Lurunin Posted October 8, 2013 Report Share Posted October 8, 2013 DBDC is certainly an alliance. DoE sometime just before either DAVE or GRUDGE. MQ's case is a bit more iffy -- no real DoE from a long time MK splinter who DoWed 2 minutes after MK's disbandment. But they did DoW. What I cannot find anywhere is a DBDC DoW on TDO. I found the "Recognition of Hostilities" between DBDC and GOP buried in some other thread (shame on you both -- lazy lazy lazy). But I find no DoW on TDO from DBDC. Can someone direct me, since it has been mentioned a few times and the wiki needs updating... DBDC DoE middle of EQ War http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=114848 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted October 8, 2013 Report Share Posted October 8, 2013 I don't see what the big deal is. DBDC is an alliance, they posted a DOE, they now post here letting everyone know who their leaders are and how to get in touch with them. You can say what you want, but you will have to deal with the consequences as outlined by DBDC. You can chose to ignore this, or not, your choice, just as it is DBDC's choice on how to respond to your actions. Sup l0c0? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted October 8, 2013 Report Share Posted October 8, 2013 (edited) I would say overwhelming yes from all the AA leaders with whom I have spoken. Not all of them view DBDC favorably, but that's not surprising given how many of them we've hit over the last year. The damage output is the same regardless of whether a troll tries to say we are or aren't. It's pretty much semantics at this point. I guess you'll have to decide which you are and let me know. A month ago when you were "raiding" TPF, you were a rogue, now here you are the leader of the alliance you were supposedly a rogue from. When DBDC nations attack other alliances, they can't be either rogues or members depending on how DBDC wants to behave. You gotta pick one eventually. Edited October 8, 2013 by Roadie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted October 8, 2013 Report Share Posted October 8, 2013 I guess you'll have to decide which you are and let me know. A month ago when you were "raiding" TPF, you were a rogue, now here you are the leader of the alliance you were supposedly a rogue from. When DBDC nations attack other alliances, they can't be either rogues or members depending on how DBDC wants to behave. You gotta pick one eventually. He did pick one. He laid out membership requirements for DBDC, then said they are members of DBDC. if you continue to attack DBDC, don't be suprised if they retaliate. Thats the gist of the warning in the OP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted October 8, 2013 Report Share Posted October 8, 2013 He did pick one. He laid out membership requirements for DBDC, then said they are members of DBDC. if you continue to attack DBDC, don't be suprised if they retaliate. Thats the gist of the warning in the OP. That wasn't the question. Either Cuba was a DBDC member when he attacked TPF pre-MQ, or the DBDC nations at war are rogues. Only other possible explanation is that DBDC punted Cuba for rogue acts then install him as leader shortly thereafter. If that's the case, then the issue of whether or not DBDC is a real alliance is pretty well settled, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian trojans Posted October 8, 2013 Report Share Posted October 8, 2013 Doom Squad you have my nukes :) <3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vespassianus Posted October 8, 2013 Report Share Posted October 8, 2013 That wasn't the question. Either Cuba was a DBDC member when he attacked TPF pre-MQ, or the DBDC nations at war are rogues. Only other possible explanation is that DBDC punted Cuba for rogue acts then install him as leader shortly thereafter. If that's the case, then the issue of whether or not DBDC is a real alliance is pretty well settled, Ah you are still butthurt because your whole alliance folded against a single nation who raided you? Also questioning that DBDC is an alliance or not is pretty pointless, it has 17 members currently, made more damage already than some alliance in their whole existence, and there is a shiny new DoE for the resident e-lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted October 8, 2013 Report Share Posted October 8, 2013 Ah you are still butthurt because your whole alliance folded against a single nation who raided you? Also questioning that DBDC is an alliance or not is pretty pointless, it has 17 members currently, made more damage already than some alliance in their whole existence, and there is a shiny new DoE for the resident e-lawyers. That may answer my question and I'm just too dense to recognize it. What I'm asking is whether or not it was DBDC that attacked TPF or if DBDC installed a rogue as it's leader. I fear I may be to simple to understand nuanced responses such as yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernesto Che Guevara Posted October 8, 2013 Report Share Posted October 8, 2013 " -Doom House, 2011 I might be wrong, and please correct me if I am, but didn't Doomhouse post those DoWs for legal reasons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubaQuerida Posted October 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2013 That may answer my question and I'm just too dense to recognize it. What I'm asking is whether or not it was DBDC that attacked TPF or if DBDC installed a rogue as it's leader. I fear I may be to simple to understand nuanced responses such as yours. If you have to get technical, I comprised 50% of the AA at that time, so a majority of DBDC [i]was[/i] attacking TPF. That is not technically a rogue action, that's an alliance-wide action. I know you're smarter than this, but I'll play your game. Either way, that war has long-since peaced, with minimal damage, and if you would like to discuss reps, I'd be happy to have our Minister of Wealth Distribution, Timmehhh, contact you. He's pretty good about moving numbers around and should be able to get this worked out. There is a tremendous difference between a raider from a raiding alliance and a rogue acting against the general consensus of his alliance, but as Vespassianus indicated to you, it really doesn't have any material value at this point how you classify it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted October 8, 2013 Report Share Posted October 8, 2013 If you have to get technical, I comprised 50% of the AA at that time, so a majority of DBDC was attacking TPF. That is not technically a rogue action, that's an alliance-wide action. I know you're smarter than this, but I'll play your game. Either way, that war has long-since peaced, with minimal damage, and if you would like to discuss reps, I'd be happy to have our Minister of Wealth Distribution, Timmehhh, contact you. He's pretty good about moving numbers around and should be able to get this worked out. There is a tremendous difference between a raider from a raiding alliance and a rogue acting against the general consensus of his alliance, but as Vespassianus indicated to you, it really doesn't have any material value at this point how you classify it. TPF demands one million dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 He did pick one. He laid out membership requirements for DBDC, then said they are members of DBDC. if you continue to attack DBDC, don't be suprised if they retaliate. Thats the gist of the warning in the OP.At the end of the day, you are only what other people recognize you to be. An alliance can be as straight up as possible, and if others refuse to recognize them as a serious alliance, they aren't going to be able to operate as such.That said, I think we've made our feelings on this clear. DBDC committed acts of hostility against us by accepting members who we have unfinished business with. We have no desire to engage with the DBDC as the legitimate alliance they claim to be, however that is a matter that will be decided by them, not us.TPF demands one million dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 If you have to get technical, I comprised 50% of the AA at that time, so a majority of DBDC was attacking TPF. That is not technically a rogue action, that's an alliance-wide action. I know you're smarter than this, but I'll play your game. Either way, that war has long-since peaced, with minimal damage, and if you would like to discuss reps, I'd be happy to have our Minister of Wealth Distribution, Timmehhh, contact you. He's pretty good about moving numbers around and should be able to get this worked out. There is a tremendous difference between a raider from a raiding alliance and a rogue acting against the general consensus of his alliance, but as Vespassianus indicated to you, it really doesn't have any material value at this point how you classify it. As a legimate alliance that coincidentally also raids, do you have any rules or restrictions on raiding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 That may answer my question and I'm just too dense to recognize it. What I'm asking is whether or not it was DBDC that attacked TPF or if DBDC installed a rogue as it's leader. I fear I may be to simple to understand nuanced responses such as yours. Isn't TPF already at war with DBDC? If so, then what does it matter about what happened a month ago? Take your pound of flesh now if you are that held up over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) How is there actually a debate over the 'legal' status of DBDC as an alliance? This is a completely and utterly irrelevant consideration. A group of rogues can elect a collective negotiator (and be denied recognition) in as much as much as an alliance or group of alliances at war can be refused the opportunity for collective surrender (effectively disbandment). Perhaps we don't engage in the latter simply because the community values/has valued the existence and cultural/historical contribution of formal participants in past major conflicts, but there is nothing essential in either instance that elevates this beyond trifling sophistry. Attempts on the part of participants to motivate a distinction represent nothing beyond the desire to preserve the sanctity of collective norms while excusing their own unwillingness to abide them. In short one cannot consistently insist upon handling DBDC/MQ as a group of rogues while also decrying their breach of the presupposed international protocol. One is either fully divorced of limits, or cynically dexterous, but no where here can there be an honest idealist. DBDC's legal limbo is a problem of their own creation. They made their we-have-no-written-policies-or-codes bed, now they are laying in it. Whether a "moralist" AA calls them an alliance by the loosest standards, or whether hardliners who are attacking them call them rogues, they are operating outside the very real, long-lived, and well-understood system of inter-alliances norms, and there have always been and always will be negative sanctions for doing so. That aside, the simple idea of criticizing anyone as dishonest in this situation is, for me, a laughable irony. These are alliances who have dealt with state-sanctioned rogues from MK, NG, etc. for three years with no recourse while they're forced to take it at the end of the guns of realpolitik and friend>brains alliances who gleefully put their NS behind these alliances' aggressive antics in exchange for a seat at the table. Of course they're taking their shots now that they can, and of course they will do it with or without the mantle of perfect justice, and who are you to question it? Altruistic idealism never meant anything to any of you before, now the weakest of you reap the fruits of your sour fields. Edited October 9, 2013 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Coulson Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 Someone should hit neo uruk. He was a mushqaeda nation who slipped out of the war and supposedly join NSO, in the false belief that gives him protection from his crimes. I already attacked him for one round but he applied for and joined the NSO AA so I didn't hit him for another round. I don't believe in eternal war. Plus, I don't actually belong to an alliance so it's not like anyone's around to complain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duelking Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 I grow weary of waiting for the retaliation the OP spoke of. 2 DBDC nations (3 if you include the guy who just AA swaps) and no response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supa_Troop3r Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 l0c0 stop being an e-lawyer do what you do best baby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 Question: Did you ever get peace in the last war? The one you were formed in? If not, I think y'all just opened yourselves up to a lot of freebie attacks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) Question: Did you ever get peace in the last war? The one you were formed in? If not, I think y'all just opened yourselves up to a lot of freebie attacks... Never mind, I dug up the answer: No you have not.http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=116057http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Equilibrium_War Unless the Wiki doesn't list your surrender, because I certainly don't see one linked. I have no problem if DBDC wants to be a Real AllianceTM instead of a bunch of rogues, but the privilege comes with some responsibilities. Enjoy being at war with the whole world. Edited October 9, 2013 by HeroofTime55 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubaQuerida Posted October 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) l0c0 stop being an e-lawyer do what you do best baby At the request of my Dark Comrade: We at the DBDC consider ourselves students of war and try to gain experience from every battle we fight, no matter the odds. Tonight is no different. We have observed the fervent nature with which GOP has staunchly defended its principles, and the way a perceived challenge to its future presented itself and was met head on. DBDC have very clearly (to most) laid out the rules by which we plan to conduct ourselves. Our sovereignty is under attack by nations from the alliances of The Phoenix Federation and NATO. We have very carefully examined the causes and motivations behind the wars and have determined that the cycle of aggression by these alliances will not be tolerated. DBDC hereby recognizes a state of hostilities with the alliances of TPF and NATO. Edited October 9, 2013 by CubaQuerida Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) That's a little rash Edited October 9, 2013 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 How cute of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tayloj7 Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 thanks :3 *sir hoppington scrunches his nose for ultimate cuteness value* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 No one post's DoW's these days. A convention that I hope isn't lost for good. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.