Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 351
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Considering most of those involved in DBDC have been around the block more than once and many have led or governed one of the most successful alliances in CN history. But raiders cannot expect to be treated like it is an actual alliance war. Rogues and raiders people. This is what it comes down to. Frankly, the easiest way to achieve peace is simple. Everyone white peaces out and the only alliance that deserves reps is TDO. All other alliances wanting reps can stick their heads up their own asses. 

 

If there are any alliances that want reps, I would like to know.

 

Are RnR and TPF and IRON and whoever else slightly embarassed that a mongoloid like Tywin is their mouth and face for this, or is that just the sort of level people punch to these days?

 

There aren't words for how I feel about that.

I agree with both Joshuar and Doch (ugh, doesn't feel right).  Peace would be great, except there's no mechanism in place to prevent people from just declaring right afterwards on MQ nations, wherever they reside.  We've attempted to chat about the future with TDO/GOP but the consensus has been "never give up".  It's honorable, sure, but doesn't usually end well.  As for the other hostile AA's, that would all be dependent on TDO as you both said.  We're cool with it either way, obviously.

 

Sup caliph, salajol

 

What alliances that don't want war typically do is try diplomacy for declaring war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, this is all about MQ and to a smaller extent DBDC, not the punitive response, and not myself. None of this would have happened if the mushrooms had acted more responsibly.

 

So is this about Mushqaeda as you first state, or about the Mushroom Kingdom which you imply at the end of your statement?

 

Because they are infact 2 seperate entities 1 which no longer exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Pretty much this in a nutshell. Those "defending" TDO are little more than rogues themselves. Now I am all for hitting whomever you want for whatever reason, but don't attempt to claim some moral high ground when you do the exact same thing as your opponent. I bet some people are wondering why I am defending MQ/DBDC, well I do like many of the nations involved, but mostly I am annoyed at the still continuing hypocrisy and fear that some people show. 

 

If those who are fighting in the neutral coalition stopped claiming some moral superiority over MQ/DBDC, or never started, I would not have posted so damn much. Junka is just so effing annoying right now though. I mean, he has to be trying to top HoT and others as the most pretentious asshole on this forum.

 

We were raiding MQ. I was the first to attack any of them besides TDO defending themselves. I peaced out as a normal raider would. Soon after MQ members decided to nuke back rather than accept peace. Much like every other alliance out there would, we pursued full attacks against them. Our only attacks against anyone on the DBDC AA were those MQ members who ran to there while actively at war with us without reaching a peaceful settlement. DBDC issued some threats, now they're going to wreck a few of our big nations for a round who hide in hippie most wars anyway, we'll continue pursuit of those members we originally were warring with, everybody wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with both Joshuar and Doch (ugh, doesn't feel right).  Peace would be great, except there's no mechanism in place to prevent people from just declaring right afterwards on MQ nations, wherever they reside.  We've attempted to chat about the future with TDO/GOP but the consensus has been "never give up".  It's honorable, sure, but doesn't usually end well.  As for the other hostile AA's, that would all be dependent on TDO as you both said.  We're cool with it either way, obviously.

 

Sup caliph, salajol

 

Hey, you know you love me l0c0... Or at least that is what I thought. :(

 

 

 

We were raiding MQ. I was the first to attack any of them besides TDO defending themselves. I peaced out as a normal raider would. Soon after MQ members decided to nuke back rather than accept peace. Much like every other alliance out there would, we pursued full attacks against them. Our only attacks against anyone on the DBDC AA were those MQ members who ran to there while actively at war with us without reaching a peaceful settlement. DBDC issued some threats, now they're going to wreck a few of our big nations for a round who hide in hippie most wars anyway, we'll continue pursuit of those members we originally were warring with, everybody wins.

 

You realize you raid at your own risk. Most alliances do not actually back up raiders if they choose to raid and get nuked. If y'all raided and got nuked, that is your bad. If those raided decided to join an alliance, then you cease raiding. I have raided and been nuked, and never once did I go and cry to my alliance that I had been nuked. And no alliance I was in decided to pursue the victim afterwards. 

 

Your alliance is doing it wrong if you blame the victim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

We were raiding MQ. I was the first to attack any of them besides TDO defending themselves. I peaced out as a normal raider would. Soon after MQ members decided to nuke back rather than accept peace. Much like every other alliance out there would, we pursued full attacks against them. Our only attacks against anyone on the DBDC AA were those MQ members who ran to there while actively at war with us without reaching a peaceful settlement. DBDC issued some threats, now they're going to wreck a few of our big nations for a round who hide in hippie most wars anyway, we'll continue pursuit of those members we originally were warring with, everybody wins.

Lol sure if you're only planning your alliance's future through November.  If you have any goals beyond that, you're probably going to need those "hippies" you're all too happy to sacrifice.  For the coming weeks, yeah, you can engage whoever you want, kinda like MQ did, but you'll be in the same boat as they are.

 

This is why DBDC is not MQ.  We are good friends with MQ but we are an alliance built for a very focused purpose.

 

 

Just for further information, the only war NATO declared on DBDC was on Lebubu who had just declared two wars on Fark nations.

this sums up why this coalition will fail.  You don't bother to look past why Fark was involved?  Fark hit Infinite Citadel, a nation we explicitly stated was part of DBDC.  We did the diplomatic channels approach, we did the non-military approach, and were ridiculed with the counteroffer of "we will agree to let the wars expire".  

 

Fark hits DBDC, DBDC hits the aggressors, NATO steps into a war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

We were raiding MQ. I was the first to attack any of them besides TDO defending themselves. I peaced out as a normal raider would. Soon after MQ members decided to nuke back rather than accept peace. Much like every other alliance out there would, we pursued full attacks against them. Our only attacks against anyone on the DBDC AA were those MQ members who ran to there while actively at war with us without reaching a peaceful settlement. DBDC issued some threats, now they're going to wreck a few of our big nations for a round who hide in hippie most wars anyway, we'll continue pursuit of those members we originally were warring with, everybody wins.

Considering that even full raiding alliances let people go when they apply to a protected AA, I'm not sure what's the point in playing this card rather than just honestly expressing that you want to continue warring ex-MK nations that you managed to attack first while they were off AA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, everyone involved in this is dirty. MQ/DBDC for hitting TDO. GOP/R&R/TPF/NATO/Fark/whoever the fuck else, for hitting without any treaties to TDO. So, basically everyone involved has gone against convention. Those in the neutral coalition bitching about members of MQ being accepted into DBDC and not getting civil discourse can honestly fuck off. I would hope that should MI6 get any member of MQ or DBDC, we would tell the rest of y'all to fuck off and leave them alone immediately as well. 

 

You don't get to cherry pick how you enter what is basically techraiding on all sides (except for TDO, the only legit victim here) and then claim some list. Fuck off. That is simply ridiculous and quite presumptuous in my opinion. 

 

This is true.  The first rule of tech raiding is you can't whine if your target nukes you back and kicks your ass.  You could just as easily have not attacked them and then you wouldn't have gotten nuked, so its your fault for getting into a bad raid.  What most alliances should do in that situation is tell their raider to peace out and stop being an idiot about raiding.  Funnily enough, I remember back when alliances were badmouthed for sending more attacks on raid targets who were fighting back.  My how times change.

 

 

Nominating
this quote for stupidest comment of the year. The entire point of
declaring our guidelines and positions in the opening of this thread was
to incite a fruitful civil discourse regarding why we think certain
members of DBDC do NOT deserve to be openly declared on as if we would
do nothing. We actually haven't made any threats, just very clear
indications of what will happen if you break rules. This is FAR FAR more
than TPF, NATO, RnR have done regarding their stance on why they are
even involved in this altercation TO begin with. None of these targets,
including mushqaeda are "fair game" any more so than the TPF and NATO
nations who declared literally after we started the "civil dialogue"
with a declaration of "deal with it".

It is being dealt with.

 


Factual and true.

 

if they refuse to speak to you after you attempt to talk to them, you need to do what you said you would do so they know you are serious. 

 

The only victim here is TDO.  A neutral with no treaties who a coalition of white knights are attempting to white knight for, or they just really hate MK that bad and want to attack all former MK members they can, in which case I can't say I agree with that either and nobody should be shocked when people who are being hunted down respond with nukes and attacks.

 

This whole situation is stupid and pointless, and it largely falls on TPF, NATO, and that lot who keep antagonizing DBDC and former MK members.  We could all unite to fight the real enemies but it seems too many people would rather fight DBDC instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol sure if you're only planning your alliance's future through November.  If you have any goals beyond that, you're probably going to need those "hippies" you're all too happy to sacrifice.  For the coming weeks, yeah, you can engage whoever you want, kinda like MQ did, but you'll be in the same boat as they are.

 

This is why DBDC is not MQ.  We are good friends with MQ but we are an alliance built for a very focused purpose.

 

 

this sums up why this coalition will fail.  You don't bother to look past why Fark was involved?  Fark hit Infinite Citadel, a nation we explicitly stated was part of DBDC.  We did the diplomatic channels approach, we did the non-military approach, and were ridiculed with the counteroffer of "we will agree to let the wars expire".  

 

Fark hits DBDC, DBDC hits the aggressors, NATO steps into a war.

 

And yet their continues to be no DBDC declaration of war on Fark. If your quarrel is with Fark, perhaps you should speak to us about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
this sums up why this coalition will fail.  You don't bother to look past why Fark was involved?  Fark hit Infinite Citadel, a nation we explicitly stated was part of DBDC.  We did the diplomatic channels approach, we did the non-military approach, and were ridiculed with the counteroffer of "we will agree to let the wars expire".  
 
Fark hits DBDC, DBDC hits the aggressors, NATO steps into a war.


Yeah I guess that's why you recognized hostilities with Fark along with TPF and NATO.

Those Fark nations were just picking up the stagger on IC and you decided to let him in your AA. I don't think anyone followed Lebubu to DBDC but he became fair game again when he re-engaged.

In my opinion of course, you are welcome to yours and the accompanying fireworks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet their continues to be no DBDC declaration of war on Fark. If your quarrel is with Fark, perhaps you should speak to us about it.

 

If you want to get technical, it would be a recognition of war since Fark is the one who failed to DoW DBDC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to get technical, it would be a recognition of war since Fark is the one who failed to DoW DBDC. 

DBDC didn't exist as anything more than three super tier nations who split off from various alliances during the last big war until MQ nations started fleeing the aa. DBDC knows where to find us if they desire peace and diplomacy.

Edited by Mr Vicarious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DBDC didn't exist as an alliance when those wars were declared. This handy DoE solves that issue.

 

False, DBDC DoE'd during the eQ war. Which means that it did exist as an alliance prior to those wars being declared and in fact, iirc, had/has a treaty with LPH. Just because y'all failed to do the tiniest bit of research does not mean you are cleared. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lol'd at people thinking that anyone outside of TTE/GOP entered this war for any reason resembling "moralism" or "the defense of TDO."

Shows how much you really know.

 

So you hit because you could. Wasn't your alliance one of those who fought against people who did the same thing? So again, the "oppressed" are basically nothing better than the "oppressors". Good to see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

False, DBDC DoE'd during the eQ war. Which means that it did exist as an alliance prior to those wars being declared and in fact, iirc, had/has a treaty with LPH. Just because y'all failed to do the tiniest bit of research does not mean you are cleared. 

 

If one was to delve into the matter further they would find no nation in DBDC was there since EQ ended.

 

So you hit because you could. Wasn't your alliance one of those who fought against people who did the same thing? So again, the "oppressed" are basically nothing better than the "oppressors". Good to see. 

 

Hitting rogues and the worse of bob is not being an oppressor. 

Edited by Commander shepard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one was to delve into the matter further they would find no nation in DBDC was there since EQ ended.

 

 

Hitting rogues and the worse of bob is not being an oppressor. 

 

No, hitting rogues that hit your alliance or an ally is one thing. Hitting rogues who hit no one remotely allied to you is another. Not to mention, the worst of bob... Really? I can think of many nations/alliances who are worst. Though, we probably have different interpretations of what is considered bad. So we will leave that at we will most likely never agree on who is the worst. 

 

As for DBDC, have you kept track every single day? Because I distinctly remember trying to poach tayloj both prior to and after eQ. At which time, he sat on the DBDC AA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, hitting rogues that hit your alliance or an ally is one thing. Hitting rogues who hit no one remotely allied to you is another. Not to mention, the worst of bob... Really? I can think of many nations/alliances who are worst. Though, we probably have different interpretations of what is considered bad. So we will leave that at we will most likely never agree on who is the worst. 

 

As for DBDC, have you kept track every single day? Because I distinctly remember trying to poach tayloj both prior to and after eQ. At which time, he sat on the DBDC AA.

Not to mention attacking their tech dealers and MK people who were off AA but not doing roguing. It's pretty pointless to hide behind the rogue excuse when they clearly even hit unprotected MK people who weren't doing any fighitng. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

False, DBDC DoE'd during the eQ war. Which means that it did exist as an alliance prior to those wars being declared and in fact, iirc, had/has a treaty with LPH. Just because y'all failed to do the tiniest bit of research does not mean you are cleared. 

 

You seem to be under the impression that DBDC's state of existence somehow changes the situation in our eyes. You also seem to be assuming that we are somehow upset about the current situation and want it to change. Let me disabuse you of those opinions, as neither are true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for DBDC, have you kept track every single day? Because I distinctly remember trying to poach tayloj both prior to and after eQ. At which time, he sat on the DBDC AA.

 

One would only need to look at his seniority to see he was not there since EQ ended.

He only rejoined the AA 3 months back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TPF, NATO and others had no business to do with MQ besides taking a cheap shot on them, what they missed last war. You give them a fight before they quit, in exchange you get your revenge. You could have gone away with it.

 

Attacking nations on DBDC AA wasn't a bright idea, i really don't get why you couldn't let them peace out and let them delete/head to another alliance, none of them declared on you before you attacked them. Now before a long waited great war your nice plans will be ruined because your top tier will be gone, i'm not sure it's really worth to attack some nations who were fighting neutrals.

 

My favorite part is where you accused people of taking a "cheap shot" at MQ.  Don't forget to breathe, buddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DBDC accepts nations who are getting hit by other alliances, then cries fowl when people do not let up on said nations.

Isn't it a widely accepted rule that just because a rogue is granted admittance by another alliance, the alliance rolling said rogues is not forced to back off? DBDC can try to negotiate a peace for their new member, but there is zero obligation on the attackers to let the rogues go. This is CN 101 here. Just because you admit our targets does not mean they're no longer targets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...