Acts of Terrorism

[Stewie]

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

Actually I completely agree with that. It's why wars are now fought by overwhelming numbers.

[RevolutionaryRebel]

If Pax Corvus had been more involved within the treaty web this event perhaps would not have happened

It would have happened regardless. The decisions of Pax Corvus to 'Do Something' has absolutely nothing to do with the web. Neutrals have been 'raided' by DBDC without defending themselves in full. Non-neutrals have also been 'raided' by DBDC without defending themselves in full. DBDC does its thing regardless, it's how alliances react that matters.

 

Pax Corvus is trying to buck the trend here. I respect that conscious decision far more than when folks made MQ's LUEcide into an anti-MK circlejerk. MQ had no* friends. DBDC has many big ones. Power and survival enslaves morality. Politics.

*Besides Rey and several others, but that's pretty irrelevant

[Garion]

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

The contrast between Mushqaeda's piss-poor attempt and the reality DBDC has become is pretty funny.

[Chimaera]

Oh good, Planet Bob's 'Do Something About It' group seems to have clustered together very nicely.

[berbers]

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

GL pecs mates.

 

There was a specific reason people hit Mq that doesn't apply in this situation, and it has nothing to do with Nation Strength :P

 

Also during Mq, DBDC was actually hit with offensive wars, which iirc hasn't happened since because everyone is too scurred.  

 

Kind of like TOP, when you know, UPN got hit by DBDC in Disorder and you guys sat around with your thumbs up your butts and didn't do anything :/

 

Or kind of like how TOP signed an NAP with DBDC so they had an excuse not to defend their MD allies *cough* Polar *cough*

 

And now back on topic, good luck DBDC, I love you guys and your problem solving abilities :D

Edited August 3, 2014 by berbers

[Garion]

Oh good, Planet Bob's 'Do Something About It' group seems to have clustered together very nicely.

On both sides of the debate :P

[Crownguard]

As a newer*, please inform me how protecting neutrals is a moral position.  As far as I see it, these nations are not defenseless, they have no treaties with outside entities, and they have no interest in dealing with the outside world for whatever causes come up, 'moral' or otherwise.

 

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but what use is sacrificing for others for a principle that none of us espouse?  Do their nations deserve unmitigated growth while ours have to burn for their right to turn their back on the rest of the political system?  If they were passionately defenseless, there might be a case...but explain to me how having troops and the ability to buy nukes makes you a global innocent?

 

 

Now I say this liking Pax Corvus, truly.  I only spoke to Cerridwyn and one or two others on IRC a few times while back in INT, but on the whole they are solid people.  They have their belief system and they stick to it.  If I were not interested in any fashion in playing politics in this game anymore, I might consider joining them someday.  I also happen to like members of DBDC, so there's that.  Only thing that one can argue about 'morality' in this is that both sides enjoy themselves and hopefully get something out of it.

 

DBDC does what it feels it must.  Pax Corvus gets to remain sharp and tests their principles.  I fail to see the issue here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*'12 defined as being new

Edited August 3, 2014 by Crownguard

[Franz Ferdinand]

 

It was Vince Mcmahon this whole time, Austin!

Fun fact: That's the RIOT Society War Flag,

[Sarkin]

I just think that it may be possible that Cuba now has his hands stuck in the cookie jar, and DBDC has fully committed themselves in this flagrant disregard for both neutrality and the ancient casus belli tradition. Should the stable global community reach a consensus that DBDC's actions are destabilizing in nature, it would be a perfect time for both Pax Corvus to strike crucial military targets, and for those disgruntled by DBDC's past aggressions to enact justice -- in a patient and organized fashion.

 

I entirely agree, at this very moment AZTEC, IRON, Umbrella and FEAR are all considering dropping our treaties with DBDC so that we can be true members of the stable global community and help everyone to reach that consensus you're talking about.

 

Incidentally, of all the raids DBDC has performed, I have no idea why people would complain about this one in particular beyond the natural tendency to do some pearl-clutching about the "poor helpless neutrals." All said and done, the neutral alliances are actually some of the hardest targets for DBDC to crack, because their upper-tiers haven't suffered through multiple global wars' worth of rolling. Yes, theoretically non-neutral alliances with smaller upper-tiers could have called on their allies to bolster their numbers, but (1) that hasn't happened and (2) they would have still generally struggled to come up with as many upper-tier nations as a neutral alliance, given that most of the upper-tier-heavy alliances are tied directly or indirectly to DBDC.

 

Hitting one or more also does bring the risk of them all trying to eliminate the DBDC threat, and there's no concentration of upper-tier power like the one in the major neutral alliances. This isn't like them raiding some 20-member alliance with 1-2 upper-tier dudes. These guys have the power, if not the inclination, to be legitimate threats to DBDC.

[Helios]

Suffer not the neutrals to live.

[Charles the Tyrant]

 

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.

 

 

Feel free to continue standing on your own then. 

[Schattenmann]

 

Incidentally, of all the raids DBDC has performed, I have no idea why people would complain about this one in particular

I don't think anyone is.

[Bernkastel]

As a former member of Pax Corvus, these actions from DBDC and those aligned with them disgust me. As a former member, you won't find nicer people than those in Pax Corvus. They've done nothing to deserve this. Oh and before you say "actions speak louder than words" well, I'll act. :)

[Icheliebebrad]

I know it was brought up a couple of pages back, but I felt the need to address this. DT Probes is an AA protected by The Dark Templar. Just wanted to let you all know :)

[Garion]

As a former member, you won't find nicer people than those in Pax Corvus.

No one questioned the likability of Pax Corvus' members, though. Pretty much every alliance out there is made up of nice people, they're not special in this.
 

They've done nothing to deserve this.

Nor have they done anything to prevent it from happening.

Pax Corvus is entitled to behave as they want, as pretty much any other alliance out there. There is nothing forbidding anyone from doing what they want, except for the rules we impose ourselves. Pax Corvus saw it fit for their beliefs to live a life of solitary Foreign Affairs direction (not isolation for the sake isolation, just separation from world politics), DBDC knocking at their doors shows them that this world still exists, though, as do its inhabitants.

I hold no specific ill will towards neutrals, I even used to somehow maintain a concern for their well-being as an individual ruler (not as leader, well, not that much at least). Truth is, though, they care just for themselves: it might sound harsh, but this is how it is. When you refuse to interact politically even with people who share your own neutrality beliefs, well... TDO went down and just one soft neutral cared (GOP), when the threat was much smaller than current DBDC.

If neutrals don't care for themselves, nor for me, why should I care for them? Let them play politics as they have done up to now: alone. It's their choice, not mine.

PS: and even Pax Corvus doesn't seem to be asking people to fight for them. Edited August 3, 2014 by Garion

[RevolutionaryRebel]

Correct me if I'm wrong Garion, but I do recall a certain Communist from Finland being visited by some Doombirds some time ago. I would be rather chuffed to know how much you cared about that.

[The Warrior]

TOP holds no military treaty with DBDC, DT has a nation participating in this attack, and IRON is here publicly supporting it.

Just so we're clear, ITT you claim that the opinions of you and Schatt should in no way be taken as official Polaris government or alliance policy because you are regular members and therefore do not speak for the alliance. On the other hand you have pointed out that IRON is here publically supporting everything that has happened here. The two IRON members to which you have referred speak no more for the whole of IRON than you or Schatt do for Polaris as they are no more than regular members. We do not stifle our member's right to speak and as such they are entitled to their opinions.

[Auctor]

Correct me if I'm wrong Garion, but I do recall a certain Communist from Finland being visited by some Doombirds some time ago. I would be rather chuffed to know how much you cared about that.

he's right. Having been raided by DBDC is FOREVER. Ask IRON.

[Schattenmann]

Just so we're clear, ITT you claim that the opinions of you and Schatt should in no way be taken as official Polaris government or alliance policy because you are regular members and therefore do not speak for the alliance. On the other hand you have pointed out that IRON is here publically supporting everything that has happened here. The two IRON members to which you have referred speak no more for the whole of IRON than you or Schatt do for Polaris as they are no more than regular members. We do not stifle our member's right to speak and as such they are entitled to their opinions.

IRON has already signed its de facto and de jure agreement with DBDC's actions by entering into a military treaty.  In the abstract, I don't take the posts of your members as anything other than their personal opinions, but in this case there is no hair to split here: Your government position already aligns with their personal opinions (or vice versa, however you want to phrase it). 

[Stewie]

IRON has already signed its de facto and de jure agreement with DBDC's actions by entering into a military treaty.  In the abstract, I don't take the posts of your members as anything other than their personal opinions, but in this case there is no hair to split here: Your government position already aligns with their personal opinions (or vice versa, however you want to phrase it). 

Then why doesn't Polar attack IRON in retribution for DBDC raids?

[Schattenmann]

Then why doesn't Polar attack IRON in retribution for DBDC raids?

Because that's not how any alliance handles any war, except a few pre-empts during ongoing global wars.

 

Why don't you ask more stupid questions?

Edited August 3, 2014 by Schattenmann

[RevolutionaryRebel]

For a more serious reply...
 

Nor have they done anything to prevent it from happening.

Just like nobody has prevented DBDC raids in the past. If R&R (as an example; no political assertion here) is attacked by DBDC, is this a valid excuse not to come to its aid?

Pax Corvus is entitled to behave as they want, as pretty much any other alliance out there. There is nothing forbidding anyone from doing what they want, except for the rules we impose ourselves. Pax Corvus saw it fit for their beliefs to live a life of solitary Foreign Affairs direction (not isolation for the sake isolation, just separation from world politics), DBDC knocking at their doors shows them that this world still exists, though, as do its inhabitants.

Apparently, the existence of other alliances and nations isn't obvious from bad posting on the OWF... Self-imposed rules include treaties as well, so relying on treaties to you know, 'do something about it' is equally narrow-minded from another perspective. It's really just a question of how much folks value their upper tier pixels.

I hold no specific ill will towards neutrals, I even used to somehow maintain a concern for their well-being as an individual ruler (not as leader, well, not that much at least). Truth is, though, they care just for themselves: it might sound harsh, but this is how it is. When you refuse to interact politically even with people who share your own neutrality beliefs, well... TDO went down and just one soft neutral cared (GOP), when the threat was much smaller than current DBDC.

Again, this is really no different from any other alliance, treatied or not. Treaties exist for mutual benefit. If a treaty doesn't benefit an alliance, it gets cancelled. Caring for another alliance beyond self-interest is something that can transcend treaties - provided those involved are willing to do so.

I don't care enough personally, but anyone with a sufficiently-large upper tier might, even if only for their own self-interest. Unless they have a submission fetish...

PS: and even Pax Corvus doesn't seem to be asking people to fight for them.

And that last bit is one of the reasons I approve of their conduct so far. They don't expect mercy, nor compassion (nor should they) and are prepared to fight DBDC even without treaties all over the web ('sup TOP). The potential losses are much higher than the MQ conflict, and they're doing something the non-neutrals have largely neglected to do. Being neutral is just a coincidental embarrassment for those espousing the need for treaties while taking it up the backdoor against the 'big boys'.

[RevolutionaryRebel]

he's right. Having been raided by DBDC is FOREVER. Ask IRON.

Point taken. I mean, "non-consensual sex" is okay as long as it only happens once every seven months, right?

Only when it happens to pixel-huggers?

Only when it doesn't happen to yourself?

EDIT: I'm still surprised at how quickly IRON kissed and hugged with those they burnt not too long ago, but treaty web shifts heal all scars, eh? Edited August 3, 2014 by RevolutionaryRebel

[Bernkastel]

.PS: and even Pax Corvus doesn't seem to be asking people to fight for them.

I never said I'd fight for them but I have no problem sending money and troops to nations in need of it. Either during or afterwards. It's still taking action.

[Auctor]

Point taken. I mean, "non-consensual sex" is okay as long as it only happens once every seven months, right?

That's an incredibly inappropriate comparison.

Only when it happens to pixel-huggers?

Only when it doesn't happen to yourself?

EDIT: I'm still surprised at how quickly IRON kissed and hugged with those they burnt not too long ago, but treaty web shifts heal all scars, eh?

It's really not unheard of to lose a war to someone that you do not instantly take revenge for. This being a political world, we've seen a lot of examples of alliances forming ties with alliances that before had bested them in one way or another in the past.