Words & Actions

[Unknown Smurf]

For some time now I see the world delve into sides, and not the same old coalition 1 and 2. I see one side trying to provoke action while the other denounces from their pedestal (or bunker even) trying to imply they aren't incompetent or sedentary. It has always been a tough decision when trying to decide which side to support, and more and more often we find ourselves wanting to support neither (unless Tywin supports a side in which case we quickly find ourselves opposite him). But alas I see that choosing neither side is hardly an option. Either you are on side A or side B. You can have non-chaining treaties and no direct ties to the main instigators or whatever but by being in the same sphere as certain alliances or by being an ally of an ally you are enabling them. Maybe not physically defending but you are at least deterring others from stopping what they want to stop. That is not what Kaskus is here to do.

 

I won't sugarcoat it and pretend you guys do not know what this is about so we'll lay it out simple for you. We are pro-war, and that includes raiding. We are pro-DBDC doing what they want to do in this world, especially given the fact that they are ready to accept the consequences whatever they may be. We may not support every single one of their actions but we support their endgame if it is truly what we are told it has been. That said, we have always been opposed to unfair fights. We had our issues with GOONS not because they raided unaligned nations or because they would raid 3 on 1 but because they extorted alliances that were not well connected. They tried to do this with Mongols because their only treaty was an ODP with us and that is why we had our war. 

 

Because of all this you will see no military treaty between DBDC and Kaskus, nor will you see a treaty with a chaining clause between Kaskus and a DBDC ally. While we support their right to do what they wish to do in this world, we are not here to protect them from consequences for their actions. But we have our NAP with DBDC via PECS and we intend to keep it assuming the feeling is mutual. You could say, we are declaring neutrality regarding the clash with neutrality. 

 

Why do we support raiding but not this? Well because unaligned nations have the option to join an alliance and get protection. More often than not they chose not to therefore they are subject to the consequence of a raid. In the case of alliance raiding, I agree it is a nation rulers own fault if he or she joins an alliance that cannot protect them but when a nation joins a neutral alliance they are under the impression they are safe from unwarranted attacks. Were these attacks unwarranted? Debatable for some Pax Corvus members, but for the non-vocal majority, I believe so. The bigger question is: are unwarranted attacks inherently wrong? 

 

The answer is irrelevant to me as I am no moralist. Therefore, I am not going to defend the neutrals or anything like that. Why should I defend people that do not even defend themselves?* I understand many of you feel wronged or hopeless when it comes to DBDC and that there is very little you can do about them now and I do sympathize for you but I feel it is your fault for letting it get to this. 

 

* = I will note that Pax is fighting back admirably so far but my rhetorical question goes beyond them. I am talking about every single alliance out there that is not aligned to DBDC or friendly with them. DBDCs war on Pax Corvus is so that they can lower the top 250 NS bracket and raid even more of you. When do you stop it? When do you grow some balls? Are you going to wait until you are too weak? Or until you have 1mill NS nations hitting 80k ones? I have looked over the numbers, you have plenty of firepower, you could stop DBDC if you had the slightest bit of organization and/or self respect, but I see none.

 

 

So you're implying all non-neutrals don't have the balls to stand alone?

 

Yes.

 

I think you are all looking towards WTF or GPA to save you and it will never happen. 

 

 

To: Unknown Smurf    From: Asa Phillips    Date: 7/28/2014 11:04:53 AM

Message: The funny thing is... many see us as being the anti DBDC, when we're more like them than anyone realizes.

For the most part, aside from the raiding differences? neither of us cares when the bulk of CN doesn't approve of us... so long as we do as we want.

Hell, even most of the other neutral groups look down on us to some extent or another, (TDO used to do it the most TBH, our first encounter ever they spoke down to us and even threatened war lol) mostly because we can't possibly be doing it right without a structured hierarchy of fake presidents/emperors/ministers/triumvirs and such that makes one member better than another within a group of players with common intent.

Bottom line, DBDC would have to literally flat out attack us first for there to ever be any kind of action against them. Most of us admire another group who dare to be different. 

 

Those who are afraid wont fight them, for fear of becoming irrelevant to those who they think matter when their pixels disappear. lol

 

 

[Mogar]

nobody wants to pull the trigger.

[The Zigur]

nobody wants to pull the trigger.

 

If nobody wants to pull the trigger, then the time is not yet right to pull the trigger.

[Neo Uruk]

Rey shot first.

[Groucho Marx]

Sorry but we didn't try to extort Mongols. They attacked one of our members and refused to pay any kind of reasonable, token reparations. Let's not revise history for the sake of making an irrelevant point.

[The Zigur]

Smurf don't be like Methrage mane

[The Zigur]

BTW, had a good discussion in #polaris going on earlier and Lyserguide made a good point:

 

[ooc]

20:32    Lysergide    As I said before, I only see NG/DBDC as the last successor states for the Unjust Path.
20:32    Lysergide    We were playing Something Awful, not Cybernations.

[/ooc]

 

This is exactly what I was talking about in Return of the Userites. The world is inevitably polarizing between two cultures and two forces: The barbaric Forces of Chaos lead by DBDC which values only raw military power, and the Forces of Civilization that are lead by those alliances who place value on the traditions that allow for Ordered Anarchy and the rich history and lore of this world.

 

The two cultures are ultimately incompatible in nature, and we will either see a repeat of the Revolution of The Pacific of 2003, or we will see the final Userite triumph in this world and the hierarchical domination of the top-tier rogues.

[Unknown Smurf]

Sorry but we didn't try to extort Mongols. They attacked one of our members and refused to pay any kind of reasonable, token reparations. Let's not revise history for the sake of making an irrelevant point.

 

They didn't attack you. They sent "war aid" to one of their tech sellers who was being raided by GOONS. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=109380

[Groucho Marx]

They didn't attack you. They sent "war aid" to one of their tech sellers who was being raided by GOONS. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=109380

Same difference. They committed an act of war and they were going to do right by their mistake until Kaskus convinced them not to in order to create an unnecessary war that you inevitably lost anyway.

[Unknown Smurf]

Same difference. They committed an act of war and they were going to do right by their mistake until Kaskus convinced them not to in order to create an unnecessary war that you inevitably lost anyway.

 

Lol. Are you that deluded? The mongol nation sent his tech seller 6mill, the seller said he couldn't send tech because of his war so the mongol (being a noob) sent 6mill+4k soldiers to his seller. GOONS wanted 18mill in reps, despite the fact that the seller got raped in the war by 3 GOONS nations the 6mill did nothing. Even still Mongols offered 6mill in reps, GOONS figured they could extort them for 18mill and tried to. 

 

Kaskus had no idea what was happening until GOONS declared war on Mongols. We just activated our ODP after you attacked. 

Edited August 4, 2014 by Unknown Smurf

[Stewie]

Sole remaining successor states to the UJP.

*sniff* I'm so proud.

[The Zigur]

I'm convinced that Cuba is surrounded by sycophants attempting to use him to destroy the Order and Tradition of this world, and make way for the return of lulzists and the forces of chaos.

[Groucho Marx]

Lol. Are you that deluded? The mongol nation sent his tech seller 6mill, the seller said he couldn't send tech because of his war so the mongol (being a noob) sent 6mill+4k soldiers to his seller. GOONS wanted 18mill in reps, despite the fact that the seller got raped in the war by 3 GOONS nations the 6mill did nothing. Even still Mongols offered 6mill in reps, GOONS figured they could extort them for 18mill and tried to. 
 
Kaskus had no idea what was happening until GOONS declared war on Mongols. We just activated our ODP after you attacked.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you personally weren't even involved in that whole affair. So let me fill you in; Kaskus encouraged Mongols to refuse any deals, period, and when it became clear that Mongols weren't going to cooperate we declared war. Kaskus opportunistically bandwaggoned into that fight and still act like you won that war to this day. You pulled another similar stunt on NSO touting your line about your great "victory" in the GOONS-Mongols war but only got spanked a second time.

[Unknown Smurf]

Correct me if I'm wrong but you personally weren't even involved in that whole affair. So let me fill you in; Kaskus encouraged Mongols to refuse any deals, period, and when it became clear that Mongols weren't going to cooperate we declared war. Kaskus opportunistically bandwaggoned into that fight and still act like you won that war to this day. You pulled another similar stunt on NSO touting your line about your great "victory" in the GOONS-Mongols war but only got spanked a second time.

 

Are you kidding me? I was point man for Kaskus for that conflict. We didn't encourage anyone to refuse any deals, even in your DoW that I linked to you above, GOONS acknowledges that Mongols offered 6mill. 

 

Also explain to me how we "opportunistically bandwaggoned" into a conflict where you attacked our ODP allies? 

[Stewie]

I just remember goons crying and calling in us

[jerdge]

To: Unknown Smurf From: Asa Phillips Date: 7/28/2014 11:04:53 AM
Message: The funny thing is... many see us as being the anti DBDC, when we're more like them than anyone realizes.

For the most part, aside from the raiding differences? neither of us cares when the bulk of CN doesn't approve of us... so long as we do as we want.

Hell, even most of the other neutral groups look down on us to some extent or another, (TDO used to do it the most TBH, our first encounter ever they spoke down to us and even threatened war lol) mostly because we can't possibly be doing it right without a structured hierarchy of fake presidents/emperors/ministers/triumvirs and such that makes one member better than another within a group of players with common intent.

Bottom line, DBDC would have to literally flat out attack us first for there to ever be any kind of action against them. Most of us admire another group who dare to be different.

Those who are afraid wont fight them, for fear of becoming irrelevant to those who they think matter when their pixels disappear. lol

Ah ah that is very Asa-like. :)
To the best of my knowledge I can say that no one in the GPA ever looked down on the WTF, and they were wrong if they did it.
 
To look down on anyone in the WTF, also, one would have to find one of them, first! :P                              (don't take me too seriously: AFAIK those WTF guys are rather active on their forums.)

[Beauty]

To be fair, DBDC have ran to most alliances with high tier nations so they don't get kicked on their ass. So seeing they've been licking around WTF's asshole is no surprise to be honest.

[Xanth]

I just remember goons crying and calling in us

 

 

This is what a lot of us remember most from that conflict.

 

 

As to the dbdc/neutral conflict, it will only be the fault of the neutrals when/if they get hit next.

 

There has a trend lately on hitting neutral alliances and this last one just shows that neutrality as we knew it on Bob is dead. If there was a time for the neutrals to act, to save their way of being, now is that time. I understand what neutrality means and why they have not/will not act on this. I also understand that we will all be seeing more recognition of hostility threads from neutral alliances in the future.

[Schattenmann]

The answer is irrelevant to me as I am no moralist. Therefore, I am not going to defend the neutrals or anything like that. Why should I defend people that do not even defend themselves?* I understand many of you feel wronged or hopeless when it comes to DBDC and that there is very little you can do about them now and I do sympathize for you but I feel it is your fault for letting it get to this.

 

If this is the point at which the rest of your decisions/opinions stem, you're operating under a fundamental misunderstanding of what neutrality is.

Neutrality is not an abdication/refusal to defend oneself.  To assert that, you must assert that non-neutral AAs' only protection is involvement in global politics, and that is just as obviously not what non-neutrality is.  Any neutral AA can/will defend itself if attacked--In doing so, they don't become non-neutral, so neutrality is not the lack of self-defense.

Neutrality is simply a decision not to participate in global affairs, it has nothing to do with defense.   Does a neutral alliance have access to less defensive resources than a non-neutral AA?  Of course, because they have no cavalry to call in.  But that doesn't mean they are not, will not, or cannot defend themselves.

All we need do is check reality: non-neutral AAs have allies with nations in the uppermost tier, but they have failed in almost every case to call upon allies or to defend themselves using only internal resources.  Reality cracks your delusion wide open.

There is no "fault" to neutrals due to their neutrality if attacked by DBDC.  Again, non-neutral AAs have been attacked by DBDC far more, their treaties are no more the "fault" in their case than neutrality is the fault in Pax Corvus' case.  The fault is that Admin left a hole in physics and now he refu$e$ to close it.

 

 

As for defending the neutrals, who has asked you to?  That I've seen, no one.  This is another case of replying to something that was never said. 

The AAs who are cheering on PC are doing so because DBDC are buttsucking shriveldicks, that's it.  Pax Corvus hasn't asked for anyone to mobilize and ride to their rescue, no alliance is considering white-knighting Pax Corvus.  So why an essay in response to a request or argument that hasn't been made?  Because of your own faulty understanding of neutrality and neutrals as weak people who need your help. 

In fact, Pax Corvus, GPA, etc. are more capable of defending themselves against DBDC than any of the non-neutral AAs that have been attacked.  They have no allies begging or telling them to let it go, and they have a decent number of nations capable to counter whereas every other AA only has 2 or 3.

 

I don't personally support Pax Corvus because I think they have some unassailable right to eternal peace; in fact, the last time I spoke to PC we were arguing over a sanction request.  I support PC because DBDC are a bunch of ugly gorillas and PC can wipe a little bit of the ugly off.  I don't want PC to wipe some of the ugly off because I'm too scurred or Polaris is too scurred, but because PC is more capable than anyone else.  Polaris is one of the few AAs to have fought back, and counter-declared.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Schattenmann

[Starcraftmazter]

Why do we support raiding but not this? Well because unaligned nations have the option to join an alliance and get protection.

 

Just like alliances have the option to sign treaties with other alliances, and then fight back when someone attacks them together.

 

Case closed.

[jerdge]

In the GPA we indeed think that morality and ethics are important, and we indeed think that matters should be resolved diplomatically and amicably in every single circumstance: diplomacy and peaceful means are all over our Charter since 2006 for a reason. But that's our way and we don't claim that others should act the way we do.

Neither we are deluded that we'll always necessarily be treated morally and ethically by external parties, no matter how intensely we may think that others should actually do just that. In the end, fair or not, warranted or not, if we'll have to defend ourselves we will fight to our best, confident that we'll still be around and kicking when the sun will set on Planet Avril for the last time: your neutral, open, peaceful, civilized, knowledgeable, funny and friendly neighbour... that's really all that practically matters to us.

 

A couple of honest questions for you, US. You said that Kaskus is "opposed to unfair fights" but also that you're not moralist. If it's not for their "immorality", why are you opposed to unfair fights?

Furthermore, without knowing you I'd say that Kaskus must have some form of fundamental "moral" values, for instance loyalty (to Kaskus). How is that compatible with the complete lack of morality you assert for yourself?

Bear in mind that my questions are out of honest curiosity to understand your ways and not meant to be irritating or offensive. Apologies if I missed the mark or I sounded rude. Answering is a courtesy I'd be grateful for, but I don't think you are obligated to answer if you don't feel like it.

 

 

As to the dbdc/neutral conflict, it will only be the fault of the neutrals when/if they get hit next.

 

There has a trend lately on hitting neutral alliances and this last one just shows that neutrality as we knew it on Bob is dead. If there was a time for the neutrals to act, to save their way of being, now is that time. I understand what neutrality means and why they have not/will not act on this. I also understand that we will all be seeing more recognition of hostility threads from neutral alliances in the future.

Committing to the defence of anyone else, or asking to anyone else to commit to our defence, is giving up on the GPA way of being. That's self-defeat before even a single shot is fired and not really an option we should even just consider. I am anyway neutral on the opinion of any other neutral on this issue, as they're obviously entitled to their own choices.

I disagree that neutrality "as we knew it" is dead: we're still here, people can join us and we're glad to explain our values to anyone interested (just stop by our forums - er not today as they seem to be constantly down).

The security of the infrastructure, technology and land levels of the neutrals may not anymore be "as we knew it", but have them ever been really secure, anyway? They don't matter as much as our loyalty to our values, anyway.

Edited August 6, 2014 by jerdge

[Prodigal Moon]

The bigger question is: are unwarranted attacks inherently wrong? 

 

It's kind of ridiculous how you talk about "rights" but don't realize that those rights are predicated on the right to sovereignty and self-determination, which directly conflicts with raiding.

[tayloj7]

 

...DBDC are buttsucking shriveldicks... I support PC because DBDC are a bunch of ugly gorillas and PC can wipe a little bit of the ugly off.

[Unknown Smurf]

 

A couple of honest questions for you, US. You said that Kaskus is "opposed to unfair fights" but also that you're not moralist. If it's not for their "immorality", why are you opposed to unfair fights?

Furthermore, without knowing you I'd say that Kaskus must have some form of fundamental "moral" values, for instance loyalty (to Kaskus). How is that compatible with the complete lack of morality you assert for yourself?

Bear in mind that my questions are out of honest curiosity to understand your ways and not meant to be irritating or offensive. Apologies if I missed the mark or I sounded rude. Answering is a courtesy I'd be grateful for, but I don't think you are obligated to answer if you don't feel like it.

 

First of all I'd like to preface this with that I'm open to any questions and I do not take it as rude at all. I prefer when people ask instead of making an assumption about my motivations or logic. 

 

The point you bring up is a valid one as the post you quoted was unclear when one uses both definitions of morality. However, I was using morality as it relates to principles of right and wrong behavior rather than principals of proper conduct. That is to say I am not opposed to hitting a neutral because it is inherently wrong, but only insofar as there are better targets to use your resources on. Perhaps some targets that will bring some fun for DBDCs allies rather than just a curbstomp of an "unaligned" alliance. 

 

On a similar note I don't see loyalty to ones alliance as a moral stance though I can see why people would believe it is so as I do believe it is a pillar of proper conduct in my mind (the second definition of "moral" in most dictionaries).

 

I guess what I mean to say is that Kaskus is not a moral alliance in the fact that it will stand for what is inherently right just for the sake of standing up to what is wrong. Did I answer your questions? I feel as though I may have even lost sight of what you are asking while answering..

 

 

It's kind of ridiculous how you talk about "rights" but don't realize that those rights are predicated on the right to sovereignty and self-determination, which directly conflicts with raiding.

 

Why do you believe that sovereignty (and self-determination to a lesser extent) is a "right" you are entitled to? 

[MichaelH43ID]

Committing to the defence of anyone else, or asking to anyone else to commit to our defence, is giving up on the GPA way of being. 

Emphasis mine.

 

An alliance is a political entity, so neutrality in this context only applies to other alliances--you reserve the right to defend yourselves and each other per the third principle of your Charter. So while I can understand how it's a violation of the principles of neutrality to defend another alliance*, I'd argue it's not necessarily a violation to request that someone else (help) defend you. In Section V, subsection 1 of your Charter, you state that you'll enter into neither offensive nor defensive military agreements with other alliances--but putting out a call for aid is no more a political act than is an act of self defense. You'd not be formally declaring yourself politically opposed to or in favor of one alliance, nor making any formal military agreements; you'd simply be submitting your situation for the judgement of certain individuals or alliances. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to trick you. I'm not calling into question the ideals of GPA. I'm merely suggesting that it might be possible for a neutral alliance to seek defensive aid without straying from the bounds of neutrality and non-intervention that they've set for themselves--because the sort of neutrality you're engaged in does not preclude the possibility of cooperation, and you'd not be intervening in a situation if you found yourself already in the midst of it. At the same time, your principles do likely* prevent neutral alliances from assisting each other... as lacking formal defensive treaties means that any hostile act would necessarily be an aggressive one, and aggression is prohibited by the bounds of neutrality.

 

*Unless a neutral alliance could sufficiently argue that it's an anticipatory (and thus defensive) attack, thus giving you jus ad bellum without violating the ideals of neutrality and non-aggression. Given both DBDC's history and its recent actions, as well as their spy op versus your alliance, I doubt it'd be a difficult case to make.