This Week in the Network

[Vol Navy]

This whole situation cracks me up. We've all had our applicant AA's and our protectorates attacked by the other side during the past several wars. And ODN has backed that behavior with their diplomatic and military actions. Now they want an apology when it happens to them? Wow.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1303324307' post='2694749']
On the other hand TFE need that money to grow. I'm sure TFE could easily find another alliance to do tech deals with but what if they don't want to? What if they actually like ODN and would prefer to do business with them? [b]I'm pretty sure if CoJ or any other alliance in that coalition started doing tech deals there wouldn't be any outrage coming from our side about it[/b] (probably because that would mean they would have to be in war mode )[/quote]
If that's true, then I wouldn't have a problem with TFE doing tech deals. However, that would surprise me, since it's a pretty regular thing to try and stop tech deals from going out. If you let tech deals go through, what's to stop me from aiding one of your opponents? I slap on "tech deal 1/3" in the aid text and they're 3M richer (maybe throw in some troops, too .

[quote]Also, how would you respond if an alliance which you'd not had any contact with before approached you and asked you to stop your means of obtaining cash from your ally because it's hindering their war efforts and because of "tradition"?
[/quote]
I'd ask whichever member of my alliance was aiding someone at war to cease since that's not kosher. I certainly wouldn't get all upset and insulted about it.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' timestamp='1303329059' post='2694806']
If that's true, then I wouldn't have a problem with TFE doing tech deals. However, that would surprise me, since it's a pretty regular thing to try and stop tech deals from going out. If you let tech deals go through, what's to stop me from aiding one of your opponents? I slap on "tech deal 1/3" in the aid text and they're 3M richer (maybe throw in some troops, too .


I'd ask whichever member of my alliance was aiding someone at war to cease since that's not kosher. I certainly wouldn't get all upset and insulted about it.
[/quote]

If you threw in 2000 troops I'd have a reason to call you out on it being more than a tech deal

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1303324307' post='2694749']
On the other hand TFE need that money to grow. I'm sure TFE could easily find another alliance to do tech deals with but what if they don't want to? What if they actually like ODN and would prefer to do business with them?

I'm pretty sure if CoJ or any other alliance in that coalition started doing tech deals there wouldn't be any outrage coming from our side about it (probably because that would mean they would have to be in war mode ) [/quote]
The problem with casting aside the fact that tech deals with other alliances may be pursued in order to continued their present growth effectively is it throws into question the motive for their participation and whether it's solely for economic reasons. That isn't to say the one sending the shipments to nations at war are doing so with intent to support said war. In fact I can think of a myriad of other reasons but it's now known by them the effect it's having is to support the war and they become a culpable party to any acts by those they are aiding. So if one wishes to argue what you are then it needs to be fleshed out quite a bit more.

[quote]Also, how would you respond if an alliance which you'd not had any contact with before approached you and asked you to stop your means of obtaining cash from your ally because it's hindering their war efforts and because of "tradition"?[/quote]
In a case like this whether I knew anything of the alliance approaching me would be of no consequence. My decision isn't to be based on personal likes or dislikes but on information surrounding the conflict. After all even the deplorable types may be victimized. The relevant matter would merely be how the war came to be which would be all encompassing of the originating incident, talks and execution. I would have to be convinced that the person requesting a cessation of trade is the victim of aggression or otherwise fighting it. Failing that - or done with a dishonest argument - would see trade continued or resumed. I don't really give a crap about tradition personally and I'd be lying if I said I would under any and every circumstance suspend a tech deal with another party who was at war. On the other hand I myself wouldn't ask someone to stop under circumstances where I would be unwilling to. In this I recognize there are times where my opponents may be swarmed with aid packates giving them a substantial edge on me in war but that's something I can live with if it means peace of mind.

Of course I've also been here on and off for nearly five years and when I wasn't here was updated semi-frequently on the flow of politics so have a developed view of the world as opposed to those who are still new to it and absorbing things. Under those cirucmstances I can't rightly say how I would respond.

What is of concern to me is with whether what was considered a norm is being over turned here permanently or only because it's of benefit to the winning party. Cause for my concern over it is over a personal desire to resist submitting to double standards. Unfortunately we won't discover which it is until tested multiple times down the road under differing circumstances. In the mean time images are reparable so if there turns out to be no double standard then prove it through attitude and behavior via consistency.

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' timestamp='1303329059' post='2694806']
If that's true, then I wouldn't have a problem with TFE doing tech deals. However, that would surprise me, since it's a pretty regular thing to try and stop tech deals from going out. If you let tech deals go through, what's to stop me from aiding one of your opponents? I slap on "tech deal 1/3" in the aid text and they're 3M richer (maybe throw in some troops, too .[/quote]
In this war I don't doubt his statement as true since a tech deal would as he stated require us to leave peace mode and in turn be ground to dust. The real test for consistency isn't where it works to their benefit but when it works against them.


[b]Edit[/b] Please note that I had rephrased my response to the first quotation in this post so as to clarify what I was intending to say.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Hyperbad

[Yates]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' timestamp='1303329059' post='2694806']I'd ask whichever member of my alliance was aiding someone at war to cease since that's not kosher. I certainly wouldn't get all upset and insulted about it.[/quote]
We have adopted a similar philosophy. We haven't even approached anyone about aiding enemies yet, though that always remains an option I suppose... As you can see below, the ODN hasn't attacked anyone Methrage has been tech dealing with. Again, we could always make a legitimate claim that they are aiding our enemies etc, but the reality is that we don't make a habit of beating up on nations for trivial reasons and sucking the fun out of the game.
[URL=http://img706.imageshack.us/i/methrageaid.png/][IMG]http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/8739/methrageaid.th.png[/IMG][/URL]

In this particular case, Methrage has been a fun opponent for our fledgling nations. If we decided to attack everyone aiding him [he has 10 slots!] he wouldn't be able to afford to maintain his nation. Where's the fun in that?

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1303330827' post='2694830']
The problem with casting aside the fact that tech deals with other alliances may be pursued in order to continued their present growth effectively is it throws into question the motive for their participation and whether it's solely for economic reasons. That isn't to say the one sending the shipments to nations at war are doing so with intent to support said war. In fact I can think of a myriad of other reasons but it's now known by them the effect it's having is to support the war and they become a culpable party to any acts by those they are aiding. So if one wishes to argue what you are then it needs to be fleshed out quite a bit more.[/quote]

I see your point, however I can also see and understand why TFE may decide to carry on regardless. If it means sacrificing potential growth to assist an alliance its treaty partner is at war with then from a pragmatic point of view for an alliance the size of TFE it would make much more sense to carry on selling tech rather than oblige your requests (and judging by the brilliant performance dating back a few weeks from HoT on TFE's forums I can see why they may not be sympathetic to your plight)

[quote]
In a case like this whether I knew anything of the alliance approaching me would be of no consequence. My decision isn't to be based on personal likes or dislikes but on information surrounding the conflict. After all even the deplorable types may be victimized. The relevant matter would merely be how the war came to be which would be all encompassing of the originating incident, talks and execution. I would have to be convinced that the person requesting a cessation of trade is the victim of aggression or otherwise fighting it. Failing that - or done with a dishonest argument - would see trade continued or resumed. I don't really give a crap about tradition personally and I'd be lying if I said I would under any and every circumstance suspend a tech deal with another party who was at war. On the other hand I myself wouldn't ask someone to stop under circumstances where I would be unwilling to. In this I recognize there are times where my opponents may be swarmed with aid packates giving them a substantial edge on me in war but that's something I can live with if it means peace of mind.

Of course I've also been here on and off for nearly five years and when I wasn't here was updated semi-frequently on the flow of politics so have a developed view of the world as opposed to those who are still new to it and absorbing things. Under those cirucmstances I can't rightly say how I would respond.
[/quote]

Fair enough, I can't really argue with that and it'd be entirely futile to do so.

[quote]
What is of concern to me is with whether what was considered a norm is being over turned here permanently or only because it's of benefit to the winning party. Cause for my concern over it is over a personal desire to resist submitting to double standards. Unfortunately we won't discover which it is until tested multiple times down the road under differing circumstances. In the mean time images are reparable so if there turns out to be no double standard then prove it through attitude and behavior via consistency.
[/quote]

If your side was participating in tech deals right now I personally would have no issue with it and not just because you'd be in war mode. The reason I wouldn't have an issue with it is because I'd probably do the same thing if I needed to, it would be awfully hypocritical of me to argue against something that I would do myself. I can't speak for everyone else in our coalition regarding tech deals during war but that's my personal take on it and you can hold me to that if you feel it necessary to do so.

[Letum]

So, summary of what I get from this thread:

1) TWi presentations continue to be about the information, rather than the quality of content, and as such are only found to be interesting by whoever is not supporting the alliance the info is on.
2) In the available logs, CoJ hasn't really "threatened" anyone.
3) Even if they had, demanding an "apology" for trying to prevent aidflow to an enemy? It's not like some alliances (including ODN's allies) have not set a precedent for it being war-worthy, regardless of ODN's own feelings on whether they should bother going after tech-deals.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Letum

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Yates' timestamp='1303319116' post='2694703']
See, it's statements like these that give me pause and question the veracity of your statements. [i]Clearly[/i] illustrated in the screen caps above are the three nations [b]you declared on[/b] - inclusive of the 19 day old nation.
[/quote]
Silly post 1 sentence in. Look, ODN declared war on Methrage. Quit yer !@#$%*in, send your bottom tier into peace mode, or sign peace with him.

[quote name='The Trail' timestamp='1303321878' post='2694729']
You know ODN did declare war on him not the otherway around right?
[/quote]
No. ODN continually posts Meth's war screen and says he is declaring war. It's unfathomable. You look at a guy like Yates that has been around since 07 at least and when you see him try to call out Meth for "declaring war" on those nations--like there's some mini-war inside the war that ODN DECLARED--and you wonder if he lives on a ventilator due to an inability to remember to breathe. I don't see any other way.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Ryan Greenberg]

Good read. People need to remember that TWiP didn't always have some total jaw-dropping shocker about NPO either.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Ryan Greenberg

[darkfox]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' timestamp='1303302549' post='2694542']
It's ok, you probably are too new to understand how a tech deal works. Since tech deals benefit both parties, you are providing a benefit to someone at war. It is in the interest of the people fighting the tech recipients to put a stop to those deals - either with appeals to the tradition of pausing tech deals for war or through an outright threat (and even a request to make it right by providing equal aid to the warring party). You got the former from CoJ, so [b]I don't see how you are the wronged party[/b].
[/quote]

I don't recall being anything but a bystander. If that's not the case perhaps I should go ask Schatt to write TPE a nice little haiku and wait for him to spy on our forums.

What I was trying to get at is in the grand scheme of things the tech deals ODN was/are doing matter very little on the outcome of the battle between the two alliances. Also CoJ picked out TFE out of all the tech sellers and only went after them. A protectorate that did not know any better. Personally I don't really care about tech deals being done during war. I've done it before and my opponents have as well. Never had a complaint or heard of one until TFE does it.

As for "too new to know about tech deals" I do wonder how I got more tech than you then.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='darkfox' timestamp='1303345614' post='2695008']
I don't recall being anything but a bystander.
[/quote]
Then why do you want an apology?

And if you don't want one, why does ODN want one?

[darkfox]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' timestamp='1303346649' post='2695026']
Then why do you want an apology?

And if you don't want one, why does ODN want one?
[/quote]

I don't know why since I did not see the full logs of what happened between CoJ, TFE and ODN.

I am just annoyed that CoJ would stoop to such lows as a smear campaign over terms I would have gladly taken in the past.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='darkfox' timestamp='1303345614' post='2695008']
Also CoJ picked out TFE out of all the tech sellers and only went after them. A protectorate that did not know any better.
[/quote]
<Yawoo> Arming an alliance which is at war with technology is considered a further act of war with the participants, are you aware of this?
<Paulus_magintie> Yes i got this
<Yawoo> And knowing this, you will continue to arm the Orange Defense Network with technology?
<Paulus_magintie> yes

So anyway, any other false claims you want to make?

[darkfox]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1303347581' post='2695046']
<Yawoo> Arming an alliance which is at war with technology is considered a further act of war with the participants, are you aware of this?
<Paulus_magintie> Yes i got this
<Yawoo> And knowing this, you will continue to arm the Orange Defense Network with technology?
<Paulus_magintie> yes

So anyway, any other false claims you want to make?
[/quote]

I made an assumption not a false claim. False claims are your department.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='darkfox' timestamp='1303347656' post='2695048']
I made an assumption not a false claim. False claims are your department.
[/quote]
That's a pretty funny assertion--that I make false claims--considering those very logs are in the OP of this thread that you are intent on posting your ass-umptions in; how would you know if you didn't read anything?

Edited April 21, 2011 by Schattenmann

[darkfox]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1303347803' post='2695051']
That's a pretty funny assertion--that I make false claims--considering those very logs are in the OP of this thread that you are intent on posting your ass-umptions in.
[/quote]

Ouch that hurts my feelings. Maybe I should ask ODN to make you apologize to me too.

Let me nitpick you first. Since your first post (OP) has no logs in them. Instead you have a fancy little story and a picture. Then you post again with all the "damming" information. You are right though, I should have read the whole thing better before commenting.

This however takes me back to my original point. Why bother with a smear campaign when you could have had peace by now?

Edit: Grammar

Edited April 21, 2011 by darkfox

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1303341221' post='2694944']
I see your point, however I can also see and understand why TFE may decide to carry on regardless. If it means sacrificing potential growth to assist an alliance its treaty partner is at war with then from a pragmatic point of view for an alliance the size of TFE it would make much more sense to carry on selling tech rather than oblige your requests (and judging by the brilliant performance dating back a few weeks from HoT on TFE's forums I can see why they may not be sympathetic to your plight)[/quote]
I was refraining from making judgement on their chosen course of action and instead chose to comment on the counter point you presented with how it leaves certain aspects open to interpretation depending upon the point of view prefered by the reader.

[quote]If your side was participating in tech deals right now I personally would have no issue with it and not just because you'd be in war mode. The reason I wouldn't have an issue with it is because I'd probably do the same thing if I needed to, it would be awfully hypocritical of me to argue against something that I would do myself. I can't speak for everyone else in our coalition regarding tech deals during war but that's my personal take on it and you can hold me to that if you feel it necessary to do so.[/quote]
I'm not the [url=http://flamewarriors.com/warriorshtm/archivist.htm]archivist[/url] type so won't be doing that. That said if you're holding us to standards you make effort to hold yourself to then I thank you for that modicum of respect for us. Unfortunately my time here and elsewhere has severely diminished my hope in many others having that same level of integrity so am stuck with the kind of perspective which goes "I'll believe it when I see it."

[quote name='darkfox' timestamp='1303347552' post='2695044']
I am just annoyed that CoJ would stoop to such lows as a smear campaign over terms I would have gladly taken in the past.
[/quote]
When I read this I immediately chose to think of how else it might be applied. I began to picture those alliances who accepted viceroys saying this about those who campaigned against said practice; alliances which had accepted terms requiring document rewrites or changes to government saying this against those who campaigned against said practice; and so on. This incident of course isn't the same in severity as those I had just listed. I just think it goes to show that the statement you made by no means is telling of anything except ones perspective on what might be considered acceptable.


[b]Edit:[/b] There's a reason I don't do graffiti. I fail at tags.

Edited April 21, 2011 by Hyperbad

[darkfox]

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1303348740' post='2695065']
When I read this I immediately chose to think of how else it might be applied. I began to picture those alliances who accepted viceroys saying this about those who campaigned against said practice; alliances which had accepted terms requiring document rewrites or changes to government saying this against those who campaigned against said practice; and so on. This incident of course isn't the same in severity as those I had just listed. I just think it goes to show that the statement you made by no means is telling of anything except ones perspective on what might be considered acceptable.
[/quote]

When taking my words out of context yes it could be indeed used in that manner. I mean geeze NPO could be out of war if they just got curb stomped for a month. That's nothing right? Saying an insincere apology is a lot more harsh than that.

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='darkfox' timestamp='1303349050' post='2695068']
When taking my words out of context yes it could be indeed used in that manner.[/quote]
Of course the words were taken out of context of the present scenario which they were then inserted into the context of past scenarios. I'm sure it could even be applied to situations where another party says it but you would find a campaign useful because the terms presented are not of the type you're willing to accept.

[quote]I mean geeze NPO could be out of war if they just got curb stomped for a month. That's nothing right? Saying an insincere apology is a lot more harsh than that.[/quote]
Good sir, would you please direct me to where I had commented to this effect?

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='darkfox' timestamp='1303348252' post='2695058']
This however takes me back to my original point. Why bother with a smear campaign when you could have had peace by now?

Edit: Grammar
[/quote]
Apologize for telling a new alliance that aiding another alliance at war is an act of war? Why should I? Admit that it was inappropriate to approach a sovereign alliance about their aid to another alliance at war? It wasn't. Admit it was inappropriate to spam ODN Applicant with a message that said we consider them part of ODN and liable to attack? Why? None of those actions is inappropriate or some brand new thing [b]I[/b] made up; they're are statements of fact, and I cannot apologize for fact or make fact inappropriate by stating it.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1303348740' post='2695065']
I was refraining from making judgement on their chosen course of action and instead chose to comment on the counter point you presented with how it leaves certain aspects open to interpretation depending upon the point of view prefered by the reader.
[/quote]

Apologies, I was just speculating why they may decide to carry on doing tech deals despite being a culpable party in the eyes of CoJ. That and there's only so far I can take the open to interpretation argument before I end up saying "Well, that's like, your opinion man"

[quote]
I'm not the [url=http://flamewarriors.com/warriorshtm/archivist.htm]archivist[/url] type so won't be doing that. That said if you're holding us to standards you make effort to hold yourself to then I thank you for that modicum of respect for us. [b]Unfortunately my time here and elsewhere has severely diminished my hope in many others having that same level of integrity so am stuck with the kind of perspective which goes "I'll believe it when I see it."[/b]
[/quote]

You and me both.

[Charles Stuart]

[quote]<Schattenmann> Why do you think that it was inappropriate?
<OsRavan[ODN]> you threatening our applicants and our proctectorate? . . . I found it lacking because, finding yourself in a losing war, you proceeded to attempt to spin propoganda and verbally bully neutral parties in order to mdake up for your lack on the battlefield. Now you are certainly allowed to do this as you are allowed to do anything. But for every action there is consequences. Your repeated threats and
<Yawoo> Since I was the one speaking with them, no I did not threaten them
<Yawoo> I warned them
<Schattenmann> What's neutral about a party that is aiding your war effort?
<OsRavan[ODN]> t[b]hreats were most certainly issued to both the applicant AA and to our protectorate by both CoJ and 64 on the OWF and via IRC. I will also add 1) they were tech dealing with nations not at war not 'aiding' a war effort. 2) We do not recognize any moral ambiguity in tech dealing while at war. A stance we have extended towards our enemies in multiple wars now. 3) Regardless of your feelings on the matter, it does[/b][/quote]

I wonder if being this stupid comes naturally or if Os has to try really hard?

[Style #386]

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1303362762' post='2695291']
I wonder if being this stupid comes naturally or if Os has to try really hard?
[/quote]
Since you haven't the courtesy to even [i]try[/i] to make your post anything other than a dim-witted attempt at provocation, I don't see you getting many responses here, mate. Cheers for trying, but you leave an awful lot to be desired.

[Grabem]

I don't understand how people can ignore the main point of this thread. Sure, maybe all the information from within ODN and any breach to their charter can be explained away but CoJ provided the logs in question that started the whole issue. The fuss is all probably just a result of whisper down the lane that exaggerated what was actually said. If there were no threats then there is no need to apologize. It's as simple as that. There is no point in arguing what CoJ deserves for something that has been shown to not have happened.

In a perfect world I would hope that ODN would apologize for blowing this incident out of proportion and negatively portraying CoJ as a bully. Then perhaps CoJ could apologize for having to respond with a smear campaign of their own.

[Charles Stuart]

[quote name='Style #386' timestamp='1303365302' post='2695329']
Since you haven't the courtesy to even [i]try[/i] to make your post anything other than a dim-witted attempt at provocation, I don't see you getting many responses here, mate. Cheers for trying, but you leave an awful lot to be desired.
[/quote]

It wasn't a provocation but an actual question. The question mark should have made it obvious.

Edited April 21, 2011 by Charles Stuart