Jump to content

Imperial Decree - DBDC


Dajobo

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 682
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

First off pacifica didnt get white peace last war.


Never say they did, in fact I specifically said they paid a price higher than that.
 

That aside.  Polar's leader  specifically said to me for about a month (along with the leaders of top and sparta) that NPO wasn't 'allowed' to surrender.  Not that there would be tough terms.  But that surrender on any terms were not allowed.  Negotiations were not allowed.  Anyone *else* could surrender... but not NPO.  Not as part of a coalition, not as an individual alliance.  This despite the fact that NPO entered on an MDP and was supposedly not the CB of the war.  And it had nothing to do with trying to surrender too soon... because every other alliance in the coalition was told THEY could surrender.


I wasn't in that discussion (checked logs), so this is basically he-said-she-said.
Which means I won't call you a liar but have no obligation of believing you either, and when in doubt I usually go for the guy whose side I'm on. I hope you understand.
 

Then when NPO *Was* finally allowed to surrender, they were given harsh terms for something other alliances were doing much more of (pm).   The particular irony, is I expect that if the terms pushed by polar, sparta, and top were applied to THEM this war on the exact same reasoning (you have nations who haven't left pm) you all would scream bloody murder.  If You weren't allowed to surrender, you would scream of 'lulzist aggression'
 
It is the double standards that make me sneer at you tbh.  Say what you will about doomsphere, they say what they mean and they do what they say.  They don't have one standard of behavior when they are winning and another when they are losing.  You may consider them asses, but if so they are equal asses all the time.  And they live what they preach.


Well, Polar has some experience with terms, considering our extensive history and all that. Winners get to decide the terms, until then there is war. I have zero issue with that, and I'm not sure why you think I do.
If terms were demanded by the winner at the end of this war, that would be fair (and their "right" as winner). It's on the loser to decide what terms are acceptable. There are no double standards here, although I agree that the doomsphere contains quite a bit of ass-like people (but maybe that's just me).
 

And before we get into the fact that supposedly it wasn't polaris but a mystery alliance that wanted these terms.
 
1) Polaris (along with top and sparta) were the ones publicly pushing for the terms.
 
2) When you back something with militarily force in a coalition you don't get to shift the blame.  You made the choice to back and enforce the above terms, you share responsibility.  ODN got rolled along with MK because we backed MK.  We didn't get to go 'ohh, geee.  We didn't really agree with MK we just felt we had to back them in a coalition.'  I mean come on.
 
3) I just had to put up with an entire thread of polar going on about how NPO can't blame some other alliance for their actions.  So kindly man up and admit you are responsible for what you enforced.  It doesn't matter what you truly felt in your secret heart of hearts.  It matters what you did.  You may have hated having to impose what you did on NPO... but you still *DID* it.  And thus still are responsible.  It doesn't matter who pressured you, who you were a mouthpiece for, or anything else.  And yes, your actions in that war have impacted this one.


1) Indeed! As so many of you pointed out, leading a coalition means you are partly responsible for the actions of said coalition. This means it makes perfect sense to be part of negotiations. Again, I don't recall denying this. What I said is Polar did not desire terms beyond white peace. That doesn't mean the coalition at large desired the same thing. As leaders we share some responsibility, but that doesn't mean we share the intent.

2) See above. If you inferred from my last post that I was denying our responsibility, let me clearly state: I am not denying it at all. Leading a coalition has consequences. This doesn't mean that the coalition moves at our every whim and executes Polar's exact master plan with 0 deviation allowed. I would imagine an alliance leader with your tenure is aware of that.

3) Yadda yadda, see 1 and 2. Since people claimed it was Polar that wanted the "terms", I clarified for Polar's account. If people had claimed that the coalition wanted terms, well shit yeah of course the coalition did. And as the winner, in the end the coalition came to negotiated terms with the loser. And yes, we were leading that coalition and share responsibility for that.
All true observations, except I never claimed otherwise. Polar, as an alliance, did not want any terms beyond white peace, but accepted that while we were leader, we were not the all-ruler of the coalition and therefore would have to negotiate terms for the coalition.
 

Ironically, NPO seems to have largely forgiven you last war.  But speaking purely personally, not for ODN, I haven't.  And from talking to a lot of other alliances (that you probably needed to avoid losing this war) I'm not the only one.  TOP gets off in my book because they recognized they screwed up, they took responsibility, and they apologized.  I can respect that.  I actually really admired how TOP handled things after the Disorder war.   I don't respect the trying to avoid the blame for your actions, the justifying, or the trying to shift responsibility on to other alliances.

But that's just one man's opinion.


Well, if it makes you feel any better I'm not super excited about you, but that doesn't mean I go around plastering half-truths on the OWF about ODN demanding reps and being generally bad people. I gave a nice explanation of our actions in an earlier post and this one marks the second, but I kinda hope we won't be needing a third (OWF is fun to read but so time-consuming to post). If you still feel incredibly wronged, angry, indigested or otherwise uncomfortable, find me on IRC and I'm happy to keep discussing this or a wide variety of other topics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are a fool. The last umpteen global wars, thousands and thousands of tech deals on both sides were started and completed... not one was noted.. not one was targeted for action, not one even garnered a single OWF post,. much less an alliance-wide threat. This is Polar wanting some warm and fuzzies, and the Polar meatshields rushing here to give the warm and fuzzies.

ahem
http://i.imgur.com/Xc3IXZG.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You apparently do not know what GLOBAL WARS means either....

You're right, of course, because there is a functional difference in this context between an alliance war and a global alliance war. /sarcasm.  

 

I believe the phrase is "distinction without a difference."  The reasoning used by Cuba looked pretty sound to me there.  I agree with August Cuba as opposed to November Cuba.  The two of them should get together to work out their differences sometime.

 

I don't agree with you at all, though.  Nice attempt to save face.

 

edit:  poor grammar

Edited by Orville Reginbacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, of course, because there is a functional difference in this context between an alliance war and a global alliance war. /sarcasm.  

 

I believe the phrase is "distinction without a difference."  The reasoning used by Cuba looked pretty sound to me there.  I agree with August Cuba as opposed to November Cuba.  The two of them should get together to work out their differences sometime.

 

I don't agree with you at all, though.  Nice attempt to save face.

 

edit:  poor grammar

 

Now I know you are clueless.... low key rogues and whatnot are 3673578349685498654987 times easier to micromanage. But by all means, continue to act as if I am the one who is being moronic here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Now I know you are clueless.... low key rogues and whatnot are 3673578349685498654987 times easier to micromanage. But by all means, continue to act as if I am the one who is being moronic here. 

You lost me here.  Caladin is a low key rogue?

 

Also, now your problem with our stance isn't the merit or intention of it (which was originally your problem, i.e. warm fuzzies) but that this will not be "eas[y]" for us?  I appreciate your concern, I really do.  Don't worry, we'll be just fine.

 

But you are right.  I do get the warm fuzzies from this.  I am going to wear them to bed tonight.

Edited by Orville Reginbacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Now I know you are clueless.... low key rogues and whatnot are 3673578349685498654987 times easier to micromanage. But by all means, continue to act as if I am the one who is being moronic here. 

 

You got that wrong - it is  3673578349685498654987.689 times easier, so you should have rounded up to 3673578349685498654988.

 

Now you might think that the difference is so minor it doesn't actually matter, and you'd be right - it doesn't matter how easy it is to "micromanage" in the slightest - we'll give it our best shot in the face of whatever difficulties might arise. We're not just looking for the easy option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Now I know you are clueless.... low key rogues and whatnot are 3673578349685498654987 times easier to micromanage. But by all means, continue to act as if I am the one who is being moronic here. 

Who is a lowkey rogue? Come on, Rush.

 

I for one will be extremely disappointed if we don't get at least 50K tech in reps from polar.

I got you mang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caladin aided an alliance at War, and DBDC, like us, recognize that as an transgression, however we were able to come to a diplomatic solution without resorting to conflict. Its as simple as that, it happens all the time, I could list a half dozen AA's that have done similar this year towards us alone. We don't treat every aid packet as a DoW.

Edited by Stanger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caladin aided an alliance at War, and DBDC, like us, recognize that as an transgression, however we were able to come to a diplomatic solution without resorting to conflict. Its as simple as that, it happens all the time, I could list a half dozen AA's that have done similar this year towards us alone. We don't treat every aid packet as a DoW.

I guess that's one of the many differences between NPO and NpO and one of the reasons I'm happier in NpO than I would be in NPO.  And while I'm pretty sure Caladin can be reasoned with diplomatically, I'm equally sure that "DT Probes" cannot.  And I think we all know why they cannot be reasoned with, and why DBDC cannot be reasoned with (see DBDC's earlier DoW against all allies of NpO, including their own treaty partners).

Edited by Orville Reginbacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess that's one of the many differences between NPO and NpO and one of the reasons I'm happier in NpO than I would be in NPO.  And while I'm pretty sure Caladin can be reasoned with diplomatically, I'm equally sure that "DT Probes" cannot.  And I think we all know why they cannot be reasoned with, and why DBDC cannot be reasoned with (see DBDC's earlier DoW against all allies of NpO, including their own treaty partners).

Which treaty partner is that? I'm not seeing the overlap... or are we talking about potential future allies? xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which treaty partner is that? I'm not seeing the overlap... or are we talking about potential future allies? xD

Last I checked, TOP had a treaty with NpO (unless I missed something) and an economic treaty (still a treaty) with DBDC, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess that's one of the many differences between NPO and NpO and one of the reasons I'm happier in NpO than I would be in NPO.  And while I'm pretty sure Caladin can be reasoned with diplomatically, I'm equally sure that "DT Probes" cannot.  And I think we all know why they cannot be reasoned with, and why DBDC cannot be reasoned with (see DBDC's earlier DoW against all allies of NpO, including their own treaty partners).

What does that have anything to do with this? That was a misstep that was settled diplomatically this is a war.

 

Edit: Grammar.

Edited by Monty of the Herm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ahem http://i.imgur.com/Xc3IXZG.jpg

wow context is helpful, but I suppose when you are this ignorant of how even basic cybernations functions work, like proposals lol, it's not surprising something like this makes it to the owf.

Caladin was not sanctioned because he was aiding the alliance we happened to be fighting, he was sanctioned because he went out if his way to set up tech deals through third party nations on the pink sphere to funnel tech to the specific nations we were engaged with, of which there were only three. I sanctioned him personally to force him either send tech directly or take a hint, but we aren't going to DoW Pacifica to spite one dumdum.

The level of discourse here has deteriorated substantially over the last few pages, and that's typically my signal to exit the thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(---Sorry, hadn't gotten to the warning about the milk yet when I made this post--)

 

 

This is some of the most stretched logic you will see ITT and reeks of schattenman rage speech. Not only do I see this as a desperate play, one that will be absolute hell to keep up, but you're essentially cementing the current political state of CN against you (Polaris) over what is by all accounts a well-timed preemptive strike by DBDC.

You are more than welcome to take whatever approach you think is warranted, but don't be surprised if this is your ultimate undoing. I have no doubt that our allies will see this for what it is, a back door approach to a problem you were more than capable of solving along with the rest of our detractors. You're basically doubling down on a losing hand and I commend your bravery.

DBDC hereby recognizes your recognition of attacks and does you one better. Until a second agreement is reached, DBDC will consider itself at war with every current and future ally of Polaris and might just hit anyone who send tech there too, if it pleases the casualty gods. If you wish to trade the micro tier for all claim to the upper tier for the rest of your existence we gladly accept your challenge and volunteer as tribute for the 1v1 you so desperately seem to think NPO deserves.

We have been prepared for your decree of ineptitude and let me be the first to welcome you to big boy warfare. Godspeed Polaris, you will need it.

How is that different than current policy, since no one but you guys is permitted to stay in the top tier?

 

Interesting moves by both sides. though you're causing more pain for yourself then need be really. Though restricting other alliances freedoms isn't going to win you any popularity contests ether. 

Funny. You could say the same of DBDC

 

This is not the first time DBDC's tech suppliers have come under direct threat, and it certainly won't be the last.  It's a well-known, though surprisingly ineffective tactic and requires a lot more commitment and infrastructure than anyone at Polar has prepared.  It's not to say it cannot be done, but it's an exercise in futility and as I stated before, will be Polar's undoing if they follow through on even a portion of what they've assigned themselves.  

 

I'm with OsRavan on this one, I think it's a lot of banter and posturing to please a constituent base that has probably already made up its mind.  I would have advised waiting until the political climate was more in their favor, but then again, that's why I'm not on that side of the treaty web.  It's all conjecture until someone does something about it, and I'm confident in the ability of our tech suppliers to defend themselves bravely.  

 

What is real is DBDC's recognition of war with every aspect of Polaris, from their tech supply chains to their leadership and treaties.  As Prodigalmoon alluded to earlier, it's best to not pick a fight with an enemy that has little to lose, though it's unfortunate he wasn't capable of distinguishing which party that is.  DBDC will take very little direct damage from such a moronic foreign policy as Polar's "hit the tiniest nations at will" and can guarantee any ally of Polaris a zero percent chance of survival outside of peace mode in the top 300 ranks.  

 

Tech sellers may evolve and cycle as they wish, but nations will at some point cross that 170k threshold and we will be there waiting, with no expiration date.  Ask the former eQ coalition how the post-war destruction/rebuilding went for their super tiers, I will wait.

 

As for specific alliances in question, such as TOP, Bob hit it on the head.  We recognize a state of war with all of NpO's treaty base, and while they are on it, we consider them enemies of our state.  We are cognizant, however, of the mutual ally situations that may exist and will not forsake allies solely for the purpose of satisfying an OWF bloodlust.  I'm certain Polaris will take a similar approach to their declaration.  It will be a very interesting next couple of years, since neither of us is going anywhere anytime soon, and we both have a lot of friends.

Again, how is that different from the present situation?

 

they're probably already bored from the looks of it

if i were them i'd probably be doing the same !@#$

what else is there to do? purposefully make mistakes?

That at least would be something new and might give them something to do that would shake up their boredom.

Edited by Subtleknifewielder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There's always a bigger fish. Either get used to it, or go find another pond.

If enough people followed this advice, CN would become a ghost town soon. Excellent advice, man. Real excellent advice. :V:

 

wow so edgy.

The mistake I think you're making is attributing DBDC's popularity to fear. I'm sure there's some cases of that, yet a lot of people simply like the way they conduct themselves, just as they once did MK.

So people like being locked out of the top 300 or so. Noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...