An announcement from CA

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1315796691' post='2799031']
My dear Schatt, I'm glad you consider CoJ and the remainder of those that comprised the Coalition of the Hopeless to be inconsequential - if nothing else this is something we can agree on.
[/quote]
[i]Phew![/i] I was afraid you were going to trot out that "11 alliances declared war on us" tripe without any qualifiers. No, I haven't got any delusions about how much consequence CoJ's 20-something nations had when set next to GOONS, MK, Umbrella, and ODN. In fact, while we're on the subject, that is a good benchmark for you in the future when you're looking for an example of not hugging infra. CoJ declaring war on GOONS.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1315796691' post='2799031']
Anyhow, I never said raid targets posed a threat or that warring the targets our AA has to offer is ballsy (I suppose the [i]GOONs hate[/i] blinders are to blame here). I did insinuate, quite clearly so, that if we were infra-huggers, as was alleged, we wouldn't wage war. Not against the NPO when all indications were that their allies would retaliate mostly against us, and not against the aforementioned assortment of peace-time targets in the lull between larger conflicts.
[/quote]

I'd disagree with that. Tech raiding (as your members claim. Personally, I've never tried.) is profitable. It therefore increases your stats. I guess the right word to use instead of "infra hugger" would have been "stat hugger" or maybe even "pixel hugger" would have been a better description. These days I guess tech is more important than infra anyway.

I am glad though that you agree GOONS has not done anything ballsy in its entire history.

Also, you did say they were a threat to your infra. Just saying.

[quote] [b]Not like any of that threatens our infra which clearly we so value[/b].[/quote]


[quote]Preach brother! you've always had your back against the wall, fighting the good fight. [/quote]

Yes my child. I'll continue to fight oppression in whatever form it comes in. (didn't understand the 7 nuke comment)

Edited September 12, 2011 by Omniscient1

[Vanilla Napalm]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1315797330' post='2799038']
Yes my child. I'll continue to fight oppression in whatever form it comes in. (didn't understand the 7 nuke comment)
[/quote]
That's stange, since you appear to be quite proud of them in your nation bio. The notion that you've done anything other than skip AA's and sporadically post gibberish is kind of amusing. I just felt like ruffling your hair and telling you that you're doing [i]great[/i].

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1315797789' post='2799041']
That's stange, since you appear to be quite proud of them in your nation bio. The notion that you've done anything other than skip AA's and sporadically post gibberish is kind of amusing. I just felt like ruffling your hair and telling you that you're doing [i]great[/i].
[/quote]

oh wow that's been in there for a while. At least I have been willing to fight losing fights and be ZIed though unlike your alliance, whose greatest enemies include powerful entities such EoGs, mico-alliances, and tech raid victims.

Wow, I'm glad I'm not a GOON. I'm not sure I could stand up in a war against the dreaded micos.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Omniscient1

[Vanilla Napalm]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1315797943' post='2799042']
oh wow that's been in there for a while. At least I have been willing to fight losing fights and be ZIed though unlike your alliance.
[/quote]
You'll find quite a few GOONS who fought up from ZI; A three month nuclear war tends to do that. And yes, i'm sure getting dragged into an twice-removed arbitrary fortnight of a war must be a true test of character.

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1315797173' post='2799037']
[i]Phew![/i] I was afraid you were going to trot out that "11 alliances declared war on us" tripe without any qualifiers. No, I haven't got any delusions about how much consequence CoJ's 20-something nations had when set next to GOONS, MK, Umbrella, and ODN. In fact, while we're on the subject, that is a good benchmark for you in the future when you're looking for an example of not hugging infra. CoJ declaring war on GOONS.
[/quote]

CoJ declaring war on GOONS alongside 11 other alliances is certainly a stellar example of the opposite of hugging infra, I do say.

/trotting out

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1315797330' post='2799038']
I am glad though that you agree GOONS has not done anything ballsy in its entire history.

Also, you did say they were a threat to your infra. Just saying.
[/quote]

Did I sleeptype? I mean, I recall stating that I did not say that those wars were ballsy (as that was not the point I was making), not that GOONS has not done anything ballsy in its entire history (also a tangential discussion; you do recall that this all came up as a result of infra-hugging allegations, right?). How odd.

And yes, any war is a threat to one's infra, by the very nature of war (what with its GAs, bombing runs, CMs, etc).

*Last sentence edited for clarity

Edited September 12, 2011 by SirWilliam

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1315798333' post='2799045']
You'll find quite a few GOONS who fought up from ZI
[/quote]



oh no! was it your dreaded enemies the tech raid victims? or was it those awful, infra threatening, and omnipotent micro-alliances that got them?

I have an idea though! If you were interested in actually proving you weren't complete panzies why don't you take another crack at the Hizzy issue? That'd be interesting and possibly, if you didn't run away like last time, kind of ballsy too.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Omniscient1

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1315797789' post='2799041']
That's stange, since you appear to be quite proud of them in your nation bio. The notion that you've done anything other than skip AA's and sporadically post gibberish is kind of amusing. I just felt like ruffling your hair and telling you that you're doing [i]great[/i].
[/quote]
I miss you, Nilla. ;_;

Hi.

[Vanilla Napalm]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1315798472' post='2799047']


oh no! was it your dreaded enemies the tech raid victims? or was it those awful, infra threatening, and omnipotent micro-alliances that got them?
[/quote]
N'aww, look at that post. Good for you lil buddie. I'll talk to the bad men and make them stop forcing you to think so hard.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1315798970' post='2799050']
N'aww, look at that post. Good for you lil buddie. I'll talk to the bad men and make them stop forcing you to think so hard.
[/quote]

Going to just ignore the DT question. Good move. I wouldn't want to talk about how I cowered in the face of danger, but demanded 90mil from everyone else too.

[Vanilla Napalm]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1315799142' post='2799053']
Going to just ignore the DT question. Good move. I wouldn't want to talk about how I cowered in the face of danger, but demanded 90mil from everyone else too.
[/quote]
Hey look, the magic of edit! I'm glad you decided to crowbar some actual substance into that pointless statement. Not much substance, but i guess it was a good first attempt.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1315799485' post='2799056']
Hey look, the magic of edit! I'm glad you decided to crowbar some actual substance into that pointless statement. Not much substance, but i guess it was a good first attempt.
[/quote]

....and still you sidestep the cowardice shown to DT to criticize editing posts?

Either way, I believe this has gone way off topic. I said I was out a few posts ago, but had to come back just to explain how pathetic your alliance is.

Good luck NG and CA. I believe things could have been solved a lot easier than this, but it's not half as fun that way. It also would not have given me a stage to inform everyone of how pathetic GOONS is.

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1315799827' post='2799060']
It also would not have given me a stage to inform everyone of how pathetic GOONS is.
[/quote]

And what a case you've so eloquently made with your cherry-picked, out of context talking points. Bravo!

[Groucho Marx]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1315790973' post='2798979']
Well, aren't you just the moral crusader tonight?
[/quote]

Just enjoying retirement.

[Kzoppistan]

A bottle of Capt'n Morgan's has thus impelled me to speak upon the matter.

The situation of whether or not tech dealing is a deliberate act of hostility against the opposed of a nation is in dispute, simply because the notion of aid compared to tech dealing is not clearly defined in public ledgers.

Aid, by itself is obviously an act of hindering the aidees enemy, but tech dealing is a natural episode of commerce, and should it be upset by a third party is then an aggressive act by the third party.

The third party can say that the act of commerce to their enemy is hindering their efforts to defeat said nation, but nevertheless, to tell the party outside of the original conflict to stop is interfering in the otherwise normal trade relations between all nations.

An alliance can say "We can cripple this nation by targeting their source of economic processes." Which is a valid strategy, but still an aggressive action towards the nation otherwise engaged in honest trade. So, perhaps a valid course of action, but nevertheless, must be acknowledged as aggression in itself.

Should a situation arise, I would handle it thus:

Angry Party: You are aiding (really tech dealing) to our enemy. Stop or we'll f you up.

Me: You are interfering in my legitimate business and what ever conflict you have with my tech partner is not my business nor my concern. If you so wish, provide me with an alternative source of business. I will deal with you both, or, I will deal with you exclusively provided you have an acceptable incentive. My time is money, and you are infringing on both. Offer me xx million to compensate my losses for abandoning this trade or bring me a better deal.

Angry Party: Or we could just f you up.

Me: You'd be a fool.

/me smokes cigar.

And that's how I feel about it. Carry on.

[Sir Humphrey]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1315778635' post='2798855']Sending money, for any reason or purpose, to somebody who is at war is to support their war. It doesn't matter if it's a straight gift or consideration for some exchange (trades, tech, etc.). The argument that one can innocently tech deal with a nation at war is absurd. They're at war. What the hell do you think they're going to use the money on?[/quote]
I agree with you, but this principle doesn't appear to have been applied consistently in the past.

You have also [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=99085&st=80&p=2643774&#entry2643774"]previously[/url] stated:
[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1298550056' post='2643774']Aid shipments to GOONS and between members of DOOMHOUSE generally predate your entry to the conflict and any expectation that they would or should cease because of your entry is foolhardy.[/quote]
Should CA have expected to be treated differently if their aid shipments predated NG's conflict?

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1315799827' post='2799060']
Good luck NG and CA. I believe things could have been solved a lot easier than this, but it's not half as fun that way. It also would not have given me a stage to inform everyone of how pathetic GOONS is.
[/quote]

Believe me this was not my intention.

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1315802530' post='2799099']
A bottle of Capt'n Morgan's has thus impelled me to speak upon the matter.
[/quote]

THANK YOU!!!!

For once someone understands what I am saying.

And that is exactly how it went down. Except for the deals actually having been suspended before I was contacted, and the fact that I was much, much nicer than that. And, to be fair, they were nicer too.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1315802530' post='2799099']
A bottle of Capt'n Morgan's has thus impelled me to speak upon the matter.

The situation of whether or not tech dealing is a deliberate act of hostility against the opposed of a nation is in dispute, simply because the notion of aid compared to tech dealing is not clearly defined in public ledgers.

Aid, by itself is obviously an act of hindering the aidees enemy, but tech dealing is a natural episode of commerce, and should it be upset by a third party is then an aggressive act by the third party.

The third party can say that the act of commerce to their enemy is hindering their efforts to defeat said nation, but nevertheless, to tell the party outside of the original conflict to stop is interfering in the otherwise normal trade relations between all nations.

An alliance can say "We can cripple this nation by targeting their source of economic processes." Which is a valid strategy, but still an aggressive action towards the nation otherwise engaged in honest trade. So, perhaps a valid course of action, but nevertheless, must be acknowledged as aggression in itself.

Should a situation arise, I would handle it thus:

Angry Party: You are aiding (really tech dealing) to our enemy. Stop or we'll f you up.

Me: You are interfering in my legitimate business and what ever conflict you have with my tech partner is not my business nor my concern. If you so wish, provide me with an alternative source of business. I will deal with you both, or, I will deal with you exclusively provided you have an acceptable incentive. My time is money, and you are infringing on both. Offer me xx million to compensate my losses for abandoning this trade or bring me a better deal.

Angry Party: Or we could just f you up.

Me: You'd be a fool.

/me smokes cigar.

And that's how I feel about it. Carry on.
[/quote]
I like how you think, Capt'n Morgan and a cigar make for a nice combo.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1315777344' post='2798846']
In fact it was clear at a glance to them from looking at the aid history that it was a tech deal. That was never in question. They claimed the right to demand tribute for our action despite this.

Had they any doubt, I would have been happy to explain how the deal was structured and exactly what each transaction was for, and I might well have even offered screenshots that established how and when the deal was agreed to and what its paramaters were. This really isnt rocket science.

Had I not [i]already[/i] suspended our dealings before they even approached me, that would have been something we could have discussed as well - it is our default policy that war is no reason to stop a tech deal, but that doesnt mean that we could not have done so as a result of a [i]request [/i]from a friend and after full consideration of the circumstances. However, again, the round was completed and the deal suspended before they even spoke with me, so in this case none of this even came up.



The working definition inherited from the bad old days is basically that, with the additional and usually unspoken proviso that only the smaller or less influential party needs to fear interruption in their commerce, while the larger and more influential one can continue to import or export tech without restriction.

We have argued that this was both manifestly unfair and ultimately detrimental to planet bob as a whole. Even those who benefit from it in one instance may well lose from it the next, and in the long run it makes us all poorer.



It does and I do. As I have detailed in my previous posts in this thread, I went to rather extraordinary lengths to avoid this problem, and I bent my own policies just as far as they would go.

I am a very reasonable person but if you push me farther than I can go I will push back, and I will do it with all I have.



Not at all. In a thread cluttered with partisan denunciations and simple lies about me, you appear to be examining and questioning the situation with an open mind. That is all I ask.

-Sig
[/quote]

Very well explained about your perspective. I unfortunately can understand both perspectives and this leaves me sitting on the proverbial fence. This is a pain for me.. because fences make great neighbors, but rarely good seats.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[zigbigadorlou]

congratulations to you, Non Grata, for achieving yet another easy war! you are certainly pros at it!

[erikz]

[quote name='zigbigadorlou' timestamp='1315808508' post='2799158']
congratulations to you, Non Grata, for achieving yet another easy war! you are certainly pros at it!
[/quote]

How is this easy? I had to do mouse clicks.

[mrwuss]

[quote name='erikz' timestamp='1315829375' post='2799212']
How is this easy? I had to do mouse clicks.
[/quote]


[i]Like every other war ever fought by anyone[/i].


It's hard bro, it's hard. :effort:

[Stewie]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1315789271' post='2798955']
I'm not sure why you think how many people are in an alliance is relevant to whether the alliance exists, but you can continue living in your fantasy world where words don't have a set meaning.
[/quote]

I see you're not listening to your Queen's Posting now about nobody from CA allowed to post in this thread apart from Sigrun?

It's interesting to watch how hardheaded all the parties running this conflict are.

[mrwuss]

[quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1315835042' post='2799226']
I see you're not listening to your Queen's Posting now about nobody from CA allowed to post in this thread apart from Sigrun?

It's interesting to watch how hardheaded all the parties running this conflict are.
[/quote]

Meth is controlled by no one, he does as he pleases and he is paid for it.

You are behind. Meth is pulling the strings of CA, he told me so.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1315804658' post='2799130']
I agree with you, but this principle doesn't appear to have been applied consistently in the past.

You have also [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=99085&st=80&p=2643774&#entry2643774"]previously[/url] stated:

Should CA have expected to be treated differently if their aid shipments predated NG's conflict?
[/quote]
After reviewing the mealy-mouthed crap in that thread, I can't wait to see what gets served up here.