Acts of Terrorism

[Icewolf]

Are we still holding to the notion that NPO of the current is the same as NPO of 2008?
 
Can you also explain why an alliance that finds raiding distasteful would sign a high level treaty with a raiding alliance?

IRON's opinion on raiding is that it is uneconomical. It considers that it does not want to take the risks involved for the limited economic benefit.

Across the membership opinion is divided on the ethics of raiding, just like opinion is divided on everything from the morality of cake vs pie to the highest level of CN political theory. It is an alliance of well over 300 so opinion is divided on every single subject.

Some members dislike raiding, others are indifferent, others would like to do it but recognise that alliance policy on this issue is that it is not good for IRON.

We have treaties with alliances that raid and with alliances that do not. No alliance we are treatied with bravely supports the lives of the unaligned in open combat, and neither do we. Thats life. Edited August 3, 2014 by Icewolf

[TBRaiders]

You've allied every single alliance with a presence in the top 250. I saw this coming a few weeks back, and I'm sure you did as well. When the entire top 250 consists of neutrals, DBDC, DBDC allies, and 2-3 people per alliance, you're going to have a gridlock. However that is 100% your doing. Although you're not going to completely fix that problem by hitting Pax, as you chose the smallest of the three major neutrals. In about 6 months they'll be right back, and this is no long term solution. You simply won't be able to beat down enough nations out of the top 250 to actually change anything.

 

Apparently it's not common knowledge but me and Schatt are very opinionated and always have been. Neither of us are government, and accepting our criticisms of DBDC as an official NpO response is not only ignorant of realities, but also tedious because I'll have to point this out again - I don't speak for the NpO.

 

Doesn't matter what alliance I am in, this would be my response regardless. If a common member speaking against DBDC constitutes an alliance wide policy, so be it.

 

Not completely true.  We aren't allied to you or any of your allies.  

 

We are not trying to fix any problem by hitting Pax, nor do any of you know what we are trying to accomplish beyond your own speculation.  We did not send them peace offers nor did we post a DoW.  It's not a raid and its not a war; it's a clash.  We have not disrespected them or trash talked them.  Neutrals will be the first to tell you that just because they choose to not involve themselves in politics doesn't mean they won't war.  We attacked a sanctioned alliance who has over 100 members, with 35 of them at 100K NS or above.  We didn't put together a coalition or strum up a fake CB to hit them.  Had they asked for peace, they would have received it.  If they send nukes (which they did), we send them back.   This will not be a long conflict nor will we walk away with malice when it ends.  Our detractors may disparage us, but our allies will still be our allies and those who hate us will stay hate us when they should rejoice that we are willingly damaging our nations.

 

[ooc] This is an alliance IC forum and we will take all things said in this forum to be IC replies from that alliance.  It is not up to us to decide the posting rules your alliance has for its members, but it is up to us to decide how we will react to those posts.  While you may not be government, the fact you are still a member of that alliance and continue to make similar posts in each new thread suggests your government approves of those posts.  I appreciate you both as players and think you bring great energy to these debates.  We will do the same both in this forum and on the ground of Bob.[/ooc]

[Stewie]

You'll end me, huh? Interesting concept. However, quite an uncivilized response to you being proven wrong, although entirely expected.

Where have I been proven wrong? I was aMoFA of GPA for months. I was one of few approved GPA non-leadership members allowed to post in the IC areas of the OWF in order to maintain neutrality.

I KNOW what neutrality is. I get it. But being neutral, doesn't give you some allarchon forsaken right to not be hit by alliances. If it did then Mushqaeda or Woodstock Massacre or half a dozen other neutral wars would have been fought against more.

Neutrals are great rallying cries though for future wars "oh no look waht they're doing to these poor defenseless neutrals" (see past wars against NPO with WM being cited for reasons for war)

Pax are showing that not all neutrals are defenseless. GPA definitely are not defenseless, nor are WTF. The fact that Yevgeni had to delete to get away from GPA's counter was hilarious.

The neutrality that the likes of PAX and GPA have is hard neutrality. It's a case of you leave us to our own things and we won't hit you with this pointed stick. Will PAX lose hard neutrality post war? We shall see. But I doubt it. It's ingrained in their entire being. It makes them who they are.


So don't tell me I don't know about neutrality. I've spent the majority of my life on Bob as a neutral.

[Williambonney]

100 tech for the person that finds me a thread that DOESN'T end up about being about NPO.
:smug:

Also, looking at DT's war screens I see no active wars? :blink:

[REGHAR73]

Time to mash some pixels.

 

I don't see what the fuss is about other than DBDC raided Pax all mass - Pax defended itself.

 

If other AA's want to send good wishes or hate mail it is fine but this shouldn't turn into (another) reason for an excuse for a global conflict.

With sanction comes the risk of this stuff. DBDC want to fight, it's no biggie.

 

They organised themselves well, hitting our top tier and running into their high NS Cloud. These wars will expire, it will be all over and then business as usual. Bit disspointed I can't hit some targets so some of you would be kind enough to drop down a bit so I can fill slots that would be great!!

 

I am just looking forward to mashing as much pixel as possible. Enjoy the green cloud and the death screams of your pixels DBDC :P

 

White Chocolate you are awesome!! gonna enjoy this war.

 

Bring the Pain DBDC.....

[Samus]

 

Can you also explain why an alliance that finds raiding distasteful would sign a high level treaty with a raiding alliance?

 

Probably more has to do with the friendship we've spurred, than their alliances morales.

 

Also ODP = high level treaty?

[Stewie]

Probably more has to do with the friendship we've spurred, than their alliances morales.
 
Also ODP = high level treaty?

IRON has many treaties (past and present) with pro-raiding alliances...

I really don't get where he's coming from this this one... Edited August 3, 2014 by Stewie

[RevolutionaryRebel]

If Pax is Doing Something About It(tm), props to them. Neutrality is a gamble by nature, but if you have the muscle to defend that neutrality when it is under threat - without relying on public goodwill and 'morality' (let's be honest, morality in CN is and always has been a fallacy), props to you.

Edited August 3, 2014 by RevolutionaryRebel

[Starfox101]

 

Not completely true.  We aren't allied to you or any of your allies.  

 

We are not trying to fix any problem by hitting Pax, nor do any of you know what we are trying to accomplish beyond your own speculation.  We did not send them peace offers nor did we post a DoW.  It's not a raid and its not a war; it's a clash.  We have not disrespected them or trash talked them.  Neutrals will be the first to tell you that just because they choose to not involve themselves in politics doesn't mean they won't war.  We attacked a sanctioned alliance who has over 100 members, with 35 of them at 100K NS or above.  We didn't put together a coalition or strum up a fake CB to hit them.  Had they asked for peace, they would have received it.  If they send nukes (which they did), we send them back.   This will not be a long conflict nor will we walk away with malice when it ends.  Our detractors may disparage us, but our allies will still be our allies and those who hate us will stay hate us when they should rejoice that we are willingly damaging our nations.

 

[ooc] This is an alliance IC forum and we will take all things said in this forum to be IC replies from that alliance.  It is not up to us to decide the posting rules your alliance has for its members, but it is up to us to decide how we will react to those posts.  While you may not be government, the fact you are still a member of that alliance and continue to make similar posts in each new thread suggests your government approves of those posts.  I appreciate you both as players and think you bring great energy to these debates.  We will do the same both in this forum and on the ground of Bob.[/ooc]

Well then, I'd love to hear what this reasoning is. Certainly there has to be a justification other than boredom - but with modern CN, who knows.

 

I wouldn't say they approve of my posts, either. I'd go more along the lines of tolerates. I've been in many, many alliances in CN, and have always been outspoken. I've caused more headaches for leadership than you can imagine, hence why I've historically avoided large alliances and stuck to being small alliance government. More freedom. But if you wish to take my opinion as Polar opinion, it's simply wrong. The problem I've historically had with policies like that is that it discourages a great number of people from participating in debates out of fear for their alliance, or fear of their own opinion in their governments eyes. Like it or not, you are a powerful alliance and have half of CN eating out of the palm of your hand. If you encourage a policy of attacking the upper tier of alliances who have regular members who speak, you're going to very quickly have threads that are all praise and Tywinn. If that's what you want - fine, just don't complain when all these threads are incredibly dull and tedious.

 

Where have I been proven wrong? I was aMoFA of GPA for months. I was one of few approved GPA non-leadership members allowed to post in the IC areas of the OWF in order to maintain neutrality.

I KNOW what neutrality is. I get it. But being neutral, doesn't give you some allarchon forsaken right to not be hit by alliances. If it did then Mushqaeda or Woodstock Massacre or half a dozen other neutral wars would have been fought against more.

Neutrals are great rallying cries though for future wars "oh no look waht they're doing to these poor defenseless neutrals" (see past wars against NPO with WM being cited for reasons for war)

Pax are showing that not all neutrals are defenseless. GPA definitely are not defenseless, nor are WTF. The fact that Yevgeni had to delete to get away from GPA's counter was hilarious.

The neutrality that the likes of PAX and GPA have is hard neutrality. It's a case of you leave us to our own things and we won't hit you with this pointed stick. Will PAX lose hard neutrality post war? We shall see. But I doubt it. It's ingrained in their entire being. It makes them who they are.


So don't tell me I don't know about neutrality. I've spent the majority of my life on Bob as a neutral.

I was referring to the fact that you were continually speaking about TOP being allied to DBDC.

 

And please stop pretending the GPA trip was anything real. Like I stated earlier, it was nothing more than a sham.

 

100 tech for the person that finds me a thread that DOESN'T end up about being about NPO.
:smug:
 

That's simply not possible, my friend. ;)

 

Probably more has to do with the friendship we've spurred, than their alliances morales.

 

Also ODP = high level treaty?

You have it listed as an ODoAP, if it isn't, my apologies for not cross-checking. Also, you have even in this thread hinted that DBDC would be defended if someone made a move. If you're going to sit here and try and convince me that you aren't allies, you need to do a better job than this.

 

I guess alliance morals no longer factor into decision making. I guarantee a great majority of your alliance has no friendship with DBDC. I guess I am just a relic of times past when an alliance's actions constituted whether you should be friends with them.

[Icewolf]

Well then, I'd love to hear what this reasoning is. Certainly there has to be a justification other than boredom - but with modern CN, who knows.
 
I wouldn't say they approve of my posts, either. I'd go more along the lines of tolerates. I've been in many, many alliances in CN, and have always been outspoken. I've caused more headaches for leadership than you can imagine, hence why I've historically avoided large alliances and stuck to being small alliance government. More freedom. But if you wish to take my opinion as Polar opinion, it's simply wrong. The problem I've historically had with policies like that is that it discourages a great number of people from participating in debates out of fear for their alliance, or fear of their own opinion in their governments eyes. Like it or not, you are a powerful alliance and have half of CN eating out of the palm of your hand. If you encourage a policy of attacking the upper tier of alliances who have regular members who speak, you're going to very quickly have threads that are all praise and Tywinn. If that's what you want - fine, just don't complain when all these threads are incredibly dull and tedious.
 
I was referring to the fact that you were continually speaking about TOP being allied to DBDC.
 
And please stop pretending the GPA trip was anything real. Like I stated earlier, it was nothing more than a sham.
 
That's simply not possible, my friend. ;)

 
You have it listed as an ODoAP, if it isn't, my apologies for not cross-checking. Also, you have even in this thread hinted that DBDC would be defended if someone made a move. If you're going to sit here and try and convince me that you aren't allies, you need to do a better job than this.
 
I guess alliance morals no longer factor into decision making. I guarantee a great majority of your alliance has no friendship with DBDC. I guess I am just a relic of times past when an alliance's actions constituted whether you should be friends with them.

I like the part where you imply that you know IRON members better than other IRON members.

[Samus]

I like the part where you imply that you know IRON members better than other IRON members.

I like it too.

[RevolutionaryRebel]

Also; shame on all the members of 'Real Alliances', that put up with this for so long yet it's only PC that has the audacity to go balls to the wall. Hopefully.

 

The irony is that some of those that offer words of encouragement have been feeding this behaviour in their cowardice for some time.

[Charles the Tyrant]

Hopefully this will show the neutrals the error of their ways and encourage them to become more involved with the diplomatic landscape.

[RevolutionaryRebel]

Hopefully this will show the neutrals the error of their ways and encourage them to become more involved with the diplomatic landscape.

I really, really hope this is sarcastic.

[Charles the Tyrant]

I really, really hope this is sarcastic.

 

A declaration of neutrality is no defence so why be neutral at all?

[RevolutionaryRebel]

A declaration of neutrality is no defence so why be neutral at all?

Evidently you are not one of the numerous high-tier nations in non-neutral AAs that have been visited by DBDC. Nice defending there, buddies.

Don't worry, there are plenty of other people you can grandstand with while this happens.

Edited August 3, 2014 by RevolutionaryRebel

[Auctor]

Evidently you are not one of the numerous high-tier nations in non-neutral AAs that have been visited by DBDC. Nice defending there, buddies.

Don't worry, there are plenty of other people you can grandstand with while this happens.

So what you are saying is there are a lot of people out there with a revenge motive against DBDC?

[iamthey]

The contrast between the response to musqueda and this is pretty funny.

GL pecs mates.

[The Pansy]

So what you are saying is there are a lot of people out there with a revenge motive against DBDC?

Eh, I more think it's they want someone to do the heavy lifting for them, and I'm sure having some tech heavy Neutrals making a start is nice for their agenda. I doubt anyone will follow it up though.

[Charles the Tyrant]

Evidently you are not one of the numerous high-tier nations in non-neutral AAs that have been visited by DBDC. Nice defending there, buddies.

Don't worry, there are plenty of other people you can grandstand with while this happens.

 

If Pax Corvus had been more involved within the treaty web this event perhaps would not have happened although considering the recent raid on Polar that can be disputed. I am not grandstanding, hollering or whatever it is you think I am doing. The simple fact of the matter is if you declare yourself neutral and create no binding defence treaties with any other alliances then an alliance possessing the culture found within DBDC is inevitably going to raid you.Every other alliance knows this and has either implemented or is still seeking to implement a plan of action or diplomatic policy which will remedy this. If being neutral provides no defence against being raided then surely the members of these neutral alliances must question the whole point of being neutral in the first place because the primary reason for most people to even be within an alliance is for protection and security.

Edited August 3, 2014 by Charles the Tyrant

[Stewie]

And please stop pretending the GPA trip was anything real. Like I stated earlier, it was nothing more than a sham.

If I hadn't left GPA when I did I was going to be nominated for MoFA the following week. It was not some short term trip for me. I had intended to retire from CN in GPA. The loss of Tito changed my plans. I do intend to return to GPA one day, as I promised prob, Kurd and dragonshy when I left.

[REGHAR73]

 

If Pax Corvus had been more involved within the treaty web this event perhaps would not have happened although considering the recent raid on Polar that can be disputed. I am not grandstanding, hollering or whatever it is you think I am doing. The simple fact of the matter is if you declare yourself neutral and create no binding defence treaties with any other alliances then an alliance possessing the culture found within DBDC is inevitably going to raid you.Every other alliance knows this and has either implemented or is still seeking to implement a plan of action or diplomatic policy which will remedy this. If being neutral provides no defence against being raided then surely the members of these neutral alliances must question the whole point of being neutral in the first place because the primary reason for most people to even be within an alliance is for protection and security.

 

Maybe Pax Corvus knows this can happen but has the balls to stand on it's own two rather than hiding behind others ....

 

My personal opinion for what its worth.

[Starfox101]

 

Maybe Pax Corvus knows this can happen but has the balls to stand on it's own two rather than hiding behind others ....

 

My personal opinion for what its worth.

So you're implying all non-neutrals don't have the balls to stand alone?

 

That's rich.

[REGHAR73]

So you're implying all non-neutrals don't have the balls to stand alone?

 

That's ric

Funny . don't think i said that - i tend not to imply. You can try and insert words to create drama if you wish, however it seems to have struck a nerve with you.

[RevolutionaryRebel]

So what you are saying is there are a lot of people out there with a revenge motive against DBDC?

Possibly, but since they aren't anything like the sinking ship MQ was, I highly doubt anyone of significance will use it right now. Even with the 'will somebody please think of the neutrals' faux morality factor.

Pretty much what I suggested when that happened, too. I love it with these eggheads when I 'win'.