant land grab disguised as a defensive maneuver. Its like the US invading canada because the russians might invade canada (sorry for real life example)
Stamm Amarr Three Holdings Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.04.18 02:15:00 - [13] Originally by: Nex Angelus I just want to make a few comments before going to bed (11 hours of diplomatic talks is actually quite exhausting) - Yes, you spoke to one guy; me. I spoke to at least 6-7 of you guys, and none of you could give me straight answers for 11 hours. In this matter I spoke for the entire alliance, and had advisors with me on TS. - We were very forthcoming and gave you all the intel you asked for. Even intel that wasn't any of your business. And finally: - I have screenshots of every convo. The intel WAS my business. You being unable to in any way defend your outpost, not putting up towers, the majority of what really was Tre Kroner leaving, and your unwillingness to even talk about what I feel was an extremely generous offer, and finally your decision to end any hope of diplomacy is what has put you in the position you are in now. You leaving a station undefended with only 2 towers claiming sovereignty with 18 moons available, 6 jumps from us is the same as leaving a tank, with the engine running and the keys in the ignition pointing at my house. Galaxian Recruitment Info
Brka Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.04.18 02:21:00 - [14] Things didn't add up. You didn't know much about corps you were recruiting, story changed around, information you gave us didn't add up, and your answers to some of the questions showed us you don't look at the big picture of who is around you or any sort of plan. You even admitted you weren't going to put up towers at this time if we hadn't leaving it wide open for anyone. Outpost Lottery basically. You admitted you removed 6 towers for corps to join you but with 12 moons already uncovered, why? Sure you lost towers with corps leaving but you seem to have plenty in station. If you were concerned with system security you'd think you'd get those up as soon as the others went down. Something doesn't add up here. It just doesn't. I told you many times just tell us everything, be straight with us, and many times we had to deal with vague answers until we prodded you for more information. You were even aware of the concern for tower coverage three weeks ago and, even with corps leaving, shouldn't that be paramount? If i had a 40 billion dollar asset sitting in space, I surely would make sure it was the most secure thing in the galaxy before I did anything else. You had a weekend when they told you they would leave or so you lead us to believe.
Stamm Amarr Three Holdings Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.04.18 02:22:00 - [15] Originally by: Graalum Originally by: Joshua Foiritain Originally by: Graalum this is an interesting casus belli, you decide to take your allies outpost because you don't think they are doing a good enough job protecting their outpost? Sounds more like a blatant land grab to me. Technically its pretty smart as it would prevent the enemy from getting an easy foothold. Possibly, but this sounds like more of a blatant land grab disguised as a defensive maneuver. Its like the US invading canada because the russians might invade canada (sorry for real life example) If you check through our alliances history in the new regions we have always taken a proactive stance on defence. Any threat or liability has been removed. Other than deploying POSs in their system there was nothing else that we could do, short of giving people we don't know free towers. Bear in mind the Tre Kroner that exists now are not the people we've had a good relationship with, those guys have left Tre Kroner. We don't know the guys that remain, they have not approached us, we've been saying for 3 weeks they need to step up the towers. The final straw was seing the system with two towers. We either acted, or someone else would. And it's a whole lot easier dealing with the position now than waiting on the inevitable hostiles arriving, POSsing up the entire system and moving in. Galaxian Recruitment Info
Vily Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.04.18 02:24:00 - [16] I am curious, what level of moon coverage were you requesting Tre maintain? not just moon count but operational level wise? -
Stamm Amarr Three Holdings Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.04.18 02:26:00 - [17] Originally by: Vily I am curious, what level of moon coverage were you requesting Tre maintain? not just moon count but operational level wise? At least 51%. In a 20 moon system we considered at least 10 large and 1 other tower to be sufficient to prevent someone else coming in and dropping POSs. Any less and someone could take the system in a bloodless coup. Galaxian Recruitment Info
Attak Trioptimum FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.04.18 02:28:00 - [18] But now where will we get all our swedish meatballs from?!
Venix An Eye For An Eye Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.04.18 02:28:00 - [19] Hey man, i said it like it is. You had 2 towers, you were a problem. Originally by: Gullegumman First of all, I'd like to commend those in RULE who are trying their best to keep communications civil. Venix and especially is a beacon of taste at the moment. As a whole, portraying RULEs actions as open and honest is a thinly veiled attempt to cover themselves politically. Even their own members are laughing outright in our systems local chats about how they nailed us. Comments like "Sha Kharn > WTS refinery outpost in new drone region" (followed by quite the bidding war among RULE corps I might add) and "RIPZeus > i think we gave tre surpise butt secks" simply aren't in line with the premise that they are reluctant saviors of the area. Quite simply, they used their status as allies and trusted friends, including their docking rights in our station, to set this up. They used the moment at which two large corporations left our alliance as an excuse to expand their own territories. This is quite obvious from the fact that every single moon in our outpost system which is not taken by a RULE POS, is taken by a TRE POS (8 at last check, not 2). Their claims about our lax stance toward regional security are completely moot in light of that. I'd like to thank RULE for their previous services and longstanding friendship. This extends especially to those members of NI4NI whom I proudly fought alongside against Tau-Ceti. However, I hope that their members understand that, with all possible security measures taken, TRE is not a security risk at this time. As such, their actions can only be interpreted as wanton aggression or will to expand their (pardon the expression) rule in the region. Thank you for your time, Gullegumman, Field Marshall, GgRG. Ni4Ni Join Ni4Ni Today! Public Channel: Ni4Ni
Tomcatt Amarr STK Scientific Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.04.18 02:32:00 - [20] More than 2 moons. I've been in MK- since this started and there is more than what your posting being said in local. No smack; just friendly banter and your guys have been involved too. You have broke out the flame sprayers, but that isn't the issue here. No one as insulted you or your alliance. I've made sure my guys have not smacked in local and will continue to do so. Since you don't consider ANY chat in local anything but Smack my gang will no longer reply to you at all.
Vily Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.04.18 02:36:00 - [21] Hmmm...... Well if they were indeed holding Sov with two towers i can understand this. If you do not have the ability to effectively kill POS, then your best defense is a well structured defense. which is strucutred around the inability to be out-spammed. If it is closer to eight then that is another thing. But i am making assumptions based on COAD posts so i suppose it's ALL up in the air. -
Stamm Amarr Three Holdings Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.04.18 02:39:00 - [22] Originally by: Vily Hmmm...... Well if they were indeed holding Sov with two towers i can understand this. If you do not have the ability to effectively kill POS, then your best defense is a well structured defense. which is strucutred around the inability to be out-spammed. If it is closer to eight then that is another thing. But i am making assumptions based on COAD posts so i suppose it's ALL up in the air. Nobody is saying anything different than 2. 3 weeks ago it was 8, at that point we spoke to them with our concerns. Yesterday it was 2. Galaxian Recruitment Info
Brka Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.04.18 02:41:00 - [23] Edited by: Brka on 18/04/2007 02:40:47 uite simply, they used their status as allies and trusted friends, including their docking rights in our station, to set this up. They used the moment at which two large corporations left our alliance as an excuse to expand their own territories. This is quite obvious from the fact that every single moon in our outpost system which is not taken by a RULE POS, is taken by a TRE POS (8 at last check, not 2). Their claims about our lax stance toward regional security are completely moot in light of that." Thank you for your time, Gullegumman, Field Marshall, GgRG. I'm sorry about STK. They do that and well sometimes they are tasteless. You seem to be implying we planned this for sometime and trying to turn it from "they were a risk" to "we are the victims". Being that I know about 99% of things that go on in the alliance, I can tell you honestly that we had no intention of doing anything unless we saw no effort of any group of Tre Kroner to secure space 5 jumps from our home systems. We didn't say: "Bored lets go kill them." In fact nothing happened until we found 2 towers on Saturday and nothing was even in the new regions until yesterday. There was no set-up, no conspiracy, and nothing else. I guess you need some sympathy propaganda. And by the way, the 8 pos you put up were only "ONLY" put up after ours were. So now you are out and out lying to the rest of the game to get sympathy.The screen shots of convos will even show your own leader saying you weren't going to put anything more up anytime soon if we hadn't I told you to be honest with us for 5 hours today. You weren't and you are showing here why this happened. So why the lying and the change of stories, and telling your "close" ally that things are none of our business 5 jumps from our home system? Again I smell a rat. Something isn't right here. Re: Vily - We asked what their cap fleet defensive potential was and they couldn't even tell us. Best guesses...
Gullegumman Caldari Ginnungagaps Rymdfarargille Tre Kroner	Posted - 2007.04.18 02:43:00 - [24] Originally by: Stamm Nobody is saying anything different than 2. 3 weeks ago it was 8, at that point we spoke to them with our concerns. Yesterday it was 2. At the moment you set us to red, it was 8. Yes, it was two yesterday. And if you want to go by the worst day in alliance history, it was zero the day we moved in. --- Gullegumman, FSltmarskalk, Ginnungagaps Rymdfarargille
Stamm Amarr Three Holdings Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.04.18 02:45:00 - [25] Originally by: Gullegumman Originally by: Stamm Nobody is saying anything different than 2. 3 weeks ago it was 8, at that point we spoke to them with our concerns. Yesterday it was 2. At the moment you set us to red, it was 8. Yes, it was two yesterday. And if you want to go by the worst day in alliance history, it was zero the day we moved in. We set you red because - and if you read carefully your leaders statement you can see it - you had already declared us hostile. Galaxian Recruitment Info
Trev Kachanov STK Scientific Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.04.18 02:48:00 - [26] tasteless? im just so glad i dont have to do 100 jumps in a night to find hostiles I find your lack of faith disturbing
Brka Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.04.18 02:49:00 - [27] Edited by: Brka on 18/04/2007 02:49:20 Quote: At the moment you set us to red, it was 8. Yes, it was two yesterday. And if you want to go by the worst day in alliance history, it was zero the day we moved in. Open answers? Some were open, some were best guesses, several answers didn't pass my bs test. We set you red the moment your leader/diplomatic said Tre Kroner would respond after threatening us right off the bat early today, we didn't think it was wise to let you plan and plot a response. However, your 8 towers.. most of them aren't even armed. No guns on many of them. A defensive POS has hardeners and guns. You were more interested in getting us out than actually putting up serious defenses. Again something doesn't add up here. But hey what do I know, I'm only a civil engineer.
Sylic Vendetta Underground	Posted - 2007.04.18 03:10:00 - [28] Enough explination.. This is to be the last RULE comment.. You had 2 moon covered until after DT and you seen we put up 12.. Call it what you want land grab or whatever you can do bring simpathy upon you.. We warn you 3 WEEKS AGO protect this sytem .. With enemies around today it would have been a nice logistical foothold to grab.. You neglecticed to mention that you took down 6 addition POSes leaving only 2 to make room for 2 new corps joining? Yeah now that makes since. Anyways you lied to us 3 weeks ago and lost that trust. You jepordized the security of this region.. Now any true leader of and alliance or corp will see the logistical issue you caused .. SYLIC
Leandra Anor Minmatar Asguard Security Service Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.04.18 03:12:00 - [29] Originally by: Gullegumman Edited by: Gullegumman on 18/04/2007 02:47:11 Originally by: Stamm Nobody is saying anything different than 2. 3 weeks ago it was 8, at that point we spoke to them with our concerns. Yesterday it was 2. At the moment you set us to red, it was 8. Yes, it was two yesterday. And if you want to go by the worst day in alliance history, it was zero the day we moved in. Edit to answer Brka: You are quite right, several towers were set up in response to the fact that you asked us to ramp up security, as late as today. We took all of your requests to up security quite seriously, but our alliance was also going through very turbulent times. Our measures have included diversifying the alliance to keep online times more spread out, the buying of quite a few control towers (the ones which are in place now, plus more which can not be set up due to RULE POSes). However, none of these things can be done overnight. Any reference to not getting straight answers might be attributed to the fact that our alliance has thusfar been all-Swedish, and English is not the first language of most members. We have never had anything to hide from RULE. Apparently, we should have, since you are now exploiting our trust and friendship, as well as our open answers about our defensive capabilities. We didn't ask you to do this overnight... we gave you THREE WEEKS!! That's more then enough time for MC, BoB, Triumvirate, Praes etc to have jumped in and covered those moons and then you wouldn't have had ANY of these talks. We offered to let you stay... no rent... full ratting and mining rights and you set us red. Fine! We are game to fight. We didn't want it... but like I said before BRING IT ON! Re: Vily... it was 8 when we first asked them to ramp up security. Then it dropped to 5 over the weekend.... last night it was at 2. ANYONE could have done what we did and then we would have had a potential enemy 6 jumps from our station. Defensively we couldn't allow that. ______________________________________________ ~And YES already... I am a RL female gamer!!~
Trev Kachanov STK Scientific Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.04.18 03:38:00 - [30] Originally by: Leandra Anor Originally by: Gullegumman Edited by: Gullegumman on 18/04/2007 02:47:11 Originally by: Stamm Nobody is saying anything different than 2. 3 weeks ago it was 8, at that point we spoke to them with our concerns. Yesterday it was 2. At the moment you set us to red, it was 8. Yes, it was two yesterday. And if you want to go by the worst day in alliance history, it was zero the day we moved in. Edit to answer Brka: You are quite right, several towers were set up in response to the fact that you asked us to ramp up security, as late as today. We took all of your requests to up security quite seriously, but our alliance was also going through very turbulent times. Our measures have included diversifying the alliance to keep online times more spread out, the buying of quite a few control towers (the ones which are in place now, plus more which can not be set up due to RULE POSes). However, none of these things can be done overnight. Any reference to not getting straight answers might be attributed to the fact that our alliance has thusfar been all-Swedish, and English is not the first language of most members. We have never had anything to hide from RULE. Apparently, we should have, since you are now exploiting our trust and friendship, as well as our open answers about our defensive capabilities. We didn't ask you to do this overnight... we gave you THREE WEEKS!! That's more then enough time for MC, BoB, Triumvirate, Praes etc to have jumped in and covered those moons and then you wouldn't have had ANY of these talks. We offered to let you stay... no rent... full ratting and mining rights and you set us red. Fine! We are game to fight. We didn't want it... but like I said before BRING IT ON! Re: Vily... it was 8 when we first asked them to ramp up security. Then it dropped to 5 over the weekend.... last night it was at 2. ANYONE could have done what we did and then we would have had a potential enemy 6 jumps from our station. Defensively we couldn't allow that. i think yur puuuurdy I find your lack of faith disturbing

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.