HeroofTime55 Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 I don't care what anyone says about this, Selling technology is not the equivalent of aiding a nation at war with tech, soldiers, and money....the intent is also different. But please go ahead and explain to me how 2 + 2 = 5. Sending a nation tech is literally the same exact thing as sending a nation tech. I don't understand why some people have difficulty with this concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexio15 Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 True story, if I spy on a nation just because I'm curious and not because I'm malicious, it's totally different and not a CB. It's all about intentions. How does it make a difference you spy on a Atlas nation for example I would consider it a act of war. Same for any nation really, any self respecting alliance will consider it as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EViL0nE Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 How does it make a difference you spy on a Atlas nation for example I would consider it a act of war. Same for any nation really, any self respecting alliance will consider it as such.Not according to some in this thread saying that selling tech to a nation is different than sending it for free because of the intention behind it.So if we were to believe them, Schatt's statement should be correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexio15 Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 Its not correct for all alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musmahhu Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 So the fact that a tech deal that takes anywhere between 20 to 30 days to complete depending on the deal compared to the 'right away' military aid that beefs a nation up immediately is the exact same thing? Man brainwashing is deep around these parts I take it. You are not going to sway my belief in the 2 things being different... All you are stating is that you are willing to infringe on alliance economic sovereignty and prosperity that may not have any real involvement in a global conflict other than who they are sending owed tech to, and b/c you cannot defeat the enemy nation or alliance who is sending 6m to 9m out to 5 or more nations while at war with however many nations at the same time it's the tech senders fault who is just trying to make good on their debt and acquire profit to grow and not the lack of military prowess of the attacking nation or alliance. Not all alliances think like the others and may not view tech deals as aggressive acts regardless of neanderthal policies and codes of conduct. Hence why WFF felt that Farkistan should have DoW'd and stated their reason publicly for their aggression instead of obvious shady interactions culminated with attacks for doing such things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 You are infringing on OUR sovereignty when you send tech packages to a nation we are at war with, thus enabling them to do further damage to us. We have every right to respond to that. You aren't talking about economic "sovereignty" when you argue that you should be free to continue tech shipments - what you are asking for is economic immunity from the consequences of your actions. We have declined that request. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 If you really believe that you have the right to tech deal with people at war, come buy tech from low tier polar nations. Oh, oddly enough our allies who surrendered are not allowed to buy tech from us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musmahhu Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 We are still talking about an alliance with 6 members, 3 active, with just a Stock Market between the 6 members right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musmahhu Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Come on, Man Really? Edited January 27, 2015 by Musmahhu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 We are talking about whoever decides to send tech to a nation at war. Be it a major alliance or an irrelevant micro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 If someone really wanted to make a point about free trade during wartime, they would come and buy lots of tech from the polar low tier, you know the massively outnumbered alliance, rather than selling tech to people winning the war. But I guess actually make a stand like that might be more dangerous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterman1043 Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) So it's ok if it's you but not if it's everyone else. Aight. I don't think winning or losing has anything to do with that because determining who is winning or losing is all arbitrary and subjective. Edited January 27, 2015 by Hunterman1043 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 So it's ok if it's you but not if it's everyone else. Aight. Did you even read what I said? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterman1043 Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 Did you read my edited post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Do people stand to lose infrastructure, tech and nationstrength if they were to buy tech from the Polar low tier? Please think about that before you try to voice the policy of your entire coalition. Edited January 27, 2015 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razgriz24 Posted January 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 If someone really wanted to make a point about free trade during wartime, they would come and buy lots of tech from the polar low tier, you know the massively outnumbered alliance, rather than selling tech to people winning the war. But I guess actually make a stand like that might be more dangerous. If you were talking about the WFF still (19 pages of various venting here apparently) we don't tech deal with strangers. DT approached us shortly after our reforming and we just happened to end up allied to them via our protectors, allowing for tech deals to stay steady per our tech dealing rules in our charter. We didn't realize that there was a stand to be made, nor a war to be fought until it got brought to our doorstep. If Fark or NpO wanted tech deals, they could have politely asked instead of all this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 If you were talking about the WFF still (19 pages of various venting here apparently) we don't tech deal with strangers. DT approached us shortly after our reforming and we just happened to end up allied to them via our protectors, allowing for tech deals to stay steady per our tech dealing rules in our charter. We didn't realize that there was a stand to be made, nor a war to be fought until it got brought to our doorstep. If Fark or NpO wanted tech deals, they could have politely asked instead of all this. My argument has nothing to do will formal agreements and everything to do with how you are being used as political pawns to make a propaganda point against FARK. There is nothing wrong with you continuing to sell tech, that was your decision, and you took the risk willingly. My arguments are directed at those in your coalition who try to make this into a free trade argument while hypocritically preventing foreign tech dealing with Polaris. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 We are still talking about an alliance with 6 members, 3 active, with just a Stock Market between the 6 members right? I wasn't aware there were still people alive who equate the active stat with actual activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) How does it make a difference you spy on a Atlas nation for example I would consider it a act of war. Same for any nation really, any self respecting alliance will consider it as such. By completely missing the sarcastic tone of my post, you prove my point: Intentions do not matter. Outcomes do. Sending a nation 100 tech because you want to help it in war and sending a nation tech because you're "just" doing a tech deal have the same outcome to the alliance at war with that nation. Intentions do not matter. The only way in which intentions matter is in the diplomatic phase. The aggrieved alliance might be lenient because the offending nation/alliance didn't realize what was going on, or had no malice, and by all accounts Fark gave WFF the benefit of the doubt. WFF then doubled-down, now they get their just desserts. Edited January 27, 2015 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soviet Mudkip Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 If someone really wanted to make a point about free trade during wartime, they would come and buy sell lots of tech from to the polar low tier DT, you know the massively outnumbered alliance that supports the right to free trade during wartime, rather than selling tech to people winning the war dealing with people who declare on you for free trade during wartime. I fixed your post for you, no need to thank me. DT supreme defenders of justice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deep Blue C Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 If you were talking about the WFF still (19 pages of various venting here apparently) we don't tech deal with strangers. DT approached us shortly after our reforming and we just happened to end up allied to them via our protectors, allowing for tech deals to stay steady per our tech dealing rules in our charter. We didn't realize that there was a stand to be made, nor a war to be fought until it got brought to our doorstep. If Fark or NpO wanted tech deals, they could have politely asked instead of all this. Can I have a tech deal, please? Pretty please? http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=153417 Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Hakai Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 Polaris will bounce back and quickly at that! No it won't! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 No it won't! Why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musmahhu Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 I wasn't aware there were still people alive who equate the active stat with actual activity. We are still talking about an alliance with 6 members, 3 active, with just a Stock Market between the 6 members right? I see what you mean now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) We are still talking about an alliance with 6 members, 3 active, with just a Stock Market between the 6 members right? I see what you mean now. I happen to respect micros enough not to hold them as especially retarded and in need of coddling. WFF had the situation explained, had the consequences explained, then repeated their actions. Maybe they are retarded, but they are not in need of coddling. If you think they're so incapable of existing in the world as it is, then I imagine you'll agree that they should join an established alliance until they've figured things out. Edited January 27, 2015 by Schattenmann 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.