Recognition of Hostilities with I dunno some spelunking alliance or something

[andyt2k]

Light em up green boys

[Starfox101]

You have some fine wars as is.  I am sure you will all have fun for the week.

 

As an aside and just an FYI to RIA gov, I redid our raid list Sunday and removed your AA altogether (along with a few other AA's) so hopefully that will resolve any future issues.  By all means continue hostilities as long as you see it necessary, but just wanted you to know we didn't completely ignore the fact this happened a second time.

Who is managing this list? I feel like I've heard this story before.

 

Ha! Everything is going according to my evil plan. I knew if I remained the smallest DBDC member I'd end up being attacked as an "easy target" when other nations in DBDC got involved in raids without me. Thank you - now my generals, who have been complaining endlessly about how useless they feel and how restless the men have become, are happy they get to play with their toys. :salute: RIA!
 

oh, you know, IF they are going to effectively deter nations from raiding them they might want to ACTUALLY ATTACK THE NATIONS INVOLVED as opposed to poor, little, innocent DBDC nations (yes, I can hear the tiny violins) such as Lander Clan that just happen to be in the same alliance but are not actually engaging their nations.

That's how I would of responded and that's what *I* would have respected much more, but not all nation/alliance leaders are as ethical as myself apparently :P

Attack the nations involved? Kind of like those RIA nations that were attacked despite not being involved in anything? Lay off the caps and the caffeine, and the hypocrisy might really hit home.

 

Oh, and lastly, obviously RIA knows they have the support of Polar in this matter, whether resolved or not. Hit me up for some free tech when this is over, Baldr.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Starfox101

[RevolutionaryRebel]

 

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

 

RIA 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

 

 

 

So yeah. Have fun!

My posting is better out of context; thanks, MF.

EDIT: That's basically my take on RIA's actions, incidentally. Kick-backs (literally), get results. Results are much bigger obviously when you have a lot more NS/allies to back you up.

Edited August 19, 2014 by RevolutionaryRebel

[White Chocolate]

Attack the nations involved? Kind of like those RIA nations that were attacked despite not being involved in anything? Lay off the caps and the caffeine, and the hypocrisy might really hit home.

It was asked what else could of been done by RIA and I gave an answer  It was pointed out to me that the way I would of dealt with it was not an option in this particular case for RIA because the people who perpatrated the raid were out of range of the other RIA members.  That explanation makes sense to me and I can see how attacking DBDC's smaller uninvolved nations would be an althernative option under that situation.

 

I can lay off the caps.  My use of caffeine is my own business.  

 

Regarding hypocrisy, if I wasn't entirely aware of the hypocrisy of this world I may still be a "law abiding" member of this community.  But I am and after so much time having tried to do something about it and failed, I see no reason why I should not just take advantages that I have the power to take like most everyone here.  DBDC just does it well and without pretending it's something else.  A refreshing approach.

 

There are a few people (some of whom are in NpO) who I respect enough who I could, if they approached me right, actually have a worthy discussion with regarding ethics, etc.  This is because we actually have had previous positive relationship that I miss to some extent.

 

You are not one of those people.

[Starfox101]

It was asked what else could of been done by RIA and I gave an answer  It was pointed out to me that the way I would of dealt with it was not an option in this particular case for RIA because the people who perpatrated the raid were out of range of the other RIA members.  That explanation makes sense to me and I can see how attacking DBDC's smaller uninvolved nations would be an althernative option under that situation.

 

I can lay off the caps.  My use of caffeine is my own business.  

 

Regarding hypocrisy, if I wasn't entirely aware of the hypocrisy of this world I may still be a "law abiding" member of this community.  But I am and after so much time having tried to do something about it and failed, I see no reason why I should not just take advantages that I have the power to take like most everyone here.  DBDC just does it well and without pretending it's something else.  A refreshing approach.

 

There are a few people (some of whom are in NpO) who I respect enough who I could, if they approached me right, actually have a worthy discussion with regarding ethics, etc.  This is because we actually have had previous positive relationship that I miss to some extent.

 

You are not one of those people.

It is certainly your right to take. Unfortunately for you, you are not Cuba, O ya baby, Artigo, or TBRaiders. As such, your right to take isn't going to be responded to quite as well. What any of your response had to do with you being called a hypocrite, I have yet to find out. Anyway, if you realistically thought nobody would respond to your outrageous assertion that RIA was crossing a line by hitting uninvolved DBDC nations, you're insane. The fact that you're actually offended that your post isn't being hailed blows my mind,

Edited August 19, 2014 by Starfox101

[commanderragnar]

Have fun both sides.

[HeroofTime55]

I'll be out of hippie as soon as I get my EMP.  Please bring some allies in so I have someone to hit.

[The Zigur]

Please bring some allies in so I have someone to hit.

 

Well that would be interesting

[HeroofTime55]

Ha! Everything is going according to my evil plan. I knew if I remained the smallest DBDC member I'd end up being attacked as an "easy target" when other nations in DBDC got involved in raids without me. Thank you - now my generals, who have been complaining endlessly about how useless they feel and how restless the men have become, are happy they get to play with their toys. :salute: RIA!
 

oh, you know, IF they are going to effectively deter nations from raiding them they might want to ACTUALLY ATTACK THE NATIONS INVOLVED as opposed to poor, little, innocent DBDC nations (yes, I can hear the tiny violins) such as Lander Clan that just happen to be in the same alliance but are not actually engaging their nations.

That's how I would of responded and that's what *I* would have respected much more, but not all nation/alliance leaders are as ethical as myself apparently :P

 

 

Yeah seriously Gitami is right

 

 

RIA is declaring very aggressive wars on some people who weren't even doing anything.  I will have to speak to our DOOMCOUNCIL but I think we may have do to a Recognition of Skirmish at this time.  I hope against hope that it doesn't escalate to an Extended Clash or Declaration of Mean Spirited DOOM Warfare.

 

Best of luck guys.  After all it's better to fight back for your alliance than to die a RIA when everybody is watching.

 

Yes it was intentional.

 

When your alliance repeatedly violates our sovereignty, and repeatedly fails to rectify their violations in a satisfactory manner, then all members of that alliance bear responsibility for the actions of their ineffective leadership.

This is part of being in an alliance.  You enjoy the protection that comes with aligning yourself with a group, but you also assume mutual responsibility for the actions of that group.

When those nations which violated our sovereignty remain unaccountable by your alliance, when they continue to enjoy the general protections of your alliance, then it is not just they who have violated us, it is your entire alliance which has violated us.

Despite your cutesy attempts to play the victim and downplay what has occurred, this is now a war.  We are responding to your hostilities.  Maybe we can never hope to take down your fattest nations.  But we can, and will, bring the rest of you down into the meat grinder.

[CubaQuerida]

When your alliance repeatedly violates our sovereignty, and repeatedly fails to rectify their violations in a satisfactory manner, then all members of that alliance bear responsibility for the actions of their ineffective leadership.

Very interesting take, given the backlash we've seen publicly when DBDC members apply that exact concept to others, Polaris comes to mind.  All depends how you want to define sovereignty.

 

Despite your cutesy attempts to play the victim and downplay what has occurred, this is now a war.  We are responding to your hostilities.  Maybe we can never hope to take down your fattest nations.  But we can, and will, bring the rest of you down into the meat grinder.

DBDC has already surrendered, what else can we do to avoid the eternal hand of death that is RIA's top tier?  I nominate RIA for bully alliance of the year.

[Great Lord Moth]

 

DBDC has already surrendered, what else can we do to avoid the eternal hand of death that is RIA's top tier?  I nominate RIA for bully alliance of the year.

This should be obvious! For years the RIA has been plotting the downfall of the RIA at every turn. The RIA has never been safe from those Cactuar-worshipping bullies! ;_;

[Dajobo]

Very interesting take, given the backlash we've seen publicly when DBDC members apply that exact concept to others, Polaris comes to mind.  All depends how you want to define sovereignty.

This has me intrigued. Unless you're suggesting that a member of an alliance stating their personal opinion equals a declaration of war it really doesn't add up.

[The Zigur]

All depends how you want to define sovereignty.

 

I offered the proper definition of sovereignty in this thread a while back, if you are interested in reading about it.

[HeroofTime55]

Very interesting take, given the backlash we've seen publicly when DBDC members apply that exact concept to others, Polaris comes to mind.  All depends how you want to define sovereignty.

 

DBDC has already surrendered, what else can we do to avoid the eternal hand of death that is RIA's top tier?  I nominate RIA for bully alliance of the year.

"Ineffective leadership" refers to leaders who don't step up to the plate to adequately rectify mishaps when they occur.

Members do stuff sometimes, they go rogue or whatever, and that cannot be controlled.  What [i]can[/i] be controlled, is the response by the leadership.  The leadership of DBDC, that is, you, have demonstrated a complete lack of desire to rein in the actions of your membership, while continuing to harbor them under your protective umbrella.  This is what makes you complicit in their violations of ours and countless other alliances' sovereignty.  Diplomacy has failed due to your repeated refusal to adhere to agreements to rectify past violations and ensure no further violations.

RIA has elected to take matters to the next appropriate level, instead of allowing you to continue your violations against us without reproach.  We've done the diplomacy song and dance, and it has proven fruitless.  We are under no illusions that it will bear fruit in the future, as the wider track record of DBDC demonstrates.  This is the next available level of recourse.

PS: We aren't rolling over like so many before us have, and the "we surrender" thing isn't going to make this go away, not without proper diplomatic discourse.  We know that.  You know that.  Stop playing dumb.

[Hyperonic]

Cruise Missiles

[King Wally]

God speed you sexy RIA bastards! o/

[o ya baby]

Oh, and lastly, obviously RIA knows they have the support of Polar in this matter, whether resolved or not. Hit me up for some free tech when this is over, Baldr.

So, Polar supports RIA in their recognition of hostilities? 

I guess I can rightfully hit Polar's top nations after all, then... right? :smug:

[TBRaiders]

PS: We aren't rolling over like so many before us have, and the "we surrender" thing isn't going to make this go away, not without proper diplomatic discourse.  We know that.  You know that.  Stop playing dumb.

 

Wooah, wooah, wooah!  You get to put it on your wiki, man.

[Dajobo]

So, Polar supports RIA in their recognition of hostilities? 

I guess I can rightfully hit Polar's top nations after all, then... right? :smug:

We have had an MDoAP for many years. Why wouldn't we support them in whatever decision they make after your alliance attacked them?

If that's a reason to attack us, go for it.

[Neo Uruk]

Dajobo you shouldn't do that, DBDC will hold you accountable for your actions!

[CubaQuerida]

This has me intrigued. Unless you're suggesting that a member of an alliance stating their personal opinion equals a declaration of war it really doesn't add up.

Like I said, it's all about how you take it.  If someone wants to take a statement made by a member of an alliance as an official stance, it's either reasonable or unreasonable.  We have all seen wars start over things much more casual than off-color, taunting statements made publicly.

 

 

I offered the proper definition of sovereignty in this thread a while back, if you are interested in reading about it.

I'm not.

 

"Ineffective leadership" refers to leaders who don't step up to the plate to adequately rectify mishaps when they occur.

Members do stuff sometimes, they go rogue or whatever, and that cannot be controlled.  What can be controlled, is the response by the leadership.  The leadership of DBDC, that is, you, have demonstrated a complete lack of desire to rein in the actions of your membership, while continuing to harbor them under your protective umbrella.  This is what makes you complicit in their violations of ours and countless other alliances' sovereignty.  Diplomacy has failed due to your repeated refusal to adhere to agreements to rectify past violations and ensure no further violations.

RIA has elected to take matters to the next appropriate level, instead of allowing you to continue your violations against us without reproach.  We've done the diplomacy song and dance, and it has proven fruitless.  We are under no illusions that it will bear fruit in the future, as the wider track record of DBDC demonstrates.  This is the next available level of recourse.

PS: We aren't rolling over like so many before us have, and the "we surrender" thing isn't going to make this go away, not without proper diplomatic discourse.  We know that.  You know that.  Stop playing dumb.

RIA stepped up to said plate and knocked it out of the park with a home run of DBDC surrender.  It doesn't get any more conclusive of a victory than that.  

 

You don't need to lecture me on what members actions can bring upon an alliance.  I'm well versed in consequences, both on an individual level and at an alliance/coalition level.  My actions have consistently been to stand by my member nations when their actions are called into question by those who are admittedly not our friends or allies.  This seems to me to be a sign of an effective leader and Dajobo and Ogaden possess the same skill set.

 

We are pleased that RIA has shown the wherewithal to fight a coordinated battle against a lesser entity such as the DOOMBIRD DOOMCAVE.  It's always a possibility in any military action that someone will respond and we'd all be fools to act like it wasn't expected (in this case directly provoked by exposed spy operations).

[Caladin]

RIA stepped up to said plate and knocked it out of the park with a home run of DBDC surrender.  It doesn't get any more conclusive of a victory than that.

Well, unless they want something such as reparations, which I suspect, for some reason, that your 'surrender' doesn't contain.

[ShadowDragon]

It's always a possibility in any military action that someone will respond and we'd all be fools to act like it wasn't expected (in this case directly provoked by exposed spy operations).

I think you mean directly provoked by wars on one of our members (Baldr). The spy operations were just some icing on the cake. :) Edited August 20, 2014 by ShadowDragon

[Baldr]

Well, unless they want something such as reparations, which I suspect, for some reason, that your 'surrender' doesn't contain.

 

So far, they haven't even stopped attacking, so that "surrender" talk looks a bit weak.  Not to mention, Cuba pretending that "exposed spy operations" was the only issue here.

 

Also, keep in mind that "lets just stop this now" is exactly what raiders want.  They asked to stop minutes after they completed their first quad attacks.  Raiders don't want real wars, they want to take your tech, land, money, do some damage, then everyone agrees to peace. 

 

I could have taken that option.  Just let them have whatever they had taken and let them walk off with their spoils of war.  But it just encourages them, and they would almost certainly hit me again sometime down the road.

 

Kipling wrote a poem about it, roughly 1,000 years ago.

.

.

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
  To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
  Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
  And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
  And then  you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
  To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
  We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
  But we've  proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
  You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
  For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
  You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
  No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
  And the nation that pays it is lost!"

[Ogaden]

Well, unless they want something such as reparations, which I suspect, for some reason, that your 'surrender' doesn't contain.

 

We are not pursuing reparations, though we did send Doombird Doomcave a proposal to end this conflict.