Franklin Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [center][img]http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo330/FranklinODN/VOCforumbanner.jpg?t=1266440354[/img][/center] The world is ravaged with war, the sea is in a tumultuous uproar. While this ordeal is playing out on the world stage the East India Company has done it's best to remain out of this conflict and continue with it's business without attempting to favor either side. Part of our internal day to day business, as it is for every good alliance who is not at war, consists of tech deals with various people. Recently there have been a string of deals that have been made with the side currently labeled as the aggressors against the CnG Union. It is only natural for us to seek deals among friends and several of them happened to be with TOP who is our current protector. Some of our nations have received the following message from the CnG: [quote]From: _____________ Date: 2/15/2010 12:50:06 AM Subject: Aid Transactions Message: You appear to have recently sent aid to a nation belonging to an alliance engaged in active aggressive wars against member alliances of the C&G Union. We treat aid to ongoing combatants the same as direct aggressive actions against us, though we understand that some tech deals will continue to go through as some dealers are oblivious to the situation. We ask you to immediately stop sending further packages of aid to these alliances and to cancel your current pending transactions. If so we will consider the situation resolved, but further aid packages will result in a military response. Your nation will be monitored for compliance with this request.[/quote] As a nation who (as most others) desires to have some class, we are completing tech deals that were agreed upon on the pure business level, to default on payment of such a deal is dirty and dishonorable, yet we have been asked to do just that: [quote]From: ___________________ Date: 2/16/2010 5:29:50 PM Subject: RE: Aid transactions Message: Yes, we're instructing you to default or wait until after the war. Further aid to them during the war will result in retaliatory attacks.[/quote] To think that we, a nation of honorable players, are aiding a nation at war is deplorable especially since we are not involved in the conflict. To threaten us with war for completing a business transaction that was agreed upon by parties who were under the assumption that tech deals were still allowed in war and essentially reducing us to a base group who bounces checks is considered a high insult for what we stand for, Banking, Commerce, and Trade. As a small neutral party in this war and world as a whole that poses little if no threat, we are highly offended. With this in mind we will fulfill the current contractual tech deal agreements we have with TOP, which are strictly tech deals, no aid for war has or ever will be sent during the duration of this conflict as long as we remain a neutral party. After the remaining deals have been completed, our government will seek other options for tech deals with other neutral parties for the duration of the conflict. Please talk with CallofKtulu or myself if needed on IRC or though PM on our forums found at www.voc-concord.net and one of us will talk with you ASAP. Thank you for your time. [center][img]http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo330/FranklinODN/VOCFlag2.png?t=1266442461[/img] [font="Impact"][size="5"]Ruler4 of Franklin Founder of the East India Company[/size][/font][/center] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 A well written response to bullying. Good luck, East India Company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 As soon as you aid TOP you're not neutral. I'll be in touch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 Your contractual obligations can be put on hold until after the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jgoods45 Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 I thought this was the normal procedure during times of war? heh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkphysics Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='lebubu' date='17 February 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1266443300' post='2188023'] Your contractual obligations can be put on hold until after the war. [/quote] I would think that is the case if both parties would agree to it. If TOP says no, then they would be in violation of the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='17 February 2010 - 05:46 PM' timestamp='1266443169' post='2188016'] As soon as you aid TOP you're not neutral. I'll be in touch. [/quote] As soon as you move against a neutral party involved in a business transaction, you are an aggressor. And before any one goes bananas, yes, I am aware that many people consider tech dealing to be a form of aiding. I do not. If some one wants to cut their opponents off from from an economic asset, and are willing to attack an uninvolved party to do it, so be it. But be honest about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 (edited) [quote name='bkphysics' date='17 February 2010 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1266443384' post='2188026'] I would think that is the case if both parties would agree to it. If TOP says no, then they would be in violation of the contract. [/quote] TOP is free to say no if it's fine with us taking military action against its dealers. Edited February 17, 2010 by lebubu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='bkphysics' date='17 February 2010 - 04:49 PM' timestamp='1266443384' post='2188026'] I would think that is the case if both parties would agree to it. If TOP says no, then they would be in violation of the contract. [/quote] That sure would make TOP look hypocritical considering the hissy some of them threw over GOD refusing to let NPO postpone reps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathman1212 Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 I don't see why everyone has a problem with tech dealing during wars. If C&G have a problem with it, why don't they go and also buy tech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i surge i Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Franklin' date='17 February 2010 - 04:39 PM' timestamp='1266442747' post='2188003'] With this in mind we will fulfill the current contractual tech deal agreements we have with TOP, which are strictly tech deals, no aid for war has or ever will be sent during the duration of this conflict as long as we remain a neutral party. After the remaining deals have been completed, our government will seek other options for tech deals with other neutral parties for the duration of the conflict. Please talk with CallofKtulu or myself if needed on IRC or though PM on our forums found at www.voc-concord.net and one of us will talk with you ASAP. Thank you for your time. [/quote] Tech deals which allow them to increase the damage they are doing to nations that are currently at war with them. So yes it counts as war aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Kzoppistan' date='17 February 2010 - 04:51 PM' timestamp='1266443513' post='2188028'] As soon as you move against a neutral party involved in a business transaction, you are an aggressor. And before any one goes bananas, yes, I am aware that many people consider tech dealing to be a form of aiding. I do not. If some one wants to cut their opponents off from from an economic asset, and are willing to attack an uninvolved party to do it, so be it. But be honest about it. [/quote] And what happens if someone sends aid and claims it is part of a tech deal even though it isn't? There is no way to distinguish between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 Aiding an alliance during war has always been seen as an act of war as you're directly funding their warchest or warmachine via your money, tech or both. This is not something new, why people are oblivious to it is something I can not fanthom. It doesn't matter if you have a tech agreement or not, if your tech partners do not understand the necessity of staying out of the tech aiding game during war, then you need to find new tech partners as your current ones will only pull you into their conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franklin Posted February 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='lebubu' date='17 February 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1266443300' post='2188023'] Your contractual obligations can be put on hold until after the war. [/quote] And so you, a third party outside an agreement made upon by two different parties, have what right to dictate or levy orders on a trading/economic business transaction that (as I have already mentioned) will not be renewed until the ending of the conflict? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 (edited) Alliances that wish to remain neutral in the conflict have frozen tech deals until peace is resolved. It's standard procedure since you're not neutral if you aid a party during war. It'll be fun to see the the same people that called moral outrage when GOD wanted their reps from pacifica during the war do a 180 here though. Edited February 17, 2010 by neneko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancer Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 I fail to see what your case is here. This has been the standard in CN for as long as I can remember. And to say you haven't sent war aid to TOP is humorous. TOP doesn't need money, that's exactly why they are buying tech from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 How can MK support GOD and threaten these people at the same time? If GOD can continue to demand reps of NPO and consider it to not be an act of war how are these people who are honoring a contract that took place prior to the war any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronMan17 Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 If anything, this is helping C&G. It allows TOP to not be able to aid MONEY to its nations or allies. Simple as it is, they are just completing there deals, and that's it. If you have issues with them completing a contract, We will remember it the next time we work with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akama Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Kzoppistan' date='17 February 2010 - 04:51 PM' timestamp='1266443513' post='2188028'] As soon as you move against a neutral party involved in a business transaction, you are an aggressor. And before any one goes bananas, yes, I am aware that many people consider tech dealing to be a form of aiding. I do not. If some one wants to cut their opponents off from from an economic asset, and are willing to attack an uninvolved party to do it, so be it. But be honest about it. [/quote] Most people usually consider technology war aid because it effects the damage done by nuclear attacks and what not. I thought it was standard procedure to halt tech deals with combatants anyways, but I guess not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBRaiders Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 (edited) I keep begging my alliance to get three nations on the guy in citadel trading company who is sending cash, aid, and tech to TOP nations. That is blatant war aid. I personally don't care about regular tech deals being completed, but have always notified all my sellers that our deal will be on hold until after the war so they are not put into harms way. To each their own. IIRC, IRON's CB against GPA was that ONE nation sent an aid deal to a GOON nation (who was in peace mode and not wearing the AA and who never came out of peace mode before the nation was deleted for inactivity). Just saying. Edited February 17, 2010 by TBRaiders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Delta1212' date='17 February 2010 - 05:54 PM' timestamp='1266443673' post='2188038'] And what happens if someone sends aid and claims it is part of a tech deal even though it isn't? There is no way to distinguish between the two. [/quote] Then you have a liar on your hands. Only a monitoring of the aid sent back and forth would prove it. Even if nations were just sending aid, those that attacked them because of it would still be the aggressors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='IronMan17' date='17 February 2010 - 03:58 PM' timestamp='1266443881' post='2188047'] If anything, this is helping C&G. It allows TOP to not be able to aid MONEY to its nations or allies. Simple as it is, they are just completing there deals, and that's it. If you have issues with them completing a contract, We will remember it the next time we work with you. [/quote] Except, it doesn't help C&G as the TOP nations reciving the tech just grow stronger enabling them to dish out more damage to the members of C&G... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronMan17 Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Yawoo' date='17 February 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1266444049' post='2188056'] Except, it doesn't help C&G as the TOP nations reciving the tech just grow stronger enabling them to dish out more damage to the members of C&G... [/quote] Since when does 50 tech do massive damage, if anything it might add a few infra damage at the max. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 Proof that CnG is ebil! Nah, just kidding. Seriously though, let a small alliance finish their tech deals Its not like they're going to have a huge affect I'm guessing an officer/minister in some alliance just got a little gun happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 NoCB was fought over the fact that a tech deal was done with someone on a ZI list. Which alliance is it that loves bragging about engineering that whole war again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts