Unknown Smurf Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 (edited) Kaskus unfortunately has no ability to protects its PoWs and Die Linke apparently has plans to attack them. In this situation, how do you think an alliance in our position would best protect our PoWs? We have allowed them to move on, but another wants to join our alliance. But of course that probably will not be enough because they are being threatened. [ooc]Original message is in spoilers because it is unrelated [spoiler]To: the granat republic From: Unknown Smurf Date: 11/8/2013 11:55:43 AM Subject: Apologies! Message: Sorry I was unable to get on last night. I was devestated by the Redskins loss and proceeded to get black out drunk and completely forget about CN. I apologize for any casualties you may have missed out on due to this. [/spoiler] [/ooc] To: Unknown Smurf From: WitBlitz Date: 11/10/2013 12:28:37 AM Subject: RE: Apologies!Message: Cheers sure - Switched alliances -the old one had no co-ordination or structure - hence why big players sent elsewhere..tks To: WitBlitz From: Unknown Smurf Date: 11/10/2013 1:04:33 AMSubject: RE: Apologies!Message: You want to fight for us? You must understand that while I love that you want to do that I am suspicious of your intentions .. No offense but I cannot tell you sensitive material because of your history; at least not for the duration of this war. If you just wish to end war then we can put you on a prisoner of war AA. If that is not what you wish then I can definitely hook you up with a fire team.I believe you have no money. Is that correct? I am curious as to how alliances have protected their POWs in the past and how you would recommend we best protect them. Also do you believe accepting a defector is unethical? EDIT: Proof LSF has plans to hit a POW: <UnknownSmurf> Why do you need SL? <Piley> about someone who surrendered to kaskus <Piley> http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=392025 <Piley> I was going to attack him but turns out his slots are full <Piley> :( - >>>>>HOSTMASKREMOVED<<<<<<< Piley on #lsf Piley using frozen.coldfront.net Welcome to Coldfront! Piley End of /WHOIS list. - <UnknownSmurf> Attacking a POW is one of the highiest war crimes. <Piley> no no no <Piley> one of your men surrendered to kaskus <Piley> around here we shoot traitors ;) <Piley> kaskus pending <UnknownSmurf> I am in Kaskus. <Piley> LOL <UnknownSmurf> I was just asking why you wanted SL. <Piley> This man is a traitor and will be shot <UnknownSmurf> Are you LSF govt? <Piley> LSF has no goverment <snip> Edited November 10, 2013 by Unknown Smurf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 If it was one of their own that defected, let them waste their resources dealing with him (most people round up their deserters after the war instead). Otherwise those resources would be turned on your Kaskus alliancemates. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted November 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 (edited) If it was one of their own that defected, let them waste their resources dealing with him (most people round up their deserters after the war instead). Otherwise those resources would be turned on your Kaskus alliancemates. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. It was a SL guy that surrendered; and LSF that is talking about attacking him. EDIT: Also it makes other surrenders less likely to surrender if they are going to be hit just as hard if they do surrender. Surrendering is a means to exit war, is it not? Edited November 10, 2013 by Unknown Smurf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurnipCruncher Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 (edited) This war has no rules apparently. But he deserves to be wacked for surrendering outside of his AA. Edited November 10, 2013 by TurnipCruncher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 It was a SL guy that surrendered; and LSF that is talking about attacking him. EDIT: Also it makes other surrenders less likely to surrender if they are going to be hit just as hard if they do surrender. Surrendering is a means to exit war, is it not?So you'll have to find another way to win the war you started then. You can't rely on people surrendering to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Craig Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 (edited) It seems to me that this is a completely valid strategy. If you can't defend the defectors, perhaps they shouldn't be defecting.POW camps -- created by an alliance to house their prisoners -- are artificial constructs of the alliance that created them. *You* gave your word to protect people from attack if they surrendered and changed their AA. It is your obligation to enforce your arbitrary creation.-Craigtl;dr: Cowards get what cowards deserve. No sympathy for deserters. Edited November 10, 2013 by Comrade Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirWilliam Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 I'd argue that defectors aren't worth the effort in the first place. Personally I'd rather conserve resources for those that matter - ie, my members and allies. Way I see it you're just giving them an out for one situation. That out though may be rife with risks of its own (in this case retaliation by the enemy). Other than recommitting your resources to his defense - or assisting him with finding a home that can more safely harbor him - there's not much you can really do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 You have a senator sanctioning LSF nations on pink but have the audacity to post another thread whining about how you couldn't protect defecting scum from the consequences of their actions. Why must [i]everything[/i] your alliance does have to be so fucking awful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted November 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 You have a senator sanctioning LSF nations on pink but have the audacity to post another thread whining about how you couldn't protect defecting scum from the consequences of their actions. Why must everything your alliance does have to be so fucking awful? Your alliance was sanctioning us last war; you really don't have room to whine about that. And it was SWF that was sanctioned I believe; not 100% sure. Regardless noone in Kaskus govt authorized that sanction, but we're just not going to punish anyone for it. Just like your old alliance and all of SLs allies that are currently at war with us did in the last war. Get off your high horse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted November 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 (edited) It seems to me that this is a completely valid strategy. If you can't defend the defectors, perhaps they shouldn't be defecting. POW camps -- created by an alliance to house their prisoners -- are artificial constructs of the alliance that created them. *You* gave your word to protect people from attack if they surrendered and changed their AA. It is your obligation to enforce your arbitrary creation. -Craigtl;dr: Cowards get what cowards deserve. No sympathy for deserters. Overall I have to agree with your point but what about allowing defectors/PoWs to join a neutral AA (or any AA that isn't at war). Would you consider that a valid protection of those nation(s)? I'd argue that defectors aren't worth the effort in the first place. Personally I'd rather conserve resources for those that matter - ie, my members and allies. Way I see it you're just giving them an out for one situation. That out though may be rife with risks of its own (in this case retaliation by the enemy). Other than recommitting your resources to his defense - or assisting him with finding a home that can more safely harbor him - there's not much you can really do. To a certain degree I would have to agree with you but in this situation we would actually be able to use him more effectively then he is currently being utilized by SL. He does have nukes, but no money. We could peace out our wars with him and since he has no offensive ones, he could slip in PM. We could aid bomb him, he builds up nukes/comes out prepared for war. Being blindsided he hasn't been able to do much. EDIT: What I mean to say is that defectors/POWs usually aren't worth the effort, but in this particular instance I would argue that he is. So you'll have to find another way to win the war you started then. You can't rely on people surrendering to you. While I understand your logic; I meant to pose the question in a broader sense. How can anyone protect their POWs? Even if someone is outnumbered, they could hypothetically attack POWs. If I recall correctly Legion did it in the Legion/Tetris war despite being outnumbered. Edited November 10, 2013 by Unknown Smurf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manis B Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 attacking a pow makes you a coward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 While I understand your logic; I meant to pose the question in a broader sense. How can anyone protect their POWs? Even if someone is outnumbered, they could hypothetically attack POWs. If I recall correctly Legion did it in the Legion/Tetris war despite being outnumbered.How can anyone protect their own affiliation let alone a second they create?Also, Legion didn't attack any POWs in that war - but if they had of, if they wanted to attack their former members, I would have given them the thumbs up. Again, that's resources being directed away from the war effort. If you don't have the ability to put the effort to protect the defectors from the alliance they're defecting from then don't accept their surrender or send them off to some other alliance (and hope they don't come back).If some other entirely unaffiliated or involved alliance came along attacking said POWs, then I'd agree with Manis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xanth Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 We promise pows safety from attacks from our side only. If their own side wants to attack them then by all means let's let them waste their own time on their own traitors. Attacking a pow in the middle of a war is pretty pathetic though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Maybe you guys should be less obsessed with collecting scalps then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Your alliance was sanctioning us last war; you really don't have room to whine about that. And it was SWF that was sanctioned I believe; not 100% sure. Regardless noone in Kaskus govt authorized that sanction, but we're just not going to punish anyone for it. Just like your old alliance and all of SLs allies that are currently at war with us did in the last war. Get off your high horse. I don't care what you do but I think it's hilarious that you're trying to play both sides of the field. You want the benefits of being able to be the "bad guys" and sanction at will, but you also want to be persecuted and win the PR battle by having mean ol' commies pick on you. It's rubbish and not a single person here buys it. If you can't take the heat, stop starting stupid wars over nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewHG Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Waste of war slots/wrong priorities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 I just re-read. Holy shit, you made the thread after Piley said "lol we're gonna hit them". You have WitBlitz' slots full anyway so he couldn't even if he wanted to. Just wow. Please disband tia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anarquista Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 To a certain degree I would have to agree with you but in this situation we would actually be able to use him more effectively then he is currently being utilized by SL. He does have nukes, but no money. We could peace out our wars with him and since he has no offensive ones, he could slip in PM. We could aid bomb him, he builds up nukes/comes out prepared for war. Being blindsided he hasn't been able to do much. EDIT: What I mean to say is that defectors/POWs usually aren't worth the effort, but in this particular instance I would argue that he is. what exactly is your question? are you protecting POWs which should remain out of the conflict for the duration, or traitors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted November 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 what exactly is your question? are you protecting POWs which should remain out of the conflict for the duration, or traitors? Two separate questions. One for each situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaoshawk Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 You are better off just telling these PoWs to just join another alliance, if you cannot prevent them from being attacked and do not desire them being destroyed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabcat Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 He doesn't care what happens to the POW's in the slightest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walshington Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Maybe you guys should be less obsessed with collecting scalps then Not certain I get the reference, Ogaden. Are you saying Kaskus should not accept surrenders, or not try to encourage them? Or that they shouldn't accept surrenders if they can't protect them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabcat Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 They'd probably do better if they didn't start wars without checking whether the alliance they're attacking has more than one ally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehmina Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Your alliance was sanctioning us last war; you really don't have room to whine about that. And it was SWF that was sanctioned I believe; not 100% sure. Regardless noone in Kaskus govt authorized that sanction, but we're just not going to punish anyone for it. Just like your old alliance and all of SLs allies that are currently at war with us did in the last war. Get off your high horse. 1 SWF and a few LSF nations. SPTR are allied to you and apparently kaskus asked bones to impose sanctions. I claim this because their is no other logical explanation to the series of events i have witnessed. Before war, pink sphere was peaceful. Just after the DoW by Die Linke in defence of SL, a pink senator sanctions Die linke nations. Then that senator moves to Kaskus AA and gets accepted (BONES is also involved in your Aid Bombing program). After this, you want us to buy your 'not authorized by Kaskus govt' theory Smurf? And what about those rape-joke messages your nations are circulating? Its rather funny that kaskus started this moral-discussion thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehmina Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 (edited) Secondly, you had asked the nation concerned to join the Kaskus AA and not a second AA created solely for PoWs, which is not conventional. This makes me doubt whether the nation was actually a PoW or a defector/side switcher who kaskus planned to use as a pawn against our combined forces by 'aid bombing' him as you had suggested in your subsequent posts. Edited November 10, 2013 by Ronjoy Sholokhov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.