memoryproblems

[quote name='Biff Webster' timestamp='1330021586' post='2926830'] Do you feel the ghosting to test UE's policy in general was dumb, or just that you ghosted Grämlins and they noticed? I somehow doubt the same apology would've been offered to TPF (or 64Digits, but they no longer exist.) [/quote] TPF needs no apology, the nation which was ghosting us was promptly attacked and put into anarchy. We had intended to continue pounding him, however he left the AA this morning with his tail between his legs, and as we have other things to worry about, we figured that would suffice.

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1330018844' post='2926778'] No they haven't. Posting a policy in a place that is not necessary to view in order to send a tech deal to a UE nation isn't a "reasonable effort" by far. [/quote] With the understanding that this information should trickle down, and that the policy is easily found by nations who make a reasonable effort to research the nations from which they are purchasing tech (and their alliances), I see no reason why ignorance should be an excuse.

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1330017037' post='2926739'] Thank you for perfectly analogizing my policy [/quote] You know the websites I'm talking about...

I have no problems with this policy, in fact I think it is common sense. I do, however, believe that nations attempting to purchase technology from UE are entering into a different "contract" then the one you have detailed in the OP. I don't see how you can contend that nations attempting to buy tech from UE nations with this policy being in effect are somehow entering into the same agreement as if the policy did not exist. The existance of this policy (and the knowledge of it by the nation attempting to purchase tech) significantly changes the inferred contract. UE has made a reasonable effort to make their new policy known about. Its not as if they've drafted up this policy, kept it hidden, and when somebody sends aid to a UE nation, they jump out from behind the bushes and yell 'SURPRISE !@#$%*!'. If your a serious tech-buyer who really cares about not having botched tech deals, you're probably going to do a little research into the nations your buying tech from, and the alliance that they are in. If you were to do such research for UE, you would find this policy. If you don't like the policy, don't send aid to UE nations. It really is as simple as that. It is fully within UE's sovereign right to adopt policies as they see fit. Obviously when a member joins an alliance, they are giving up some of their national sovereignty as they agree to adhere to the directives of their alliance. Depending on the alliance, the amount of sovereignty individual nations give up varies. If UE so desired, it would be fully within their rights as an alliance to direct its nations to reject tech deals from non-approved alliances, as well as to issue refunds rather then tech payments on deals which have been mistakenly accepted. I see absolutely no reason why UE should not be able to tell their nations to issue refunds in lieu of payment on non-approved deals [b]because they have warned you that is what you can expect if you attempt to purchase technology from UE nations.[/b]. Again, they aren't hiding in the bushes attempting to ambush you with this policy. I fail to see how you can expect a different result then the one you have been informed will occur. UE is not attempting to hoodwink anybody, they are not attempting to steal anybody's money. They have informed you exactly what to expect if you attempt to purchase tech from UE nations. If you choose to attempt to purchase tech from them anyway, you are consenting to the terms of the policy and are agreeing that the terms of the policy will be applied to future attempts to purchase technology from UE nations. You are consenting to a "contract" which varies from the one with members of an alliance without such a policy. [OOC]It is exactly like certian websites, that display the terms up front and say "by clicking to enter, you are agreeing to the terms". You can't click to enter and then say "I don't agree to these terms"[/OOC]

An MK nation was ghosting TPF earlier and had made an aid offer to a UE nation while under our AA, but as per our way of doing things, we attacked him without warning. His nation was driven into anarchy and he quickly returned to the MK AA. BTW, you might want to tell him that his warchest is a little low.

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1330001989' post='2926540'] If it was as rare as you say they could just handle it on a case-by-case basis in private. By making this a big deal and announcing it publicly they take out the "off-chance" factor and give all their members a free pass to keep as much money as they feel like. Their alliance will now be aware of the policy that it's okay to just accept tech deals and not pay them. [img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aeris-_-L1.jpg[/img] [/quote] When you say things like that, it really makes me wonder if you can read. I think the key parts of this policy that you have failed to grasp are that 1) Refunds will be offered (unless of course the sender of the aid in the first place does not want a refund.) 2) It is inferred that aid shipments to UE nations are done with knowledge of this policy. People are of course welcome to disagree with UE's decision, however it is UE's sovereign right to adopt policies as they desire, and as UE has made reasonable efforts to notify the public of this new policy, it is inferred that nations sending aid to UE nations in an effort to purchase tech are aware of this policy, and that by sending aid while knowing about this policy, they are agreeing that their aid shipment will be applicable to the terms of this policy.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1329981355' post='2926358'] That's still renegading on the deal. It may be cash neutral but it is wasting aid slots and therefore has an opportunity cost. [/quote] For that reason, I would advise nations which are not on UE's whitelist not to send foreign aid offers intended as tech payment to nations of UE. UE has made the effort to inform the public that this policy exists, and warn them what might occur if they attempt to purchase technology from UE nations while not on the UE whitelist. The way I see it, nations who send aid to UE nations with the intention of buying tech are consenting to this policy and understand that the aid will likely not be accepted, and if it is, it will be refunded in full. Nations attempting to buy technology from UE do so willingly and are not forced into it. They do so knowing of this policy (or they should) and they do so understanding the effects this policy could have on their attempted tech purchase. I would not consider ignorance as an excuse. When I'm purchasing tech (admittedly, something I am not as aggressive at as I would like to be), I make reasonable attempts to research into the nation and his or her alliance to ensure that there is a high probability that I will receive the technology I have purchased. I particularly look at the alliance to make sure that it is organized and capable of addressing my complaint should the tech not be paid within a reasonable timeframe. I would assume that nations who like me, research potential sellers, would learn of this UE policy and make an appropriate decision as to whether not they should attempt to buy from a UE nation. Your comment would be far more relevant if UE wasn't taking the effort to make sure that people are aware of this policy. I would understand your point if people entered into an agreement not knowing of this policy because they had no way of knowing about it, but that is not the case.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1329979990' post='2926339'] This is irrelevant to his point. The alliance is explicitly saying it's OK for their nations to renegade on tech deals. [/quote] Not exactly, but I hadn't exactly counted upon you to understand what it says. Essentially, what this policy says that if you're not on the UE whitelist and you attempt to buy technology from a UE nation, it will be rejected the majority of the time, however on the off-chance that it is mistakenly accepted, that nation will receive a full refund in cash rather then the tech.

I fail to see how this policy would conflict with the policy which UE has made.

[quote name='O-Dog' timestamp='1329959360' post='2925929'] With respect, this is horse!@#$. [/quote] Well, you are of course entitled to your opinion. [quote name='raasaa' timestamp='1329959825' post='2925940'] what other scenarios, whatever the scenario educating own members is far far easier to do than this crap. Also, if a UE member cancels my offer of 3mill, i wouldnt give a rat's arse. But if a UE gov tells me what i can or cannot do to get my tech deals, then i might get riled up. [/quote] I will leave it to UE to explain the other scenarios to you if they would like, but I think one scenario that popped out to me was that if at some point, UE went on another recruiting drive and ended up with a large number of new nations coming in, if another alliance were to send massive amounts of aid to those new nations knowing that many of them would not remain active and thus be unable to fullfill their end of the agreement, they might then attempt to use that to exhort UE. Obviously this policy wasn't meant to be retroactive, which means that deals agreed to or money sent prior to its implementation are not subject to its terms, but going forward, you know the policy, and if you were to attempt to pursue unsolicited tech deals with UE members, you should know what result you could possibly receive. Its not as if this is a secret policy. If nations know about this policy and send money to UE nations for tech deals, then I would interpret that as consenting to the terms of the policy. If they don't know about the policy, well I think that is still on them because UE has taken the reasonable steps to ensure that people are aware of it. It would be an entirely different story if UE kept this policy a secret and tried to hold people to it when they didn't make every effort to inform people about it.

[quote name='raasaa' timestamp='1329958150' post='2925910'] all crap aside, they should focus on educating their membership on which alliances they can tech deal with. The moment they try and tell ppl outside their alliance to follow their rules/policies, hell breaks loose I did send out messages to members of UE prior to starting my tech deals with them. Quite a few members declined and said they cannot deal with me since i was a member of Umbrella. However, two nations did agree to tech deal with my nation. Unfortunately i dont have screenshots of the messages and was unaware of this crappy policy. [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=486364"]One of them[/url] has quit UE in recent times and moved to GPA and is still tech dealing with me. The [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=468012"]other one[/url] is still in UE and 18 days inactive, supposed to send me the first batch of 50 tech today. I just hope he wakes up and sends me tech quickly. So, some of your members were aware of this approved buyer alliances list, while some others were not. It would do you a LOT of good to put all your effort into educating your members [/quote] I agree, although from my understanding, there were other scenarios which this policy was meant to prevent, which I've been told is the larger piece of the puzzle here.

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1329933121' post='2925607'] Simple answer is that you don't have a sovereign right to wrongfully take other people's money, at least not one that anyone will recognize or care about. Tech deals are a contract. Offers to conduct tech deals are offers to make a contract. If you don't wish to do so, you just don't accept the offer. However, if you do take the money, its constructive acceptance to the terms of the underlying contract to produce tech and the engaging nation is bound to make good. Taking the money and not fulfilling the contract's terms is a breach, and any reasonable alliance will come to you seeking recompense for the cash taken, the members head, or war, giving absolutely no deference to whatever policy you may have that says you can do otherwise. It's a norm that's not worth getting yourself hurt over railing against, so if there are any reasonable minds in your government, the first time this policy is tested it will fold. If for some reason you don't have anyone there who can think with a clear head, you will end up getting burned to the ground for nothing at all. [/quote] I disagree. Ignorance is no excuse, and you would expect individuals to research with due diligence into the nations from which they are buying technology, to prevent being scammed. United Equestria has made their policy clear, and they have taken reasonable steps to make it available to those who would be affected by it. United Equestria has made this announcement here with the policy, and they have posted it on their off-site forums. They expect nations wishing to purchase tech from UE nations to be aware of these policies, and with that in mind, they expect that any nation which sends money with the intention of buying technology be aware of this policy and what might occur if they are not a member of a white-listed alliance. It is not theft, as UE has made reasonable attempts to notify the public of this policy. Again, ignorance is no excuse, however United Equestria has developed a refund policy to ensure that those who mistakenly send aid will have options through which to get their money back, provided that they take the appropriate steps. It is my understanding that this policy applies only to 'unsolicited tech deals', and that this policy would not be applicable to tech deals 1) with members of alliances on the white list, 2) solicited by members of UE or 3) agreed to by UE nations via message prior to sending of the money.

A sensible stand, I suppose. Not exactly the direction I would have gone, but none-the-less I can appreciate it. Those of you who might be optimistic about using this policy for less then reputable causes, a part of me hopes you tries, because we could always use more excitement around here, but I fail to see where that idea has any real substance to it. This policy makes it very clear what to expect should you wish to pursue an unsolicited tech deal with a member of United Equestria, and as it has been posted here, there is no reasonable defense that one was 'unaware' of this policy. If such a policy makes you uncomfortable, by all means, don't make attempts at purchasing tech from United Equestria. I'm confident they won't mind that their slots are used by those they consider more worthy. As always, The Phoenix Federation stands behind United Equestria in their endeavors and we will not hesitate to utilize any and all options at our disposal in honoring the Philomena Accords should such prove necessary. [quote name='Salmia' timestamp='1329890956' post='2925452'] You just had to remind the world you exist after HeroofTime stepped down, didn't you? There is a thing called "no" that you can use. [/quote] When you have nothing worth adding to the conversation, you should probably say nothing.

I haven't yet bothered to read the last 15 pages in depth, but this caught my eye. [quote]01[15:29] <Roquentin> Yes, but if TPF went in 01[15:29] <Roquentin> you would have, no? 01[15:29] <Roquentin> That was the other side of the issue [15:29] <Brehon[NPO]> Speculation purely. 01[15:30] <Roquentin> as STA was deliberately not calling TPF in until they were under heavy enough fire [15:30] <Brehon[NPO]> I don't think you all realize we had enough inner !@#$ to deal with, ally of ally over something stupid gave us plenty to thnk about [15:30] <Brehon[NPO]> If TPF had gone in we would have had to think very hard about it. We may have paid our reps, but our alliance (as this war shows) is a long way from the powerhouse we were. [15:32] <Brehon[NPO]> All these speculations are exactly what causes stuff like this war. People assume too much and the other side is people are too damned worried to just speak the truth 01[15:36] <Roquentin> It wouldn't have been your choice to make exactly 01[15:36] <Roquentin> since TPF is chaining 01[15:36] <Roquentin> and an MADP [15:37] <Brehon[NPO]> Make no mistake, every alliance has a choice. Being forced into a war we didn't support is asking alot. If asked would we have, it is possible. It is just as possible we wouldn't have. I don't think people realize the amount of distrust we had about that war and how it was unfolding.[/quote] About sums up exactly how I feel about pacifica and their dedication to their allies and the way they see them. Some might call such a stance towards allies as 'lukewarm'. "If we asked we would have, if it is possible". I wonder what Brehon's idea of 'possible' is, when it comes to a MADP. Of course, I say that personally and obviously not as a representative of a Pacific ally. I fully expect my superiors to !@#$%* and moan at me over saying such a thing about NPO but at the end of the day, I'm on my way out anyway so it aint my !@#$%*, so they can $%&@ off.

[quote name='Ernesto Che Guevara' timestamp='1328824460' post='2917428'] I could say the same about when TPF surrendered. Again. [/quote] I'm not sure what your getting at, in this most recent war we enjoyed a clear, decisive and absolute victory. As for the wars before that, well TPF isn't the sort that sucks the &#$@ of whoever is big and powerful just to avoid defeat.

All the best to my friends in UPN. Furthermore, I'm enjoying all the bad posting being done by the BFF alliances. Living up to expectations, etc. etc.

Ebil MK, trying to make people's lives better through better medical care... Worthy cause, I'd donate, but I'm poor, but maybe later in the month.

Down with LittleRena and her evil regime!

[quote name='Jacapo Saladin' timestamp='1328068437' post='2912164'] [s]Someone needs [/s]Your god commands you to do some distortion mapping on that flag to make it more realistic. [/quote] I was thinking the same exact thing. [OOC]Its one thing if your texturing is subtle, but in that flag, it most certianly is not. You can't just add that kind of effect without modifying the base image and expect it to look good.[/OOC]

BRB, Raiding R.O.C.K. But congrats or whatever is in store.

[quote name='lazaraus45' timestamp='1327428419' post='2906213'] I've been too inactive to do anything here recently due to RL issues, (was about 12 hours too late to stop the deletion of my SE nation :/) but there's always other rounds and tW will hand that victory to us, since all we have to do win is engage tW in an even fight, their whole "bwwwwwaaaahhhh ADMISSION OF DEFEAT NEVVVVVEERRR!!!" approach means that not only will we get a full round to dance with you guys but we'll get to enjoy Clash's tears over the horrible injustice, [/quote] Bring it. We're not hiding, and we're not particularly intimidated.

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1327401656' post='2906112'] By all means, come at us. And AAA too. Adding Seraphs 3.3k ANS, 35k Total NS, with 0 nukes and 0 top tier, as well as Catharsis 4.7k ANS, 65k Total NS, 13 nukes, 2 MPs, and 2SDIs. Thats 100k of useless, except for a handful of nations. There are recent GDA wars on Seraph as recently as the 23rd dude. Cat, have also come off a hiding with Citadel earlier this month. If you wanna come at us for "you guys keep rouging us" then do it. Or wasnt that last war? You know the one that you have come off, whilst we have fought OP to a standstill in between visits. Just dont be claiming "we like even wars and updeclares" too much longer. Seraphs 11 nations have 6 Wonders between them. And fun fact. AAAs round of peace sees their 31 members with 77 wonders between them Perhaps some CIAs, you would know by now. [/quote] Why is it that you insist on being a broken record? You know, I thought that Duckroll supposedly was pretty good at war, yet everytime something comes along that isn't tailor made for you (such as a beatdown on LE), you proceed to whine, whine, and whine some more. You know what? Things are the way they are. We didn't go about setting up this war with the intention of attacking a grouping with problems across the board which would make the war unfair to them. Is it possible that we overlooked a detail or two? Of course, and I'm sure that we did, because it happens in every single war. You can't toss a stone and not hit an alliance that hasn't been in a similar situation, where they suddenly found themselves in a defensive war alongside other alliances who aren't as useful as they might like. But unlike Duckroll, we understand that those sort of things happen, we understand that its not the end of the world, and we understand that things on the surface can look worse then they actually are. But more important then just understanding it, most of us don't nitpick every detail and whine about them, we don't make mountains out of molehills, and we don't get lost in the utterly small details. Unfortunately, we can't say the same about you.

[quote name='arcticllama' timestamp='1327389015' post='2906078'] right next to Collect Taxes:) [/quote] [url]http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/434/cybernationstournamenten.png[/url] Only the [u]really cool[/u] people can see/use it though.

A big thanks to Clash for all the hard work he put into this.

[quote name='He Who Has No Name' timestamp='1327218289' post='2904612'] We were hunted mercilessly across this world and the next for [i]two years[/i] in a sadistic pogrom. We will [i]always[/i] have justification to level with NPO. [/quote] boo hoo, get over it. Lets hope that if you decide to try this again in the future, you'll be more successful at it then you were this time around.