Official United Equestria Policy Annoucement

[Ayatollah Bromeini]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1330052872' post='2927235']
This suggests to anyone with a brain that they weren't trying to just score a few slots of tech (which would probably be the dumbest way to go about trying to get a tech deal in Bob history). They were trying to screw with UE and this newly announced policy. You know this even if you are trying to play coy about it. All of Bob knows.
[/quote]

Possibly, but this was before he said something like "clearly I've lost all sanity" so there is an obvious tone of sarcasm there and it might not be fair to jump to conclusions.

I'm not trying to play coy, I just think there isn't no where near enough evidence on the table to go ahead and declare that this was all done with the intentions of sabotage.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Ayatollah Bromeini

[Monster]

I can verify that's the caee. They tried to get umbrella to ghost to hit MHA.

[Biff Webster]

[quote name='Ayatollah Bromeini' timestamp='1330058521' post='2927281']
Possibly, but this was before he said something like "clearly I've lost all sanity" so there is an obvious tone of sarcasm there and it might not be fair to jump to conclusions.

I'm not trying to play coy, I just think there isn't no where near enough evidence on the table to go ahead and declare that this was all done with the intentions of sabotage.
[/quote]

If UE had the last remaining tech sellers on the planet then your "just trying to score tech" theory might make sense. Personally, it makes a lot more sense that the ghosting was to get transactions accepted, returning home to get the deliveries rejected. Unless you believe they'd stay on those AA's for twenty or so days to get the full 100?

I'm pretty sure you see this already and that's why I called you a stooge. Since I have no proof, I'll take it back.

[Ardus]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1330040870' post='2927067']
I hear a lot of whining about increased tech prices. That's good, that is the goal - We do not want to sell tech and help out alliances like those in DH when we disagree with what they use that tech for.[/quote]

We use our tech to defend our friends.

[quote]Deal with it or cry some more, I care not. This is us responding to the call to "do something about it." That DH and friends take such offense means we're doing it right.[/quote]

That doesn't sound very friendly.

[quote]If you want your alliance to be able to purchase our tech, you are free to contact us with an application for our white list.[/quote]

Given your conduct here and in the past, I don't believe such is a worthwhile expenditure of time.

[quote]Yes it is you idiot. Are you being purposely thick now?[/quote]

That's not very friendly.

[quote]Which is why we aren't taking the money. We're giving a refund. God you people are thick.[/quote]

Attempting a refund rather than fulfilling the contract imposes an opportunity cost on the individual on whom you are reneging. This point has already been made clear to you.

[quote]Correct, any other alliance would have been rolled on the spot with minimal scrutiny.[/quote]

Any other alliance would have been politely approached and negotiated with, but frankly I don't care either way.

[quote]Knowing your motivations, it constitutes an act of war from a rogue state, and I will see to it that these are the terms on which violations from MK on our AA are handled from this point forward. Unlike many alliances who claim to be our greater, we do not bend over and take this level of nonsense lightly. This is your one and only warning to not ghost our AA. Because this is apparently necessary to say.[/quote]

Love and tolerance in a nutshell.

The modern notions of mercantilism and central planning of member economies is the height of arrogance. It is tyranny over the individual's right to conduct their economic affairs as they please and economic warfare against embargoed markets. Until now I have politely looked the other way as you and countless others attempt justify the condemnation of your members to poverty and weakness. But this open endorsement of theft is patently absurd. You enslave your people and spite the world.

The ponies of Equestria must be free! Down with Big Sister! Down with the solar autocracy! Only in a free society, a society of self-determination and economic liberty, can the Word of Friendship grow. And I will strike down, with furious vengeance, any who seek to contain its truth.

[magicninja]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1330041074' post='373722']
I really don't like their policy and we're one of the alliances on the buyers list....I figure if an individual nation agrees to a deal it's their responsibility and the alliance as a whole doesn't owe anyone anything but if that nation $%&@s up well that nation pays with their ass and their alliance should accept that. That should be the nice default policy on tech deals.
[/quote]

I'll just leave this here.

[Sir Humphrey]

I am amused to see some DH posters arguing that nations should not be held accountable for their ignorance of OWF announcements such as this one. It is not so long ago that your side was defending the right of NG to hold nations accountable on the basis of its [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105090]OWF announcements[/url].

[nutkase]

I don't believe you could place yourself in any position to consider what is friendly Ardus.

[Ardus]

[quote name='nutkase' timestamp='1330088066' post='2927454']
I don't believe you could place yourself in any position to consider what is friendly Ardus.
[/quote]
You and I have never taken the time to have an extended interaction, so on what basis would you conclude that? I didn't get to where I am by being a jerk.

[Monster]

Good point SirHumphrey, keep twisting the knife! The Northern Expedition shall succeed!

[grahamkeatley]

[quote name='RePePe' timestamp='1330038180' post='2927038']
Just look at the actual language.



It is pretty clear that it is an [b]offer[/b] and that it is clearly marked as to its purpose. The nation has full freedom in accepting it (agreeing to do the deal) or denying it (not agreeing to do the deal).

There's no way around the very clear language. If I use my presidential credit card to order some digital music from my nation's Itoons store, the owner of Itoons, Orange, can't take my money [b]AND[/b] not give me what I bought.
[/quote]

I disagree with this almost completely. We are dealing with new, inexperienced nations here. "3m for 100tech" is not clear at all at first glance that this is a contract that they will be attacked for. If anything that little blurb could be read a multiple ways, one of them being "Here is 3 million dollars for the purchase 100 tech", even in that it does not immediately indicate a sending of the 100 tech, merely what the 3m was for. Now I am not playing dumb, but we must take into account the knowledge of the recipient of an offer when trying to assess whether a shrink wrapped contract is legit. Does a "?" mark at the end of the blurb make it different, if the blurb doesnt specify a time frame... So it is not clear at all what an offer means. From the blurb they aren't stating it is a deal.

Your example is also hugely different... The contract was NOT in you giving your credit card. The contract was initiated by Orange by advertising a product. You then sent an offer for that product (Accepting the contract) and then they would send you the product. If anything your example shows just how backwards and wrong unsolicited offers are.

GK

[ruzihm]

[quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1330051444' post='2927222']
I've never heard of "malicious tech buying" or "abusive tech buying". Perhaps you could explain. More likely, you're just a nutcase.
[/quote]

[quote name='ruzihm' timestamp='1330039784' post='2927054']
The contention is over how these pending aid offers actually occupy foreign aid slots until they are canceled, which can interfere with foreign aid communication among nations across different time zones.

(OOC: There was a suggestion thread for changing this pending slot mechanic but nothing came of it. Edit: [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=78801]here[/url])
[/quote]

The idea is that you clog up foreign aid slots with offers of foreign aid trades that they don't want or need so their allies have to wait for them to come on before they can send their actual, substantial aid trades. So, instead of:


[list=1]
[*]Nation A needs aid/trade.
[*]Nation B offers aid/trade to A.
[*]Nation A accepts aid.
[/list]

you have:

[list=1]
[*]Nation A needs aid/trade.
[*]Nations C-H offer aid/trade to A. This aid/trade would not benefit A as much as B's aid/trade.
[*]Optional: Nation B attempts to offer aid/trade, fails.
[*]Nation A cancels interference aid.
[*]If nations C-H react to step 4 before nation B does, return to step 2.
[*]Nation B offers aid/trade to A.
[*]Nation A accepts aid.
[/list]

I don't know if people actually do this, or if it's even effective. But as far as I can tell, that's the main reason the accept-as-a-donation clause is even in there.

That being said, the policy is very flawed. A clause that says something like "This policy only applies to tech offers under A tech to nations that have under XX tech or monetary offers under $B to nations that have over YY tech" would make it (slightly) less insane. The policy should, at the very least, provide a [b]solid, unambiguous[/b] criteria for distinguishing between "aggressive tech buying" and earnest tech buying.

Edited February 24, 2012 by ruzihm

[mattski133]

i think, after reading this a little more, UE could have simplified things by saying they weren't going to tech deal with Doomhouse anymore.

[HellAngel]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1330028762' post='2926926']
You are just a hypocrite, you stole an AA just because you had enough political support and comes here to talk about principles and sovereignty. I know that most of people here have very short memories but not everyone.
[/quote]

All the freaking time it only was people like you who have absolutely nothing to do with Gre complaining about that. I mean sure, thats a way to look at it. My way to look at it is that we took back an AA from someone who was damaging the very soul of said alliance. I rounded up all the oldschoolers who were still around and, unlike you, ACTUALLY MADE GREMLINS WHAT THEY WERE AND ARE.

The only thing that you can actually fault us for is letting Ramirus into power in the first place, but you mindless posting goons of course dont have enough knowledge about the thing you are complaining about to actually hit the spots that are not utterly ridiculous.

[Unknown Smurf]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1330018875' post='2926780']
Honesty is diplomatic incompetence? I'd say it was more incompetence in leadership than diplomacy. If anyone is being diplomatically incompetent it's the guy who just dumped logs of a private conversation where someone was apologising and owning up to making a really stupid move.
[/quote]

Log dumping is pretty honest.

Ordering nations to ghost another AA and then apologizing for it to said alliance government and telling that alliance they should have attacked the people that ghosted their AA is diplomatic incompetence.

I don't see where you get off arguing the opposite.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='grahamkeatley' timestamp='1330092807' post='2927480']
I disagree with this almost completely. We are dealing with new, inexperienced nations here. "3m for 100tech" is not clear at all at first glance that this is a contract that they will be attacked for. If anything that little blurb could be read a multiple ways, one of them being "Here is 3 million dollars for the purchase 100 tech", even in that it does not immediately indicate a sending of the 100 tech, merely what the 3m was for. Now I am not playing dumb, but we must take into account the knowledge of the recipient of an offer when trying to assess whether a shrink wrapped contract is legit. Does a "?" mark at the end of the blurb make it different, if the blurb doesnt specify a time frame... So it is not clear at all what an offer means. From the blurb they aren't stating it is a deal.

Your example is also hugely different... The contract was NOT in you giving your credit card. The contract was initiated by Orange by advertising a product. You then sent an offer for that product (Accepting the contract) and then they would send you the product. If anything your example shows just how backwards and wrong unsolicited offers are.

GK[/quote]

One of the worst pieces of e-lawyering I've read in a very long time.

Of course if you have experienced people dropping $3 mill on you out of the clear blue sky so you can buy yourself 50 tech to keep, I stand corrected. On the other hand most people who have no clue why someone sent them $3 mill would probably send a message back asking what this is about, particularly new nations for whom $3 mill is the equivalent of someone handing you a briefcase of cash in the street.

But hey, most of us are curious like that.

[quote name='mattski133' timestamp='1330097280' post='2927502']
i think, after reading this a little more, UE could have simplified things by saying they weren't going to tech deal with Doomhouse anymore.[/quote]

If that was their intention, then absolutely. Personally I try to buy my tech from internal sources first, then from allies, and never from pony lover alliances. It is a policy that has served me well.

Edited February 24, 2012 by ChairmanHal

[D34th]

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1330098693' post='2927510']
All the freaking time it only was people like you who have absolutely nothing to do with Gre complaining about that. I mean sure, thats a way to look at it. My way to look at it is that we took back an AA from someone who was damaging the very soul of said alliance. I rounded up all the oldschoolers who were still around and, unlike you, ACTUALLY MADE GREMLINS WHAT THEY WERE AND ARE.

The only thing that you can actually fault us for is letting Ramirus into power in the first place, but you mindless posting goons of course dont have enough knowledge about the thing you are complaining about to actually hit the spots that are not utterly ridiculous.
[/quote]

Your first sentence is already a lie, I'm sure that the previous owners of Grämlins AA before you stole it complained about that, so I'll not even waste my time replying to your poor excuses to justify the pilferage, but I have to say that you should be really angry and without arguments to call my posts "mindless posting goons" I'm still laughing.

Edited February 24, 2012 by D34th

[HellAngel]

I cant remember you having any part in communications with us other than here on this forum. And I am by far the one with the longest alliance seniority. I think you're kidding yourself into thinking that you have a relevance. Of course, delusion is always a comfortable pillow to rest on if you live in happy fairy land.

[D34th]

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1330101987' post='2927547']
I cant remember you having any part in communications with us other than here on this forum. And I am by far the one with the longest alliance seniority. I think you're kidding yourself into thinking that you have a relevance. Of course, delusion is always a comfortable pillow to rest on if you live in happy fairy land.
[/quote]

Oh now you'll play the "You're irrelevant!" game?

[HellAngel]

Please, do enlighten me then. What have you done in cooperation or in opposition to my alliance that is noteworthy?

[D34th]

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1330102259' post='2927551']
Please, do enlighten me then. What have you done in cooperation or in opposition to my alliance that is noteworthy?
[/quote]

I do not cooperate with thieves and robbers and I was opposed to the assault of GRE sovereignty AA since it was announced in OWF, I also made you look like a idiot with your postings calling me a "mindless posting goons" and using "you're irrelevant" arguments.

[HellAngel]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1330102849' post='2927553']
I do not cooperate with thieves and robbers and I was opposed to the assault of GRE sovereignty AA since it was announced in OWF, I also made you look like a idiot with your postings calling me a "mindless posting goons" and using "you're irrelevant" arguments.
[/quote]

Somehow i dont feel like an idiot. But yeah, i thought so. At least you admit to talking out of your arse.

[Unknown Smurf]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1330101388' post='2927540']
One of the worst pieces of e-lawyering I've read in a very long time.

Of course if you have experienced people dropping $3 mill on you out of the clear blue sky so you can buy yourself 50 tech to keep, I stand corrected. On the other hand most people who have no clue why someone sent them $3 mill would probably send a message back asking what this is about, particularly new nations for whom $3 mill is the equivalent of someone handing you a briefcase of cash in the street.

But hey, most of us are curious like that.
[/quote]

Heh, you've never worked finance have you? People just accept the money sent to them without asking all the time.

[Ayatollah Bromeini]

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1330098693' post='2927510']
All the freaking time it only was people like you who have absolutely nothing to do with Gre complaining about that. I mean sure, thats a way to look at it. My way to look at it is that we took back an AA from someone who was damaging the very soul of said alliance. I rounded up all the oldschoolers who were still around and, unlike you, ACTUALLY MADE GREMLINS WHAT THEY WERE AND ARE.

The only thing that you can actually fault us for is letting Ramirus into power in the first place, but you mindless posting goons of course dont have enough knowledge about the thing you are complaining about to actually hit the spots that are not utterly ridiculous.
[/quote]

That's.... not really the point. Deaths original point was that you of all people don't really get to feign moral outrage about someone violating the sanctity of alliance sovereignty.

I'm not defending Ram by any means and I'm not saying what you guys did was wrong, but you can see how this is all sort of silly.

[HellAngel]

I totally understand that, but somehow i just dont follow. We fought for our sovereignty once and we will do it again. I dont see how that is hypocrisy.

Anyway, im out. Everythings been said.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1330106241' post='2927585']
Heh, you've never worked finance have you? People just accept the money sent to them without asking all the time.
[/quote]

Worked as Valhalla's Chancellor before and during the war. Guess our people have their crap together better than I thought...except for trade circles of course. Please don't get me started...most people followed instructions like a well-oiled machine...some, um yeah.