TIEIXIAIS
-
Posts
251 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by TIEIXIAIS
-
-
Why is CT not shown as a WTF member on the WTF forums?
-
Congratulations on peace Non Grata!
-
How does aligning your alliance with Doom Squad fit into that grand plan given that currently everyone is at war because your friends attacked Invicta without any cassus belli whatever in order to start a global war?
The Entente might have chosen NpO as a protectorate if NpO was capable of defending them; alas, they are incapable.
wow lol ok man u got me
I can see how it might seem ridiculous they're here to play a game and make Skype buddies, but it is what it is. If I decided to play the bad guy, I wouldn't get bent out of shape if someone had some dramatic language to describe me. I would eat it up. They should be grateful someone out here still even cares to notice the difference between DBDC and GATO.
Are You, Mogar, and Twyin all friends?
Since when has treating brand new alliance leaders, and alliances like they're 4k days old nations that have been alliance leaders for years been the norm?
We should foster new AAs that bring activity to our community as TheBoss has done. I for one welcome you, despite DS, and Riot's differences, I wish you the best of luck with your new AA. Hopefully being allied to DS works out for you in your best interest. Though. As other's have pointed out, DS may not be the best fit for you just by reading your charter, then again that may just be how I see it, and not yourself.
Good luck, the Entente.
Agreed. A brand new alliance should not have to be scrutinized and threatened by first class alliances simply because they didn't 'choose' them for their protectorate. They just want someone to prevent the tech raiders.
-
Congratulations!
-
Congratulations RIA on accepting peace!
-
Nope. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/99571-a-protectorate-agreement/page-2#entry2656146
Folks from VE, CoJ, 64Digits, BFF, and TLR explicitly acknowledged that tech dealing to nations at war is an act of war, everyone who came out against CoJ/64D did not do so because of a philosophical disagreement, but based solely on political positioning ("you're not on our side so shut up") and none of them denied the issue at hand, including NG's Steve.
There has never been any "wide" acceptance by "all" alliances that sending aid during war is no longer an act of war. It was always an act of war, it is still an act of war.
What there has been is a decrease in the times it has been cited as a CB, because while MK, GOONS and their allies were dominant, there was very little concern about CBs or any sort of formalism at all.
I'm glad your opinion hasn't changed on the matter. I still fail to see how that defends fark.
Perhaps I used the wrong word "all." If it were all it would have to include Schatterman the great, which clearly it doesn't. Perhaps "widely accepted" is more appropriate.
The time discrepancy of when opinions changed on the matter is about right. I'm glad your opinion on the matter was unwavering which is clear from the link you gave me. This has not been an issue until NpO encountered an unforeseen enemy. Now this is suddenly the norm and ya'll act as if things have never changed. Your frustration is cute, but much like a child, it gets rather annoying.
Quit making excuses for yourself and accept politics change, and the relevance of the issue has caused fark and NpO to approach subjects opposite to what they would have done two years ago. -
Not all acts of war require retaliation to make them acts of war. Do you disagree with that?
Sending aid is sending aid. It doesn't matter *why* the aid is sent.
Here's the deal.
This thread clearly shows that there are several large alliances remaining in this world who view sending aid to be an act of war. So I'm curious as to how you can view the content of this thread and come to the conclusion that this matter was settled five years ago.
You continue to state what Fark has or hasn't done in the past. I'm demanding that you back up your statements with data. It's really easy to type a bunch of nonsense about how Fark has done something in the past or how our policies have changed and hit post. It's a lot harder to actually back up those words with data.
So, unless you can provide the following I will assume you have Fark confused with another alliance and/or are suffering from some sort of dementia
1) An example of an alliance not at war with Fark aiding an alliance that is at war with Fark and Fark doing nothing about it.
2) An example of Fark doing tech deals with an alliance that is at war with an alliance that Fark was not at war with.
3) An example of Fark's supposed policy of finding the act of sending aid to our enemies to not be an act of war.
These three examples would have to exist somewhere for your arguments to be based in fact. Since my argument is that your accusations are false, I'm not sure if someone has solved the prove a negative problem yet.
I'll wait.I'd explain it to you, but I left my crayons in another jacket. Perhaps attending one of your nations Prestigious universities (Preferably one that isn't rubble) would do you some good. I'd suggest studying philosophy or the realities of politics. Furthermore, I'd recommend not letting your ignorance get in the way of your education.
-
Really? It took you 20 pages to realize that Fark is the attacking party? You're kind of slow there, sparky. Let me run through this one more time for you. Sadly I have no crayons to draw you a diagram with.
WFF aided an alliance we're at war with. This is an act of war.
Fark asked WFF to stop and explained our position (that aiding alliances we're at war with is an act of war)
WFF responded by stating they would find more nations Fark was at war with to send aid to.
Fark waited until new aid packages were sent by WFF to an alliance we were at war with.
Fark attacked WFF nations sending aid to alliance we were at war with.
It's really not rocket science.
Please, just show me *one* example of Fark agreeing that the practice of an alliance not at war sending aid to one that is should not be considered an act of war. Show me Fark's old policy so that we can compare it to their current policy.
I'll wait.Firstly,
you grossly construe the topic. The topic is tech dealing. Tech dealing and aid are two very different things. Your attempt to make it seem like the defending alliance was sending tech out without getting anything out of it is rather sad.
Secondly,
You're missing my point. My argument is the fluidity of convenience in what is right or wrong in war. FARK's silence about the issue and the undeniable fact they they have tech dealt in war time is sufficient evidence that it was FARk's practice and policy in the past. This matter was settled almost five years ago and widely accepted by all alliances, including fark. farks lack of protest for the past five years is testament to that.
Whether or not you want to take offense to someone pointing out your actions is entirely up to you, but I wouldn't waste much breath on it. It is common for alliances to make drastic changes in policy in times of 'desperation' (Though I wouldn't call it that, FARK has been in worse positions and prevailed, but the point remains). No alliance is immune to change of policy especially in the circumstances such as FARK's. However, if this argument lacks the sufficiency you require my retort will be "Please, just show me *one* example of Fark attacking another alliance for tech dealing during war. Show me Fark's old policy so that we can compare it to their current policy.
I'll wait." -
Fark is the attacking party. Please, show me any instance, EVER that Fark defended the idea that tech dealing during was was not an act of war.
It's been a common position by most major alliances for the last few years. FARK not once protested the practice until now. Either FARK has been biting it's tongue for a long time, or it was never relevant, or it is no longer of convenience to the alliance, hence the change of policy.
-
20 pages about declaring war on nations sending aid to alliances involved in hostilities. I thought that particular issue was decided years ago?
The morals of war are a matter of convenience. It should be no surprise that what they find acceptable suddenly changes when a policy becomes convenient or inconvenient.
The only thing I find distasteful about this turn on tech dealing during war is the hypocrisy of the attacking parties. They once supported the idea that tech dealing during war was okay. They would be better off making pancakes. -
Shah TOP's allies have no issue with TOP fighting it how they wish. If it draw posts complaining about it from the other side they must be doing something right ;)
Pointing out their irrelevance does not make them relevant. This logic baffles me.
-
What an amazing accomplishment, oh great and mighty God King!
If only your servants all performed so :smug:wut?
5,801,835 v. 7,857,105 New Polar Order -
[Sat-12-2014 21:02:39] <&Dcrews|FTW> $%&@ is up with these two Npotards trolling my chan.
[Sat-12-2014 21:02:52] <Terminator> to be fair
[Sat-12-2014 21:02:59] <Terminator> I proved your member wrong
[Sat-12-2014 21:03:15] <Terminator> its not really trolling when I stated a fact your guy said I was wrong
[Sat-12-2014 21:03:20] <Terminator> and I proved I was right
[Sat-12-2014 21:03:37] <&Dcrews|FTW> We've delt more damage to them, we have a higher damage per war than most of the alliances involved, and we are 21st in damaged caused
[Sat-12-2014 21:03:44] <&Dcrews|FTW> How does that equal we cannot fight
[Sat-12-2014 21:03:46] <&Dcrews|FTW> it doesn't
[Sat-12-2014 21:04:08] <%TheDon125> Dcrews|FTW: Terminator is clinging to the tiny victory where I didn't believe Sima started the war with only 200 tech.
[Sat-12-2014 21:04:09] <&Dcrews|FTW> It was a baseless attempt to attempt to get an emotional response
[Sat-12-2014 21:04:18] <%TheDon125> He was terribly incorrect on everything else he said.
[Sat-12-2014 21:04:44] <Terminator> oh that too
[Sat-12-2014 21:04:47] <&Dcrews|FTW> Seems to me
[Sat-12-2014 21:04:49] <Terminator> but in the wars
[Sat-12-2014 21:04:56] <Terminator> polars have dealt more damage to FTW
[Sat-12-2014 21:05:00] <Terminator> than you have to us
[Sat-12-2014 21:05:02] <Terminator> NS wiseVs Polar
321384.56 damaged caused
307713.73 damage taken.
And these are from last night, about two cycles after we decided you weren't worth our time and decided to play with your friend Sparta.
Whatever you're smoking Terminator, stalp. You're embarrassing yourself.
lol terminator
-
It does say a lot when you're bigger than the people whose whole purpose is to be an alliance that doesn't fight wars/engage politically.
It's called efficiency! IRON has climbed from being unranked to the top three on numerous occasions. Most alliances fail to engage their members, IRON has always been good at having the best schemes in place. Arguably better than NPO which is a feat. Most alliances are plagued with inactivity and ignorance.
-
Lol at the idea of IRON fighting for six months
IRON has fought longer. You're about as bright as a black hole. -
Give me another week or so, I don't mind obliging.
Do you do anything other than talk? I'll put tech on it that you won't follow up.
-
Meanwhile the IRON meat factory production is sky rocketing.
-
I am not the one focusing on the PIAT? that's everyone else.
Who says they won't be? IRON selected the winning side, as they have usually done, only next war I don't see them getting the same option they've had. Grudges make the world go round after all.
That's being too much of a !@#$%* to just offensively declare.
Mogar,
Raging never solved anything. Neither is trolling a treaty partner, especially when you are government. You're isolating yourself and, by association, your alliance. Quit claiming that others do not have RIA in their best interest when you're demeaning your own credibility and pushing away potential future allies. You're turning any alliance that has cordiality agreements with your alliance off with your banter and you're hurting your own alliance far more than any IRON decision. You have been nothing but belligerent towards a number of alliances that hold a treaty with RIA. It's mind boggling how little consideration you have for other alliances and more importantly your own. You have only demonstrated gross negligence in discretion, and you've hijacked a number of threads with your ludicrous banter.
I think a fair number of Nation Rulers have had enough of your nonsense. So I'll ask you kindly to stop letting your mind wander, it is far to small to be out on it's own. -
I'd say come at me but you need drop 30k NS first.
He wouldn't. He only understands the Non-agression part of treaties, not the cordiality agreements.
-
When IRON actually respects their own treaties, sure!
You must suffer from IRONphilia. You have this unwavering obsession with them. You keep making every thread about IRON. Get over it dude.
-
Gonna post your own DoW?
Going to ever respect that PIAT you keep ignoring?
Good luck FTW -
Poor Sparta.
-
We are noble... and also good looking.
And we are the kind of people who realize that having well positioned allies is a great idea... we are clever!You've demonstrated your cleverness so well in this conflict.
-
Citrus war. KD had just nuked an NPO nation. NPO attacked my nation because an ODN senator said I would nuke more NPO nations despite me having nothing to do with ODN or ever speaking to ODN. I was the only orange nuclear capable nation at the time.
EDIT: Februarty of 2006 I think.
This Week in the Network
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted
The only fools who need face saving are the WTF leadership.