kingzog Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 My point is that Fark's pursuit of this conflict in lieu of a better military target is a tacit admission that they lack the ability to fight the war at a level above this conflict they've engendered with WFF. Margrave, you're trying to reason with the guy who put forward the doctrine that Polaris will only attack alliances aiding their enemies if it's convenient. Give it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dajobo Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Margrave, you're trying to reason with the guy who put forward the doctrine that Polaris will only attack alliances aiding their enemies if it's convenient. Give it up. Nice rewording :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razgriz24 Posted January 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Fark (or really just Mr. Vicarious) claiming this is a separate conflict from the one Fark is engaged in is laughable at best. I actually kinda like the idea of this being separate, as long as everyone calls this the Farkland War :awesome: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Margrave, you're trying to reason with the guy who put forward the doctrine that Polaris will only attack alliances aiding their enemies if it's convenient. Give it up. Now Zog, if young Dajobo feels he has the intestinal fortitude to step into the ring with me, who am I to refuse him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Kiloist Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Where were you when DBDC was infringing the sovereignty of Polaris and her allies, except for no reason other than to exploit upper tier nations? Oh wait, looks like you are enjoying fruits of said exploitation, looking at your alliance stats. In any case, sovereignty was not violated... this wasn't a random act of aggression as DBDC is prone to inflict on others... it was a measured response that this micro decided to inflict upon themselves with their flagrant non-cooperation. Again, this micro is facing the consequences of their decision. This was not a random raid with no warning beforehand. I'm going to use your faulted logic against you. WFF was using their "alliance sovereignty" or whatever you want to call it to do the tech deals and according to what I've read they have obligations to their protector regarding the deals. You've, in the past, said it was okay for an alliance to sacrifice some of it's sovereignty to follow through on promises it has made. So using your logic... FARK is oppressing WFF because they demonstrated loyalty to their word. So it's appropriate to say.. Free WFF from FARK tyranny, correct? I mean I may be wrong here because I don't understand idiocy very well but I tried. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smontag Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Nice work Smon. are you surprised that i was the one that attacked? Reavers I'm waiting... Your friends need hep Total Money: $4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razgriz24 Posted January 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 I'm going to use your faulted logic against you. WFF was using their "alliance sovereignty" or whatever you want to call it to do the tech deals and according to what I've read they have obligations to their protector regarding the deals. You've, in the past, said it was okay for an alliance to sacrifice some of it's sovereignty to follow through on promises it has made. So using your logic... FARK is oppressing WFF because they demonstrated loyalty to their word. So it's appropriate to say.. Free WFF from FARK tyranny, correct? I mean I may be wrong here because I don't understand idiocy very well but I tried. Our tech deal obligations was a voluntary contract that all parties involved agreed upon and signed. Farks demands were not proposed as a voluntary contract, they were proposed as demands. Big difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) If you wanto talk about "an [egregious] overreach of boundaries for the sole purpose of looking for nations in range to target.", your alliance just a week or so ago attacked an alliance solely for being allied to another alliance at war. That is FAR worse than going after tech sellers. Most of the time tech selling during war goes under the radar, because it's relatively minor and most people know when to stop. But it's ALWAYS been a thing that people had a right to object to someone sending money or tech, even as part of a tech deal, to someone they are at war with. The only thing that has varied has been what people have been able or willing to do about it. And now I have to go wash my mouth out because I've been forced to agree with FARK. Now I must go and clean my ears out because I've been forced to agree with Azaghul :psyduck: Edited January 21, 2015 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 I'm going to use your faulted logic against you. WFF was using their "alliance sovereignty" or whatever you want to call it to do the tech deals and according to what I've read they have obligations to their protector regarding the deals. You've, in the past, said it was okay for an alliance to sacrifice some of it's sovereignty to follow through on promises it has made. So using your logic... FARK is oppressing WFF because they demonstrated loyalty to their word. So it's appropriate to say.. Free WFF from FARK tyranny, correct? I mean I may be wrong here because I don't understand idiocy very well but I tried. The only thing I understand in this statement is that you are trying to mock me somehow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devialance Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Remember when Britain attacked the Falklands? No in truth no one does as it never happened, I guess going on the fact you enjoy making things up I guess your whole CB is nothing more than a story too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Bad Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 So let me ask this question. If you were in a losing war and an alliance small enough for you to do something about was aiding your enemy what alliance on Planet Bob would not act? You would have to be a liar or an idiot to do nothing about it. Every one on here complaining is doing so purely from a politcal stand point and not common sense one. What makes it even worse is that is coming from the side that has attacked several alliance just because they might aid an enemy. I think it has been pretty clear what side of this war I have supported. However, even I can not stand this level of hypocrisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuiNur Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 So let me ask this question. If you were in a losing war and an alliance small enough for you to do something about was aiding your enemy what alliance on Planet Bob would not act? You would have to be a liar or an idiot to do nothing about it. Every one on here complaining is doing so purely from a politcal stand point and not common sense one. What makes it even worse is that is coming from the side that has attacked several alliance just because they might aid an enemy. I think it has been pretty clear what side of this war I have supported. However, even I can not stand this level of hypocrisy. tech deals. neutral parties. no military ties. no signed pacts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSelf Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Our tech deal obligations was a voluntary contract that all parties involved agreed upon and signed. Farks demands were not proposed as a voluntary contract, they were proposed as demands. Big difference. You can't have a private deal trump the law of the land. FARK's doing well to educate young alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razgriz24 Posted January 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) You can't have a private deal trump the law of the land. FARK's doing well to educate young alliances. So you're saying that Fark is the World Police now?! I thought that DBDC ran everything? I am sooo new at all of this CN stuff that I'll just take your word for it then. I'll consider this conflict to be an abuse of police powers :ehm: Edited January 21, 2015 by Nord Belka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Red Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 are you surprised that i was the one that attacked? Reavers I'm waiting... Your friends need hep Total Money: $4. I never could deny you anything, dearest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 I never could deny you anything, dearest. Your avatar makes me want to hug you. Is that wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterman1043 Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 I'm just gonna throw this out there but people, (Mogar, Tywin, Starfox, and Mr. Vicarious) not to name any names, not too long ago said that DT was afraid of war. /me points at Fark Now, go! Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSelf Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) So you're saying that Fark is the World Police now?! I thought that DBDC ran everything? I am sooo new at all of this CN stuff that I'll just take your word for it then. I'll consider this conflict to be an abuse of police powers :ehm: A 2 party agreement doesn't decide when a tech deal does or doesn't violate a third party, the neutrality of tech deals has rationally established tenets. Guile won't protect your tech agreement, so why not sign a military treaty with DT? Edited January 21, 2015 by OldSelf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 I'm just gonna throw this out there but people, (Mogar, Tywin, Starfox, and Mr. Vicarious) not to name any names, not too long ago said that DT was afraid of war. /me points at Fark Now, go! Lol You avoid hard front and have selected the easiest ones, do not pretend as though you are a warrior alliance when you have not been forged in fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmoo Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Looks like we have a nice circlejerk here. I see no problem with any of this. WFF can do as they wish and accept the consequences. Fark can do as they wish and accept the consequences. Given the position FARK is in, it seems they are most likely to be the ones accepting consequences in the end. Good thing for them they are mostly facing alliances that do not extract reps, or force public acts of submission like beer reviews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Looks like we have a nice circlejerk here. I see no problem with any of this. WFF can do as they wish and accept the consequences. Fark can do as they wish and accept the consequences. Given the position FARK is in, it seems they are most likely to be the ones accepting consequences in the end. Good thing for them they are mostly facing alliances that do not extract reps, or force public acts of submission like beer reviews. Nordreich should demand that Fark finally thank us for the fact that they're here in the first place. Hmmm.... Then again, that may be the reason they've never liked us very much. (I can't think of any other reason. Any time we've tried to get to know them better, they've acted like complete dickwads.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Maybe they don't like you because they have good taste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Your avatar makes me want to hug you. Is that wrong? It's our fascination with women who can kill us, Zog my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Kiloist Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Our tech deal obligations was a voluntary contract that all parties involved agreed upon and signed. Farks demands were not proposed as a voluntary contract, they were proposed as demands. Big difference. That is what I said I wasn't clear because I was mocking someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Maybe they don't like you because they have good taste. Certainly explains why we leave you off the Christmas family Newsletter and White Elephant every year. 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.