Jump to content

The next DBDC raid target


Beauty

Ya?  

222 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

neutrals don't even need to band together as a bloc/treaties to protect themselves from raids/wars like these...is it really that hard to find a single nation from one neutral that'd be willing to go fight and help defend another? defense squads banding together to help cover eachother is still being neutral

 

dual membership

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 213
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Actually there was a declaration of war involved in Valhalla's case (assuming you are talking about the infamous Woodstock Massacre), thus it was not.

I don't remember the reasons why, but I do remember having fun in the Massacre. Neutrals don't do anything of significance to warrant a CB and thus one would have to be manufactured. Manufacturing a CB to claim the moral high ground of it not being a raid doesn't work with the defending entity being a neutral alliance.
 

I would submit that whether they are indifferent or not, their fate will be the same unless they learn to think differently and redefine neutrality.  Any number of people have come to these forums and sneered at those who insist on going it alone and not joining an alliance or getting a protectorate and suddenly find themselves being raided off Planet Bob.
 
You also underestimate the lengths to which people will go to end their boredom.  Attacking a neutral alliance has gotten to be a habit with certain parties, and there is no indication that they intend to stop.

Let's face it, people like raiding neutrals for whatever reason they paint it as. Comparing neutrals to unaligned nations is such an obtuse statement, even for you hal. It's like saying "hey neutrals, your $%*!, and no better than a 1k NS nation." Neutrals have something we don't have, years of unchecked growth. Just imagine what they could accomplish if they installed programs like their warring counterparts.

These "certain" parties of which you speak don't just go after neutrals. You weren't preaching about neutrals coming together when they raided Polar or when they raided you and your alliance. You're no Rembrandt so quit trying to paint pictures.

Neutrals associating exclusive with neutrals and foregoing treaties with other alliances except perhaps NAPs or recognition of neutrality agreements would not be a route I would want to go, nor you either, precisely because we seek a path that leads to a more aggressive stance in the world.  What I am suggesting is a middle ground that doesn't compromise their principles.  They are of course free to feel otherwise, but they do so at their own peril.

So your telling them to compromise on giving up what they value most? Even if they bend it just a little, they break everything in which they stand for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember the reasons why, but I do remember having fun in the Massacre. Neutrals don't do anything of significance to warrant a CB and thus one would have to be manufactured. Manufacturing a CB to claim the moral high ground of it not being a raid doesn't work with the defending entity being a neutral alliance.
 

 

To be fair, I remember NPO doing quite a lot to inflame popular opinion against GPA and create a narrative that they had done something seriously wrong and deserved the attack. Contrast that with DBDC attacking Pax over "a stalemate in the top 250," without even the respect shown by acknowledging this war for what it is (a war), let alone a formal announcement of it (even if they can't bring themselves to call it a war).

Edited by Prodigal Moon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that Polaris had no trouble fighting Colossus when I led it without a declaration of war, I don't see the point of this particular criticism. I know I didn't hold it against Polar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that Polaris had no trouble fighting Colossus when I led it without a declaration of war, I don't see the point of this particular criticism. I know I didn't hold it against Polar.

 

The lack of declaration just further illustrates the difference between NPO's approach to the Woodstock Massacre and DBDC's approach to Pax. One isn't necessarily more justifiable than the other, but one might make it easier for allies to bandwagon in with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a sovereignty issue. If alliances devolve into mobs of constantly warring individuals without strong sovereigns that is chaos and represents a degeneration of civilization.

Polaris did the same thing in the course of Grudge War, yet lookit the beacon of civilization they are today. This just doesn't strike me as the great moral difference between DBDC and ~the civilized~, given the past four global wars. Try again?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polaris did the same thing in the course of Grudge War, yet lookit the beacon of civilization they are today. This just doesn't strike me as the great moral difference between DBDC and ~the civilized~, given the past four global wars. Try again?

 

I was absent for a few years so I wasn't around at the time. But, if this is indeed true, then perhaps DBDC can reform as well. I have a little hope after my conversation with White Chocolate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, I remember NPO doing quite a lot to inflame popular opinion against GPA and create a narrative that they had done something seriously wrong and deserved the attack. Contrast that with DBDC attacking Pax over "a stalemate in the top 250," without even the respect shown by acknowledging this war for what it is (a war), let alone a formal announcement of it (even if they can't bring themselves to call it a war).

I was not saying that any of party was solely responsible for Woodstock. Looking back was it not a raid masked by deceit and formalized by our imaginary standards for war?

DBDC walks that thin line between raids and war. In the opinion of the community outside of their direct influence calls this a war and has verbally condemned their actions. The same way people condemned NPO & MK's actions while being on top of the game in the "political" sense. DBDC is different because they are on top of the game in sense of "raw power". With that being said, it was a raid, but had a contingency plan in place in case of escalation. Pax decided to fight back, but it doesn't change the fact that they are just defending themselves from raiders. This is a prime example of a raid "gone south", but sadly (for those that want to see DBDC crucified for said actions), they had a back up plan.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm confused as to why that difference is being accentuated, then.

 

Just responding rileyaddaff for the hell of it point that we have, in fact, seen an alliance try to "claim the moral high ground" in the past when declaring war on a neutral alliance. They pulled it off pretty successfully, too. I would not say DBDC is putting much effort into claiming the moral high ground on Pax Corvus, as evidenced in part by their neglecting to even post a DoW articulating a justification for this attack.They seem not to even think this attack requires a justification, which I think is what Tywin is getting at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a sovereignty issue. If alliances devolve into mobs of constantly warring individuals without strong sovereigns that is chaos and represents a degeneration of civilization.

Sovereignty is such a beautiful word, but here it is nothing more than a word. Your sovereignty only lasts as long as someone else allows it. You of all people know that if you want true sovereignty, its only one click away, peace mode.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sovereignty is such a beautiful word, but here it is nothing more than a word. Your sovereignty only lasts as long as someone else allows it. You of all people know that if you want true sovereignty, its only one click away, peace mode.

 

Except sovereignty can't be taken away by bombs and nukes. You cannot actually dislodge a nation leader from his nation. The Imperialist Officers of NPO failed to realize this once, and it resulted in their downfall.

Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just responding rileyaddaff for the hell of it point that we have, in fact, seen an alliance try to "claim the moral high ground" in the past when declaring war on a neutral alliance. They pulled it off pretty successfully, too. I would not say DBDC is putting much effort into claiming the moral high ground on Pax Corvus, as evidenced in part by their neglecting to even post a DoW articulating a justification for this attack.They seem not to even think this attack requires a justification, which I think is what Tywin is getting at.

A moral high ground is as valuable as the imaginary paper it's written on.  Great.  For the most part, people have their opinions already set concerning DBDC.  

 

If you liked us before, you'll probably see very little wrong with what we're doing, and probably think very little of the criticisms laid out here.  More than likely the things we say publicly will make sense to you and it won't be hard to figure out why we do what we do.

 

If you disliked us before, you will find any tenet of CN-ism that doesn't justify our actions and harp on it repeatedly.  Either we're not a real alliance, or we don't respect the sovereignty of others, or we hit people we're not supposed to, or we didn't do it 'by the book'.  

 

If you had no opinion either way, hopefully it's still enjoyable to watch big nations fight and shoot fireworks everywhere, including here.  If nothing else, it's created the drama that's been so longed for.  Those with no opinion are pretty rare though, as DBDC tends to be one of those ultra-polarizing type entities.  (Though it IS the cool thing to say 'oh no one really cares about those rogues, I've got better stuff to worry about')

Edited by CubaQuerida
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except sovereignty can't be taken away by bombs and nukes. You cannot actually dislodge a nation leader from his nation. The Imperialist Officers of NPO failed to realize this once, and it resulted in their downfall.

Such actions are achievable though deletion, but I don't condone such actions. I may hate everyone, but if one were to delete, then eventually I would have no one to hate. If sovereignty can not be taken away then why does it even come up in an arguments? Edited by rileyaddaff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such actions are achievable though deletion, but I don't condone such actions. I may hate everyone, but if one were to delete, then eventually I would have no one to hate. If sovereignty can not be taken away then why does it even come up in an arguments?

 

For me it comes down to civilization and Order. If everyone abides by the same stability-enhancing policies and procedures, the result is greater Global Stability and the opportunity for more nations to grow and achieve their potential. That does not mean there should not be war; I believe war is healthy when organized and directed against those that are incompatible with civilization.

CubaQuerida thinks I and other dislike DBDC for who they are, but the only reason I oppose them is for the same reasons I have opposed any barbaric entities: they represent a threat to civilization.

 

250px-FreedomCivilisation.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Except sovereignty can't be taken away by bombs and nukes. You cannot actually dislodge a nation leader from his nation. 

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

And at this point, you've stripped most of the meaning from the word. Sovereignty in the political sense means nothing if you're the ruler of nothing and no one, and you rule from a prison from which there is no escape. Sovereignty of states can only be taken by force or granted by the will of others; it's not something you just have. If you say you're a sovereign nation and the rest of the world says you're not--guess what, you're not. At least not in any appreciable sense. 

 

If you couldn't take sovereignty away with bombs and nukes, people on this forum (including yourself) wouldn't be accusing DBDC of violating the sovereignty of alliances and nations when they declare wars on those same alliances and nations. You know, nukes and bombs. 

 

 

You have to be willing and able to defend that sovereignty; since you neutrals are allowing DBDC to steamroll over each of your alliances one by one, you aren't going to maintain that sovereignty. But the wider issue that also affects us non-neutrals is that DBDC does not follow civilized norms like publishing a Casus Belli, establishing war as a process of conflict resolution between alliance sovereigns, and otherwise respecting the sovereignty of alliances (i.e. negotiating with government rather than targeting individuals). This is what separates civilized alliances from rogues. The only reason why DBDC has not been stomped like most rogues is a current weakness in upper tier physics.

 

 

Except sovereignty can't be taken away by bombs and nukes. You cannot actually dislodge a nation leader from his nation. The Imperialist Officers of NPO failed to realize this once, and it resulted in their downfall.

Some consistency would be nice. So far it looks like you're making it up as you go along, conjuring up and/or changing definitions of words as it suits you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it comes down to civilization and Order. If everyone abides by the same stability-enhancing policies and procedures, the result is greater Global Stability and the opportunity for more nations to grow and achieve their potential. That does not mean there should not be war; I believe war is healthy when organized and directed against those that are incompatible with civilization.

CubaQuerida thinks I and other dislike DBDC for who they are, but the only reason I oppose them is for the same reasons I have opposed any barbaric entities: they represent a threat to civilization.
 
250px-FreedomCivilisation.jpg

inserting a random graph doesn't make your case. Now if you had a graph that showed CN the fall of players over the years, I might actually take a look at it and the statement attached to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

And at this point, you've stripped most of the meaning from the word. Sovereignty in the political sense means nothing if you're the ruler of nothing and no one, and you rule from a prison from which there is no escape. Sovereignty of states can only be taken by force or granted by the will of others; it's not something you just have. If you say you're a sovereign nation and the rest of the world says you're not--guess what, you're not. At least not in any appreciable sense. 

 

If you couldn't take sovereignty away with bombs and nukes, people on this forum (including yourself) wouldn't be accusing DBDC of violating the sovereignty of alliances and nations when they declare wars on those same alliances and nations. You know, nukes and bombs. 

 

Some consistency would be nice. So far it looks like you're making it up as you go along, conjuring up and/or changing definitions of words as it suits you. 

 

There are two forms of sovereignty in this world: national sovereignty, and alliance sovereignty. It is true I am not a moralist, so I might oppose DBDC for slightly different reasons.

 

National Sovereignty is intrinsic to every nation and cannot be taken away by any other than the nation leader himself. No amount of violence can dislodge a national leader from his nation; in essence, every nation represents the lowest level of sovereignty... the citizens of a nation have no sovereignty and are expendable. National sovereignty can only be surrendered, never seized. Democratic Autocracy, the ultimate Francoist government, begins at the national level and is purest there.

 

Alliance Sovereignty is a result of nations voluntarily surrendering that sovereignty to become part of an alliance... that sovereignty pools together in the form of the alliance sovereign (a person or institution). The alliance sovereign represents the collective will of the member nations, and civilized alliances will recognize the sovereignty of other alliances and negotiate on a Sovereign to Sovereign basis. This results in Ordered Anarchy and Civilization, allowing nations to escape the barbarism of the state of nature and achieve a greater degree of potential than would be possible were they not part of the alliance.

 

Thus we approach total Global Stability when a unipolar Hegemony forms, with all significant alliances recognizing the same principles sovereign recognition, and when war is only conducted against those who reject these civilized principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

inserting a random graph doesn't make your case. Now if you had a graph that showed CN the fall of players over the years, I might actually take a look at it and the statement attached to it.

 

Actually, after Karma and the rise of Global Feudalism (the reign of MK), CN had a huge reduction in nations as nation leaders fled this world tired of the patronism and random violence represented in the new hegemonic philosophy "friends > infra." This philosophy was damaging to stability because it recognized friendships between sovereigns of different alliances to be more important than responsibilities to the member-nations that sovereigns are supposed to protect.

Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are two forms of sovereignty in this world: national sovereignty, and alliance sovereignty. It is true I am not a moralist, so I might oppose DBDC for slightly different reasons.

 

National Sovereignty is intrinsic to every nation and cannot be taken away by any other than the nation leader himself. No amount of violence can dislodge a national leader from his nation; in essence, every nation represents the lowest level of sovereignty... the citizens of a nation have no sovereignty and are expendable. National sovereignty can only be surrendered, never seized. Democratic Autocracy, the ultimate Francoist government, begins at the national level and is purest there.

 

Alliance Sovereignty is a result of nations voluntarily surrendering that sovereignty to become part of an alliance... that sovereignty pools together in the form of the alliance sovereign (a person or institution). The alliance sovereign represents the collective will of the member nations, and civilized alliances will recognize the sovereignty of other alliances and negotiate on a Sovereign to Sovereign basis. This results in Ordered Anarchy and Civilization, allowing nations to escape the barbarism of the state of nature and achieve a greater degree of potential than would be possible were they not part of the alliance.

 

Thus we approach total Global Stability when a unipolar Hegemony forms, with all significant alliances recognizing the same principles sovereign recognition, and when war is only conducted against those who reject these civilized principles.

So basically, a non-answer.

 

This conversation has been dominated by discussion of sovereignty as it's practically applicable--"Alliance Sovereignty"--yet the moment you're challenged with the self-evident fact that your sovereignty means nothing if it's not recognized (through either benevolence or force), you retreat to your (unique) secondary definition. You're equivocating. You're attempting to argue on the topic of "alliance sovereignty" by defending the impotent ideal of "national sovereignty..." which in this case means the leader of a nation cannot be assassinated, even if he claims to preside over a constituency of zero.

 

Edit: Put more clearly, it's pointless to talk about the sovereignty of leaders because a leader is powerless without his people, and his people are powerless without membership in an alliance due to attacks on national sovereignty--'real' national sovereignty. Discussing the idea of sovereignty with respect to alliances, and even with respect to a leader and its people, has some merit. Doing what you're doing and waxing nonsensical about your own personal definition of national sovereignty (which I imagine is in no way representative of how anyone else has used that phrase, ever) has none. It serves no purpose; except perhaps to give you more chances to say "hegemony," and, given time, I'm sure you'll sneak "bourgeoisie" in there too. 

Edited by MichaelH43ID
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically, a non-answer.

 

Riley was clearly referring to the same type of sovereignty to which you yourself have repeatedly referred--"Alliance Sovereignty"--yet the moment you're challenged with the self-evident fact that your sovereignty means nothing if it's not recognized (through either benevolence or force), you retreat to your secondary definition. You're equivocating. You're attempting to argue on the topic of "alliance sovereignty" by defending the impotent ideal of "national sovereignty..." which in this case means the leader of a nation cannot be assassinated, even if he claims to preside over a constituency of zero.

 

National sovereignty is not a moral shield against attack, only peace mode or local superiority of force can provide that.

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...