An announcement from CA

[Schad]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315853061' post='2799292']
I have heard that the number started at $9 million and went to $30 million (or $15 million per CA nation who aided Meth/Nicholai). This has been confirmed by Kriekfreak- [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105101&view=findpost&p=2798143"]here[/url]. So, what part of $9 million is such an extravagant number? It does not seem that large or horrible to me. Nor does it seem like they went super large, wanting to negotiate down to a certain number. Instead, they went with a standard rate aka 3x the amount for reps. This could have been paid off in a single day without any real harm to Sigrun or Spycap.

Had NG started off with something like $90 million, I would see your point. But that simply did not happen.

[/quote]

Same story, different chapter. I'm talking about the $30m initially demanded of the SC nation, which is what White Chocolate referenced.

[Wu Tang Clan]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1315853070' post='2799294']
In practice it's a prohibition that the powerful can enforce on their enemies, while remaining immune to themselves, to tilt the playing field and make sure that the game of world politics isnt worth playing for anyone but those already on top.
[/quote]

With the deepest amount of respect for you Sig, I offer this counter argument:

Is it not the goal of an "in-power" alliance to find every possible advantage that they can in order to ensure they stay in power? If not, wouldn't this be a disservice to the alliance in which they lead (By, in essence, not trying everything to ensure the security and protection of said alliance)?

A double standard is natural in politics on every level. It is the key to ensuring the continuation of a given power bloc.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315853061' post='2799292']
I would wager, the reason for myself and erikz specifying NG, is that this thread is about NG and you are attempting to badmouth NG. Yet, you cannot come up with a single example of NG doing these actions. Yes, GOONS did them, Thriller did them, and who knows who else. But, you are complaining that NG is somehow evil because they are demanding reps and because [i][b]OTHER[/B][/I] alliances did what you claim, NG somehow cannot demand reps... That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I don't honestly care what other alliances do since we are discussing what NG is doing, and you are somehow making a claim against NG while using evidence of alliances that are not NG doing something.

So, I don't care if non-NG alliances aid rogues or protect them, since you are claiming that NG is somehow accountable for !@#$ like that, then you at least have to provide evidence that NG did it. I stated what I did because the leader (am fairly certain White Chocolate is the leader of SC) is basically going around stating it is okay to aid rogues, so I simply stated that I cannot wait for those words to bite her in the ass, so to speak. I tire of people who state how okay it is for such and such actions, but almost all know full well that should such and such actions occur to them or their alliance, they would be going on and on about how evil it is.

Shoot, look at you. You stated how wrong it was for GOONS to aid Smacky as he warred against CoJ, and yet here, you are stating that CA was in the right for aiding Meth against NG and that NG was in the wrong for demanding reps and warring CA.

So have you compromised your principals simply because it is NG you wish to rage against Schatt?

As for putting words in your mouth... Not really. As stated before, this situation involves NG and you are making a claim against NG by using the actions of alliances other than NG. That does not satisfy your own claim really. Sure you proved yourself correct that other alliances have aided, protected, and not sanctioned rogues in the past. But I could bring about a ton of examples where alliances have demanded reps from those who aided rogues, have not protected rogues, and have sanctioned rogues. All in all, it proves absolutely nothing unless you can show proof of NG aiding, protecting, and not sanctioning a rogue, since NG's actions against Meth/CA are what is at the heart of the matter.
[/quote]
Doch, are you being serious?

This exchange between you and me is not about Non Grata. It is about you going off the handle and saying that you wish The Sandwich Confederation will get rogued and then those rogues will get aid. I said that your scenario is already reality. Because it is. There is nothing to argue and there is no NG angle.

That's the end (from my side) of this diversion. If you are going to create arguments that I have not made then post counter-points to them, then you can do that without my help.

[Hereno]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1315853070' post='2799294']
Microalliances get no respect.
[/quote]

No respect!

[IMG]http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/6346/jabberjaw.png[/IMG]

[Franz Ferdinand]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1315853070' post='2799294']
It's a fact. Microalliances get no respect.
[/quote]
What about Team Rocket, or are we no longer classed as a micro-alliance?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1315852190' post='2799290']
Tech raids are aggressive attacks, full story at 11.

Doch, you're loopy. Get some sleep.
[/quote]

And someone from DB4D stated that the situation was being handled prior to Meth even showing up on the AA. So, even though it was aggressive, what exactly did it have to do with Meth? Not to mention, if the situation was being handled diplomatically, how does it possibly help for Meth to wage war against NG and possibly turn what was a peaceful situation, into a full out war?

Schatt, please answer my questions instead of well doing this...


[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1315852120' post='2799289']
I'll just reply to this one last post to point out I was never in OG, which is why you shouldn't remember that. Almost feel sorry for you with how delusional you are and how much nonsense you spout while being completely wrong. You don't even seem like the same person I knew back in the day, seems you've lost your mind and become an entirely different person who is very confused and looking for someone to take his frustration out on.

I forgive you for being stupid, but I will never respect you again. Just for comparison on how silly you are, even kriekfreak and Mr. Teets from Non Grata who I'm at war with I respect a lot more than you and hold a higher opinion of them, compared to someone like you who just talks nonsense without any of it mattering. At least their posts make sense and they don't try inserting themselves in situations which have nothing to do with them, then try acting like they know all about it while having no idea they're talking about. (which is what you do)
[/quote]

Right, I got your alliance from a couple of years ago wrong... Therefore, I am thoroughly delusional. I knew you were in an alliance in Citadel that was not Gremlins. Ahhh.. nvm, just remembered it was FCC. Sorry, I did tend to get those two confused sometimes since I did not have much contact with either alliance even while in Gre.

Anyways, you made a claim I was insulting you... the only thing I said that was remotely insulting would be my comment about you instigating !@#$, then crying on the OWF about the injustice when said !@#$ hits the fan. You then come in here and start in on the ad hominems simply because I was mistaken about what Citadel alliance you were in once. Aiight mate. I honestly don't care if you have no respect for me.

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1315853388' post='2799298']
Same story, different chapter. I'm talking about the $30m initially demanded of the SC nation, which is what White Chocolate referenced.
[/quote]

I am not aware of that situation to be honest. So I have no context with which to place that in.

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1315853070' post='2799294']
In practice, alliances like either of ours can easily be in no position to do anything about it even should we choose to, and are going to be much more interested in trying to make a new friend than starting a war over a tech deal. At the very least, we would have to rely on our protector, which might strain or weaken that link, to even mount a credible threat. And we dont always have protectors. I existed on my AA for months before I ever had a protector, and for months afterwards under the 'protection' of someone that in practice I had to protect myself.

Even with a good protector who doesnt mind to back you, is it really worth it to risk it backfiring? Being aggressive and trying to dictate policies to another alliance, even one your own size or smaller, can result in a little tech deal turning into a diplomatic loss and/or even a flood of direct aid. It makes no sense for us to even attempt to enforce this policy, with the one exception of when CoJ did it entirely to make a point for their propaganda effort.

In practice it's a prohibition that the powerful can enforce on their enemies, while remaining immune to themselves, to tilt the playing field and make sure that the game of world politics isnt worth playing for anyone but those already on top.
[/quote]

Heh, I would say it depends on the micro-alliance and their actions to be honest. I would say that had you not done tech deals with Meth or Nicholai since Meth began his crusade against NG a second time, you would have never experienced this.

What I do not get, is that both CA and NG attempted to dictate policies to the other, which given the policies involved was inevitable. NG stated no aid whatsoever to Meth or Nicholai. You dictated that tech deals were not aid. Of course that is going to cause conflict. I am amused that you only seem to see it as NG dictating its policy to you when the reverse holds true as well. You attempted to dictate your policy to NG.

As stated before, it was inevitable that a conflict would occur, unfortunately for you, it happened to be with an alliance much larger than your own.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1315853523' post='2799302']
Doch, are you being serious?

This exchange between you and me is not about Non Grata. It is about you going off the handle and saying that you wish The Sandwich Confederation will get rogued and then those rogues will get aid. I said that your scenario is already reality. Because it is. There is nothing to argue and there is no NG angle.

That's the end (from my side) of this diversion. If you are going to create arguments that I have not made then post counter-points to them, then you can do that without my help.
[/quote]

Okay, okay. So, you are making a claim that I stated I wanted SC to get rogued.... Wrong.

[i]I am seriously waiting for alliances like yours to get rogued and watch as the aid pours into said rogues. Then watch as you cry on the OWF about how it is wrong for alliances to aid rogues hitting SC. Because I doubt you would just sit back and go "oh my, looks like our rogue just gained $18 million in aid which is now being used to hurt my alliance members. Well, shucks. Looks like we can't do a thing about it. Drats." [/i]

that is what I said. I never stated I wanted SC to get rogued, just said I was waiting for it to happen (because seriously, most alliances end up with a rogue or two sometime in their lifespan unless said lifespan is incredibly short). Then I stated that should that happen, I doubt WC would just sit back and do nothing about that rogue being aided.

So, you provided some counter to what was a non-existent argument from the get go, about how such a world already exists. Yes, I made the mistake of thinking you were somehow making a claim against NG, when in fact, you were making a claim against something I never said.

As for Thriller or Smacky and what not, sure that world exists now never claimed otherwise. Read my entire post and understand that the focus is on what White Chocolate and SC would do in that situation, not on the rogues themselves.

For someone who attempted to accuse me of being lax on reading comprehension, this entire confusion started with you being unable to properly read my post.

[nippy]

[quote name='Franz Ferdinand' timestamp='1315854300' post='2799309']
What about Team Rocket, or are we no longer classed as a micro-alliance?
[/quote]

You're on the wrong side. Drop your allegiance to the bad guys and take up with the whiners.....you must sacrifice your dignity in order to be part of the in-crowd around here.

[ShouAS]

alliances should disband and every nation should be on none

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1315680091' post='2798207']
So it is my hope that the two sides will quickly agree to end this silliness and part ways on the understanding the Non Grata was and shall continue to be justified in asserting that any aid to Methrage or his alliance constitutes aiding their enemy, and that they are justified in seeking to put an end to such aid.

Aid stops. The parties shake hands and walk away. That's it.

Do I expect that this will actually happen? Sadly, no. So many of the parties involved are too damn stubborn for their own good. T'would be nice to be pleasantly surprised, but I won't be holding my breath.
[/quote]
You do realize that this is exactly the offer that Sigrun made to NG, right?

It's only your treaty partner that is too stubborn for their own good, by your reasoning.

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1315686694' post='2798266']
Well that last batch of aid you sent to Methy was titled "War Aid" so can we cut the crap about it being "tech deals". Clearly that wasn't the case.
[/quote]
Steve, can you learn to read please? In the OP, she states that since NG has seen fit to attack her alliance over tech dealing, she's providing full military support to people fighting NG.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315716102' post='2798528']
Wait wha? CD broke their terms by not staying out of the war which was dictated by their surrender terms. CD surrendered, then redeclared war which broke their terms. I have no clue what tech deals has to do with anything.
[/quote]
CD's original surrender terms specifically allowed them to redeclare if someone committed a new act of war against their allies. The new act of war they redeclared on the basis of was tech deals arranged with nations fighting their allies.

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1315716113' post='2798529']
Might makes right my friend. If you have enough nukes and soldiers on your side you can adopt any position and then change it later.
[/quote]
Your alliance stood up for the principle that CA is fighting for here in the last war; you forced Schatt to apologize for telling your protectorate that selling tech to you was an act of war.

Going to use your might again?

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315846661' post='2799260']
I am seriously waiting for alliances like yours to get rogued and watch as the aid pours into said rogues. Then watch as you cry on the OWF about how it is wrong for alliances to aid rogues hitting SC. Because I doubt you would just sit back and go "oh my, looks like our rogue just gained $18 million in aid which is now being used to hurt my alliance members. Well, shucks. Looks like we can't do a thing about it. Drats."
[/quote]
You're complaining about the wrong person. White Chocolate stands by her principles, unlike certain other alliances that I've talked about in this post.

I happen to agree in principle with Schattenman and Non Grata on this issue: tech deals to nations at war are war aid. I think the reps NG was demanding were a bit high (frankly I would have taken the initial offer of promising never to do it again from Sigrun in NG's position), but that's it.

I still don't think Methrage is a rogue though. People need to learn to distinguish between leaders of terrible alliances (which he is) and rogues. He does attack alliances for a reason, it's just usually a bad one.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1315856858' post='2799326']
Your alliance stood up for the principle that CA is fighting for here in the last war; you forced Schatt to apologize for telling your protectorate that selling tech to you was an act of war.
[/quote]

lol what? I was getting beaten down by iFOK, VE, and RIA while that was going on. I was not sold any tech from TFE, nor did I force Schatt to apologize.

Secondly, I was helping the guy from NATO make his point. I was reminding everyone that, if you have enough nukes on your side you can make any rule you want. If you later want to un-do that rule all you have to do is say so. Good sportsmanship and morality mean absolutely nothing in this world to most people, however, they will gladly pick up the morality banner when it plays out well for them. It's not like it's anything new. Everyone who has had a taste of power does it.

[quote]Going to use your might again?[/quote]

Ok I seriously don't understand this one. Either you must have thought I was threatening the NATO guy or your asking if ODN is joining in on NG's conflict. Both would be a negative.

[ShouAS]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1315856858' post='2799326']
I still don't think Methrage is a rogue though. People need to learn to distinguish between leaders of terrible alliances (which he is) and rogues. He does attack alliances for a reason, it's just usually a bad one.
[/quote]

he started the war while in a nongov member of another AA, the attack was not sanctioned by that AA. Just because he is on another AA now does not retcon the original rogue status.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1315856858' post='2799326']
CD's original surrender terms specifically allowed them to redeclare if someone committed a new act of war against their allies. The new act of war they redeclared on the basis of was tech deals arranged with nations fighting their allies.


You're complaining about the wrong person. White Chocolate stands by her principles, unlike certain other alliances that I've talked about in this post.

I happen to agree in principle with Schattenman and Non Grata on this issue: tech deals to nations at war are war aid. I think the reps NG was demanding were a bit high (frankly I would have taken the initial offer of promising never to do it again from Sigrun in NG's position), but that's it.

I still don't think Methrage is a rogue though. People need to learn to distinguish between leaders of terrible alliances (which he is) and rogues. He does attack alliances for a reason, it's just usually a bad one.
[/quote]

Ahhh thanks for clarifying the CD situation. That whole situation was a mess that I pretty much stayed away from as during that war, it did not really concern me too much.

I am not trying to complain about WC per se. Just that I have seen a bunch of people come in spouting how wrong NG, most of whose alliances would react the same exact way as NG did. For me, it was really the condescending tone WC used though I have come to realize that the situation she was discussing was a different one than I thought. So for that confusion, I will apologize to WC as I was mistaken about the situation you (as in White Chocolate) were discussing.

For me, since half the time Meth is in a one man AA, he is basically a rogue. It does not matter whether he leads a rogue alliance, or joins an AA such as MAD or CA. Inevitably he simply goes rogue once more.

Also, rogues tend to attack alliances for some sort of reason be it, "I hate your alliance" to "I hate this specific member of your alliance I am currently attacking" to whatever else. So, stating that just because Meth has a reason, he is no longer a rogue is disingenuous.

[Franz Ferdinand]

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1315854887' post='2799315']
You're on the wrong side. Drop your allegiance to the bad guys and take up with the whiners.....you must sacrifice your dignity in order to be part of the in-crowd around here.
[/quote]
But how can one halt allegiance to oneself? The mirror can't be shattered or tarnished to allow for that to happen.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315846661' post='2799260']
I am seriously waiting for alliances like yours to get rogued and watch as the aid pours into said rogues. Then watch as you cry on the OWF about how it is wrong for alliances to aid rogues hitting SC. Because I doubt you would just sit back and go "oh my, looks like our rogue just gained $18 million in aid which is now being used to hurt my alliance members. Well, shucks. Looks like we can't do a thing about it. Drats."
[/quote]

Actually, since you brought it up, I can show you how alliances like ours deal with rogues.

Here's how we "cry" on OWF:
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=72212&st=0&p=1928789&hl=+soviet%20+arctic%20+states&fromsearch=1&#entry1928789

Of course Soviet Arctic States had more than enough money, so there was no need for him to run around being a con artist and steal money from "tech deals." Thus, I can't say for sure what we would do in that situation. My suggestion would be to invite whichever alliance he managed to con to get some of their tech back by taking an attack slot. However our membership might not want to share.

[Jacapo Saladin]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1315860693' post='2799356']
Actually, since you brought it up, I can show you how alliances like ours deal with rogues.

Here's how we "cry" on OWF:
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=72212&st=0&p=1928789&hl=+soviet%20+arctic%20+states&fromsearch=1&#entry1928789

Of course Soviet Arctic States had more than enough money, so there was no need for him to run around being a con artist and steal money from "tech deals." Thus, I can't say for sure what we would do in that situation. My suggestion would be to invite whichever alliance he managed to con to get some of their tech back by taking an attack slot. However our membership might not want to share.
[/quote]

congratulations.

What would you have done however if that rogue decided to go back on his promise and attack you again a few weeks later?

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Wu Tang Clan' timestamp='1315853518' post='2799301']
With the deepest amount of respect for you Sig, I offer this counter argument:

Is it not the goal of an "in-power" alliance to find every possible advantage that they can in order to ensure they stay in power? If not, wouldn't this be a disservice to the alliance in which they lead (By, in essence, not trying everything to ensure the security and protection of said alliance)?

A double standard is natural in politics on every level. It is the key to ensuring the continuation of a given power bloc.
[/quote]

Is this, however, an inevitable fact of life or an unfortunate consequence of political rot?

I argue it is [i]at least in part[/i] the latter. So to some degree it is not impossible for us as a community to change that. We cant make a utopia but we could certainly get rid of some of the worst aspects of it. If my infra can help us do that it's a price I am willing to pay again and again and again and again and again and...


[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1315853523' post='2799302']
If you are going to create arguments that I have not made then post counter-points to them, then you can do that without my help.
[/quote]

Hi Schatt. *waves* You obviously havent met Doc. Doc, Schatt, Schatt, Doc.

[i]*sotto voce* [size="1"]That's all he's done in years[/size][/i][size="1"][i]. Just ignore him. [/i] [/size]

[quote name='Franz Ferdinand' timestamp='1315854300' post='2799309']
What about Team Rocket, or are we no longer classed as a micro-alliance?
[/quote]

Team Rocket, of course, like CA, is an agency of fate which has formidable qualities above and beyond any consideration of its material assets. If you find you get some respect, perhaps this fact is more widely appreciated in your case. But after well over a year on my AA, many months of it spent fighting, outnumbered, months under sanction, after millions of soldiers, Aesir and invader alike, have died on this AA, after a DoE and several official announcements, after two protectors and a bloc treaty, I still get people telling me I am nothing but a rogue and expecting me to roll over and take a reaming on their say so. I have even now been sanctioned again, despite the fact that I not declared a single offensive war in the current conflict.

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1315856858' post='2799326']
I still don't think Methrage is a rogue though. People need to learn to distinguish between leaders of terrible alliances (which he is) and rogues. He does attack alliances for a reason, it's just usually a bad one.
[/quote]

It is pointless to talk about who is or isnt a rogue without some definition.

Meth traditionally "attacks" alliances that attack him first. I respect his right to do that. Personally I tend to be more diplomatic than he does, he charges into swinging where I would at least try to talk and only fight as a last resort, and I resisted getting any closer than tech deals with him as a result of that, but it's still better than the typical inactive in danger of deletion. He, and I, have been unfairly sanctioned multiple times simply because our AAs are small and that is all it takes to get labeled a rogue.

That said, he clearly screwed up when he was in MAD. I made sure he understood that and was ready to take responsibility for that before I accepted his application. I will defend myself, I will point out I only got involved by defending myself at least by my standards, like them or not. Once the wars start up defending myself means coalition with him, and I wouldnt accept a peace that left a coalition party under pzi regardless of how I got in the war to begin with, so from my point of view it just simplifies negotiations for him to join me at this point.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1315860693' post='2799356']
Actually, since you brought it up, I can show you how alliances like ours deal with rogues.

Here's how we "cry" on OWF:
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=72212&st=0&p=1928789&hl=+soviet%20+arctic%20+states&fromsearch=1&#entry1928789

Of course Soviet Arctic States had more than enough money, so there was no need for him to run around being a con artist and steal money from "tech deals." Thus, I can't say for sure what we would do in that situation. My suggestion would be to invite whichever alliance he managed to con to get some of their tech back by taking an attack slot. However our membership might not want to share.
[/quote]

Fair enough.

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1315862335' post='2799371']
Hi Schatt. *waves* You obviously havent met Doc. Doc, Schatt, Schatt, Doc.

[i]*sotto voce* [size="1"]That's all he's done in years[/size][/i][size="1"][i]. Just ignore him. [/i] [/size]
[/quote]

Amusing considering it was Schatt who first created an argument against me, and then produced a counter to his creation. But I guess since you can't really counter my point [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105101&view=findpost&p=2799313"]here[/url] that I made towards you, specifically, "What I do not get, is that both CA and NG attempted to dictate policies to the other, which given the policies involved was inevitable. NG stated no aid whatsoever to Meth or Nicholai. You dictated that tech deals were not aid. Of course that is going to cause conflict. I am amused that you only seem to see it as NG dictating its policy to you when the reverse holds true as well. You attempted to dictate your policy to NG."

it would make sense that you have to resort to attempts at belittling me instead. So you can go all you want but that by no means make you look any less foolish right now.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1315685007' post='2798254']
This isn't true. We asked 9mil which is 3x aided amount, after that (not minutes mind you) the demand lay at 5x aided amount per aid (15 mil). I'm not really sure why Schad would state such a thing since he was in those talks.
[/quote]

Actually, schad was in the discussions I had with our allies regarding the member of The Sandwich Confederation who really believed that he was doing a tech deal and the fact that Non Grata demanded that SC pay 30 million as a result. We're a 29 member alliance - that's over 1 million per member. Yeah, right - like Non Grata would think it's reasonable to pay 1 million per each member they have because one of their less active members unthinkingly did a tech deal with someone already involved in a war.

When I first heard about it I expected reps to be 3 million and offered that BEFORE the 30 million was demanded of us. Okay, I admit it, I was a bit taken back when I heard the demand for 30 million. I've done these sorts of talks constantly - and no one has ever made such a demand. I've had members out and out attack another alliance and at most just had to pay 3 mil.

So I invited a couple members of our long time friends and allies, Basketball Ninjas (who are members of the PF bloc) to take part and the demand was lowered to 15 million. I still would have had to bring it back to SC for a vote. Well - our allies know our group well enough to have a very good guess what the return answer would be - thus it ended with our allies offering to pay instead. Hard to turn that down as I really can't tell our friends "no" they can't make their own decisions.

So to clarify - I'm talking about discussions between The Sandwich Confederation (SC) and Non Grata. I respect CA's decision but we're a different group. SC just happened to have a member fall into the same trap. What relation CA and Meth had previous has nothing to do with us.

In fact, our member was rather annoyed to learn that he isn't getting his tech. I have no love for Meth and at this point he owes us as far as I'm concerned.

So Methrage, you've been rather talkative in this thread. Tell me, when can our member expect the shipments of the tech you owe him?

Edited September 12, 2011 by White Chocolate

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315863146' post='2799378']
"What I do not get, is that both CA and NG attempted to dictate policies to the other, which given the policies involved was inevitable. NG stated no aid whatsoever to Meth or Nicholai. You dictated that tech deals were not aid. Of course that is going to cause conflict. I am amused that you only seem to see it as NG dictating its policy to you when the reverse holds true as well. You attempted to dictate your policy to NG."
[/quote]

Read [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105101&view=findpost&p=2798819"]this post[/url], especially the response to Anson. Then you can promptly forget you read it and go back to doing what you do, and I will go back to ignoring you and trying to respond to serious posters.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1315866312' post='2799391']
Read [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105101&view=findpost&p=2798819"]this post[/url], especially the response to Anson. Then you can promptly forget you read it and go back to doing what you do, and I will go back to ignoring you and trying to respond to serious posters.
[/quote]

And exactly how does that actually refute what I posted about CA attempting to force your policy and NG as well as NG trying to force their policy on CA, which is what lead to this conflict. I don't honestly care whose policy supposedly predates whose, I stated that CA is just as culpable for this war as NG is since both are guilty of attempting to force their own alliance policies on the opposing alliance.

But, it appears I will simply be amused at you continuing to try and belittle me instead of simply responding.

[Thrash]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1315856858' post='2799326']
I still don't think Methrage is a rogue though. People need to learn to distinguish between leaders of terrible alliances (which he is) and rogues. He does attack alliances for a reason, it's just usually a bad one.
[/quote]

ITT, Invicta calling someone else a terrible alliance.

[Wemedge]

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1315686252' post='2798263']
Right, right....good explanation as to why your tag-along nation is coordinating along with yours for the same tech deal, regardless of having no benefit from it. As to your cute little 'stalker' comment, it would be stupid to lose sight and forget about you. You're a loose cannon with a penchant for attacking people on a whim for the sake of attention. Everytime the Methrage attention meter reaches 0, you find some other way to defy convention, piss off an entire alliance, sound up the moralist orchestra, brag while doing damage, beg for money when you're finally shut down, then brag some more about some damage after you convince some oblivious idiots and some less oblivious ones to fund your ridiculousness. Your have far more detractors now than you ever have in the past, yet still consider brushing off their statements with a simple "your opinion isn't relevant" comment as the epitome of wit. You, sir, are a festering blemish. Yes, this community thrives on drama. We can do without yours.
[/quote]
^^THIS^^

[Sigrun Vapneir]

OK, exactly one more time.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315868450' post='2799414']
And exactly how does that actually refute what I posted about CA attempting to force your policy and NG as well as NG trying to force their policy on CA, which is what lead to this conflict.
[/quote]

Well let's see.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315863146' post='2799378']
Amusing considering it was Schatt who first created an argument against me, and then produced a counter to his creation. But I guess since you can't really counter my point [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105101&view=findpost&p=2799313"]here[/url] that I made towards you, specifically, "What I do not get, is that both CA and NG attempted to dictate policies to the other, which given the policies involved was inevitable. NG stated no aid whatsoever to Meth or Nicholai. You dictated that tech deals were not aid. Of course that is going to cause conflict. [b]I am amused that you only seem to see it as NG dictating its policy to you when the reverse holds true as well[/b]. You attempted to dictate your policy to NG."
[/quote]

Emphasis added, to help you find the most important part. Focus, please.

You claim I dont see both points of view, but only my own. I link you to my first reply in this thread, where I explicitly made the very point you just essentially accused me of covering up or willfully ignoring. I asked, rhetorically, in the response I specified to you, why their rule applies to me, but not my own to them?

I havent been arguing that our rule should just trump their rule. Only that they shouldnt have assumed automatically that the reverse was true either.

And your response is to ask how that has anything to do with what you said. You either didnt read it or you fail basic english or you are just not to be taken seriously at all. For once Methrage is right, I dont know what happened to you. You actually managed to string words together and make sense in your Application thread for the Grämlins.

I did go way out of my way to avoid the issue, I was polite, I was very much looking for a compromise. I havent ordered a single offensive war here. I was very willing to make an effort to respect their rules without abrogating mine. They were unwilling to even discuss bending theirs to accomodate me, however.

Enough.Say whatever you want, I wont let you bait me again.

[Fedora Prefontaine]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315846661' post='2799260']
I am seriously waiting for alliances like yours to get rogued and watch as the aid pours into said rogues. Then watch as you cry on the OWF about how it is wrong for alliances to aid rogues hitting SC. Because I doubt you would just sit back and go "oh my, looks like our rogue just gained $18 million in aid which is now being used to hurt my alliance members. Well, shucks. Looks like we can't do a thing about it. Drats."
[/quote]

This little conversation has mostly been sorted out, I'm glad to see. But here's a thing about rogues on SC. In the 20 months our alliance has been around, we've hardly had any. The ones we've had have primarily been tech raiders at low NS. Sure, part of that's because we're small, but I'd be willing to bet that it's mostly because we treat other nations and alliances with respect. We make it a point not to run around pissing people off, then daring them to "do something about it."

Just a little food for thought.

[quote name='Jacapo Saladin' timestamp='1315861426' post='2799361']
congratulations.

What would you have done however if that rogue decided to go back on his promise and attack you again a few weeks later?
[/quote]

We would have handled it among the parties involved, including the alliance who promised to look after him. It probably would have extended to close allies of the relevant parties, but there's very little chance we would have let one annoying rogue become an international spectacle of hilarious proportions.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1315870865' post='2799439']
Emphasis added, to help you find the most important part. Focus, please.

You claim I dont see both points of view, but only my own. I link you to my first reply in this thread, where I explicitly made the very point you just essentially accused me of covering up or willfully ignoring. I asked, rhetorically, in the response I specified to you, why their rule applies to me, but not my own to them?

I havent been arguing that our rule should just trump their rule. Only that they shouldnt have assumed automatically that the reverse was true either.

And your response is to ask how that has anything to do with what you said. You either didnt read it or you fail basic english or you are just not to be taken seriously at all. For once Methrage is right, I dont know what happened to you. You actually managed to string words together and make sense in your Application thread for the Grämlins.

I did go way out of my way to avoid the issue, I was polite, I was very much looking for a compromise. I havent ordered a single offensive war here. I was very willing to make an effort to respect their rules without abrogating mine. They were unwilling to even discuss bending theirs to accomodate me, however.

Enough.Say whatever you want, I wont let you bait me again.
[/quote]

Well, okay, I can actually see your point. Going back and rereading, I see that you acknowledge that you attempted to do alternative things rather than pay reps and apologize. But at the same point, you place full blame on NG for starting this war because, "I apologise for the length of this post, but there is some background which the community deserves to be aware of. The pretext for the attack is the allegation that one of our nations provided war aid to Nicholai. This is a transparently false accusation, as tech dealing is not war aid."

So, in your OP, you flat out state that NG is lying since, according to your policy, tech dealing is not war aid. That to me just screams you feel your policy trumps NG's. The other part of your OP that screamed out to me was "They refuse to be satisfied with anything other than a payment of tribute and an acknowledgement of wrongdoing. These demands I am unable to satisfy and will always be unable to satisfy. Confederatio Aesir does not pay tribute..."

This next part is also enlightening, "I think the community should know that NG, knowing full well this was nothing more than an errant tech deal, knowing full well that if they simply left us alone there would be no further deals, knowing full well that it is our policy NEVER to give in to extortion regardless of the price, and knowing full well that if they insisted on attacking us they would leave us no choice but to actually aid their opponents, which we had never done prior to this... knowing all this, they still felt their best choice was extortion and assault.

This shows clearly that their true motivation in this is not simply to prevent Methrage from receiving aid."

To me, you are placing full blame on NG since they only had 3 demands (stop aiding, reps and apology) and you refused to do 2 out of those 3. Frankly, I wonder if Olympus offered to satisfy the reps portion should you just apologize for the mistake (even you claimed it was an oversight).

That is what I am getting at. I am placing blame on both parties, not just NG and not just CA. I never attempted to state either policies should be applied, just that they were conflicting and thus both parties were to blame for this. Something which others have stated in this very thread already.

Apparently, in your haste to dismiss anything I post, you forget all that you have written as well. Your post to Anson read exactly like this, "It is and has always been our policy to distinguish tech deals from war aid, using basic common sense and readily available evidence. It is our policy that we do not suspend tech deals because of war, and that we do not expect anyone else to do so either. It is our policy that we will not pay reps for a tech deal, period."

Basically more regurgitation of what you posted in the OP.

The only difference is, "So you are going to have to explain to me how you figure NG policy, unilaterally declared, is binding on us, but our own policies, long predating their declaration, are not similarly binding on them."

Now from what I have read, you state how far you were willing to "bend" yet you refused to budge on 2 out of 3 of the major issues. How exactly is that being willing to bend but somehow NG being unwilling when it also refused to budge on those same 2 issues? It appears that both parties were just as stubborn, though you just attempted to try out some alternatives that would get NG to bend their policies, while you could continue to refuse to bend yours.

Nice attempt at manipulating words, but clearly, you were not remotely close to actually attempting to compromise since you refused to bend any portion of your major policy. The same holds true of NG as well.

And once again, we are back to how both you and NG are stubborn and to blame for this war.

But again, please continue to try and belittle me and act as if everything I say is nonsense. Clearly, it is working out oh so well for ya...