Sebastian
-
Posts
172 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Sebastian
-
-
I especially enjoyed the part about liking the colour yellow.
----
Thanks for protecting us SUN. You are awesome.
-
[quote name='Erixxxx' date='29 May 2010 - 02:00 AM' timestamp='1275091195' post='2315067']
I am proud to see how Death Before Dishonor has grown to become selfsustaining in such a short time. Protecting you guys has truly been an honour, and that you want to continue relations with us makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.
o/ DB4D
o/ VA
[/quote]
It always makes me warm and fuzzy to see a yellow alliance do well, especially one like DB4D that I know has none of the colonialist attitude.
-
As a yellow patriot I find this to be truly awesome news!
-
It isn't comparable. They do not belong in an alliance and, thus do not merit the protection that comes with membership. Nor did their alliance just disband and they've been left in the proverbial dust, wondering whats next. They are not victims because they chose a path, knowing full well the consequences of being unaligned. They simply hoped that the consequences of their chosen path would be lessened by the NPO. I don't feel sympathy for the unaligned of red, because quite frankly, they made a conscious choice and bet on the protection of the NPO. When you gamble you take a risk in the hope that your bet will pay dividends, but you shouldn't be suprised if you sometimes lose and this is precisely what is happening here.
Well, I see your position, and I understand we're on completely different levels here, so there's not anything to be gained from arguing. Still, I disagree with you blatantly dismissing it as non-comparable. They were promised protection from tech raids, when you join an alliance you're promised the same protection. Because of recent events, they no longer get that protection, when an alliance disbands, they can no longer provide that protection.
-
Or he was just staying that he considers the revenge doctrine defunct, and reinforcing his opinion with a link to the war
-shrugs-
Who knows.
Everybody seemed to glide right by his apology.
Hush you, we're busy taking sides and yelling at each other and stuff.
Seriously though, words are empty. Now if that apology was followed up by reps to the red nations, it would have been a honourable way to handle an apology. I would've just considered it an honest mistake from a decent fellow.
-
Raiding red is just like attacking any other color of the cyber-spectrum. Unless your alliance has specific prohibitions on attacking red or treaties with Pacifica, there is no dishonor in attacking red.
I said right now. I don't consider it dishonorable because NPO claims ownership to Red, but because up until recently, nations on Red enjoyed protection like they would've if they were in an alliance. Thus, it's comparable to attacking a disbanded alliance. You do consider that dishonorable right?
-
Got your safety belt on there Mr. Backseat Mod?
Give me a real argument or $%&@ off. Both my posts had relevance and in a fast moving thread what's the point in editing my first post just in case I accidentally end up double posting.
Feel free to report me though if you're that upset, fruitcake.
Oh great, now you mock people for dismissing points. Wow. Lead by example isn't your strongest side, huh?
-
Great, 'opportunistic' is the new buzz word when people want to !@#$%* about something.
Great, you ignore what I said to mock me for a word you used yourself in the post I replied to.
-
Stop being such !@#$%*es, none of you people have an 'anti-raiding-red' policy and by trying to pretend you have one by throwing a little hissy-fit and threatening DT you're being just as opportunistic as any raider has been.
The Moldavi/Revenge doctrines have always been complained about, and while I'll admit the Moldavi doctrine is far worse, I don't support either and I openly promote the raiding of red nations if NPO cannot do anything about it.
Who's threatening DT? What's asked is that the aggressor from DT, who had the nerve to come here and brag about his opportunistic attack against unaligned Red nations, pays reps to said nations.
That being said, how on Bob is the Revenge doctrine bad?
Cry me a river, it's not going to happen. And I hardly see how raiding red is inherently worse than raiding any other colour, so kindly $%&@ off.Attacking Red right now is like attacking a recently disbanded alliance. Opportunistic and dishonorable.
-
Well this is all well and good, calling DT out for raiding red. But we are not out of line in our policy, or in NPO"s policy. Every nation Willirca raided has an AA.
Case closed. Unless your all just saying raiding is wrong on it's self, then this is all a bit off topic. So I'd recommend making your own topic on the matter of ebil tech raiders.
A one man AA is not an alliance.
-
You have no relation other than team color to Will's raid, and DT doesn't recognize that as MDP-able relation.
If NPO decided to come to the targets defense, this would be a different case. Merrie =/= NPO.
In that case, I extend my personal protection towards Merrie. And guess what, I do recognize his attack as a MDP-able relation.
-
Nothing did? Protecting Will from Merrie is not protecting him from his raid target.
I predicted you'd say so, but come on, don't pretend like this isn't a direct consequence of his tech raids.
He attacked a nation that was under NPO's protection. True, it was a fair gamble that they wouldn't enforce that, and in the end, somebody chose to enforce it for them, but it's not as though it wasn't a risk he was willing to take.
-
Where have I refused but at the same time I haven't agreed either because I'm not going to agree to Porky Pig. Attacks have been taken by Porky Pig against our member and she will pay for those. Any thing outside of that will between DT and that nation.
Whatever happened to:
Members may conduct tech raids at their own peril; no assistance will be given for tech raiders -
Hmm.
Good point...I may have to rethink my position on this.
Well sir, it was fun debating with you. No matter what your position becomes, I'm glad my point got through. I think we both had to think hard about our stand tonight.
-
And who's the enforcer now? Seems you're trying enforce paying reps on a red nation, and you yourself have stated that NPO doesn't force people to pay reps, they just seek to have the wars pieced out.
Well, to avoid getting into discussion about repeat offenses and stuff, I'll just limit myself to to say that I think that force is the keyword here. As a gesture of remorse and decency, he really should pay those reps.
-
You were the one who disputed my claim to begin with. And I never said "sole ownership" I said that it occurred only after GOLD was relegated to the sidelines politically, and was thus incapable of doing anything more than support it. Why they signed on was irrelevant, ultimately.
The Y#5 doctrine was a claim of ownership of Yellow, and based on that claim, Tech Raiders had no business being there lest they incur the wrath of the controlling parties. That's what matters.
If we both agree, then what ARE we arguing about?
We're arguing over whether or not the Revenge doctrine can exist independently from the Moldavi doctrine. If you see the Y#5 declaration:
For those of you who need a bit more detail, this policy puts the Kevlar umbrella of FAN and GOLD over all yellow nations. Indies and aligned nations alike. Anyone looking for a calm place to hang out can do so in yellow without having to look over their shoulders or needing to gang up for protection. Folks looking for a place to start a new alliance can come enjoy the bright yellow sun until they get all grown up and can take care of themselves.In here, FAN and GOLD extends their protection to both unaligned and aligned yellows, and actually encourages other alliances to come to yellow. I don't see anything about claiming ownership, and I don't see why NPO can't protect Red nations without them claiming ownership to the sphere.
-
The precedent of holding "dominion" over a colored Sphere and thus being able to enforce policies was established by the Moldavi Doctrine. All other claims of soveriegnty based on color afterwards were continuations of the principles behind it.
If the Moldavi Doctrine had not existed, then no one would have accepted folks claiming a color-based declaration of soveriegnty without seriously !@#$%*ing about it.
You claimed the Y#5 doctrine to be an example of how sole ownership of a sphere was necessary to protect said sphere. FAN and GOLD declared it together, and never claimed ownership, so that sets a precedent that it is not necessary to own a sphere to protect it.
Your argument is that the Moldavi doctrine established the precedence of sphere ownership. That disputes my point how?
Edit: Spelling.
-
Considering I was the one that made that statement, I can safely state that I am correct. It was the codified statement of ownership that gives any sort of "legal justification" to claiming that an entire color is under the defensive umbrella of an alliance.
FAN did it too, after GOLD was reduced to cinders after GWIII, specifically because they were the undisputed masters of yellow. And to piss off Walford.
Both of which are awesome reasons.
Insofar as International Laws and "Ownership"? They were whatever Pacifica said they were, we enforced them, and no one disagreed.
What? As far as I know, FAN and GOLD made that decleration together: http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/...showtopic=71137
That's right, together. It wasn't coupled with a yellow equivalent of the Moldavi doctrine either. Your citing of a precedent thus goes in the disfavor of your own argument. I'm not saying that the "ownership" of the Red sphere wasn't one of your motivations, but surely that does not mean that the Revenge doctrine is impossible without it.
-
...What?
SpoiL, you're right, and that's why it's such a stupid philosophy.
-Bana
What I meant was that there is a difference between giving people a taste of their own medicine and giving them a double dose. I edited in some more in my first post to make it clearer, but you responded before I hit the edit button.
-
But if you do it to them, you've done it too. So do you then deserve to have it done to you? It's a never-ending circle.
-Bama
The saying is "A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye", not "A tooth for a tooth, and then an eye for that".
Edit: That being said, I don't necessarily think that Karma should adopt the foul practices that's been used in the past, but I do believe that it may be necessary to fight fire with fire. There's no reason why extreme measures against an evil is hypocritical!
-
I don't know where to start in this mess.
Willirica, just stop. You're reflecting poorly upon yourself and your alliance. You're bragging about attacking nations used to being left alone, nations who haven't gotten used to not living under protection, thus possibly ruining their game experience. I'm baffled.
To those claiming that raiding is so god damn righteous that you wish a peace with NPO will include ending their protection of unaligned Red nations, you're goddamn greedy. What's the matter, doesn't the other spheres have enough helpless nations? And don't counter with any of that "NPO only instated the Revenge doctrine because they wanted trade partners!!1!" either. There's quite a big difference between profiteering from keeping unaligned nations safe, and profiteering from curbstomping alliances. NPO is getting their just retribution from the latter, the former should rather be praised than punished.
And lastly, to those who say that the Revenge doctrine is only possible because of the Moldavi doctrine, stop saying it. Since when is there no legal grounds for protecting unaligned on your sphere unless you claim sole "ownership" to said sphere? In fact, since when did we have any international laws put in place to warrant the use of such a phrase at all? Whether or not the NPO will choose to uphold the Revenge doctrine without the Moldavi doctrine is a different question. If they choose not to because of that, well, just goes to show how committed they truly are to the Red sphere.
-
Yelolow, that sphere sucks!
-
Hey RON, is the mass amounts of NS you are loosing a deliberate plan to mess our targets list up?
I wanted to fight now, not to wait for another target!
Edit: Yay, I got to fight now.
-
I disagree.
There's nothing wrong with calling a spade for a spade. If GGA is sick of hearing that they have no WRC's, they should have bought some. If the CoC is sick of being called cowards, then they shouldn't have abandoned their allies, or at least do as MCXA did, and have the guts to admit what they did. If propaganda wins wars, being sensitive about your adversaries feelings is stupid.
You also make a blanket claim that spying is foul play. How come? If somebody manages to infiltrate their enemies, kudos to them, it's hard work and well within the borders of roleplay. Hacking is a whole other story, but I don't think that's what you meant.
Basically, it looks as though you're trying to take the simulation out of a nation simulator. We're supposed to be leaders fighting a war against each other, not gentleman playing polo. The only thing that's wrong is that the Hegemony side plays the victim card instead of giving as good as they get; Tension makes the game fun.
The only part of your post I agree with is that the Hegemony should get lenient peace terms. We can all agree that we don't want players to leave!
R.O.A.D. Decleration of Existence
in TE OWF Archive
Posted
Greetings world.
), so don't do anything stupid.
Sometimes one is nostalgic. As R.O.C.K.ers we still dream about the day when we were still R.O.A.Dies. Some of us have decided to take action and do something about it.
Without further adieu, I am proud to present the statutes of the Royal Order of Allied Duchies(R.O.A.D.)
[quote] [center][size="5"]Statutes of the Royal Order of Allied Duchies[/size]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/Flag_of_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo.svg_%281997-2003%29.svg/450px-Flag_of_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo.svg_%281997-2003%29.svg.png[/img]
[b]Motto:[/b] [size="1"][i]By divine right [/i][/size] [/center]
§ I: [b]Membership[/b]
To be accepted into the Royal Order, one must fill out the specified application form and be accepted by the Grand Duke or the Chamberlain. Applicants that wish to reside in a sphere other than Yellow must be accepted by the Grand Duke.
§ II: [b]The Grand Duke[/b]
The Grand Duke leads the Royal Order by royal prerogative and appoints the Privy Council at his will. He must appoint an Heir-Apparent that will take over in his absence or abdication. The Grand Duke will be considered absent if he has not shown signs of activity for forty-eight hours. If the Grand Duke is inactive for five days without giving notice he shall be considered abdicated.
§ III: [b]The Privy Council[/b]
The Privy Council shall advice the Grand Duke. It consists of the Aide-de-Camp, the Chancellor and the Chamberlain.
- The Aide-de-Camp shall communicate orders from the Grand Duke to all of the Allied Duchies, and advice him in times of war.
- The Chancellor shall entertain foreign dignitaries and oversee the diplomatic conduct of our members.
- The Chamberlain shall maintain order in the Ducal household and safeguard the economic wellbeing of the Allied Duchies.
The privy councillors may appoint deputies to assist them in their duties.
If the Grand Duke is unable to respond within reasonable time, the Privy Council may in urgent matters rule in the Grand Duke’s name through a simple majority. If they wish to declare a State of War or cessation of hostilities unanimous consent is required.
§ IV: [b]Limited State of War[/b]
The individual duchies of the Royal Order may declare a Limited State of War against individual nations. They may not do so if the nation reside in the yellow sphere, or is under protection, of a Foreign Entity consisting of more than three members. Should the conflict escalate the individual duchy may not reasonably expect any aid.
§ 5: [b]Nuclear policy[/b]
It is the right and duty of all members to become nuclear capable.
The preemptive use of these weapons must be approved by either the Grand Duke, the Chamberlain or the Aide-de-Camp. If however one of the following scenarios play out, a nation is free to retaliate by going nuclear. These are as follows:
a) If a the member is attacked by a nuclear weapon
b) If member has it's nuclear arsenal destroyed by foreign spies.
§ VI: [b]Changes to these statutes[/b]
These statues may be changed may be changed by the Grand Duke with the consent of the majority of Duchies in this Order.
§ VII: [b]Ratification[/b]
[i]We hereby pledge to uphold these statutes and declare the Royal Order of Allied Duchies for founded.[/i]
[center]Grand Duke Sebastian I of Sandtorv[/center][/quote]
Our government is as follows:
[size="4"]Grand Duke[/size]
Sebastian I of [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001264]Sandtorv[/url]
[size="4"][size="3"]Privy council[/size][/size]
[i]Aide-de-Camp[/i] Mappy of [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001277]Zeprinzicus[/url]
[i]Chancellor[/i] Neforatu of [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001267]Decedere[/url]
[i]Chamberlain[/i] Bojje of [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001274]The Holy Empire of F[/url]
Our forums is located at http://s4.zetaboards.com/ROAD/index/
Our IRC-channel is #ROAD at Coldfront.
Our colour sphere is [color="#FFFF00"]Yellow.[/color]
We are protected by SUN(
Once we get properly established, we look forward to fighting and interacting with the TE community.