Subtleknifewielder Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 (edited) There we have it then, Polar has effectively declared war on DT. Shame they have no top tier for DT to be able to do much about it :P Or is it the other way around? It's so muddled. In any case, kudos for taing a stand in any way you can. It's effective solely because they HAVE no lower tier to buy from internally, so good luck. Edited November 16, 2014 by Subtleknifewielder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemania Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 Man if my parents threatened me this bad i might of turned out to be evil .... wait i am evil i am in NPO :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 (edited) Looking the DBDC aid screen.. seeing some Mushroom Kingdom AA nations... reminds me of this.... The Mushroom Kingdom alliance affiliation will be protected by The Last Remnants and The Order of the Paradox for as long as they see fit. The Alchemy AA will also be protected for thirty (30) days. I am unaware that TOP ever ceased its protection, we damn sure have not. I double dog dare you touch one. Don't let the mighty TLR war machine scare you off, Polar. At the risk of navel-gazing with such ferocity that I can count individual cells, the 'aggressive/defensive' call has always been in the eye of the beholder...I've yet to witness a circumstance where it amounted to anything more than a couple fruitless pages on the OWF. Hit their tech sellers and you (and your allies) will be convinced that any retaliation is aggressive, while the seller (and their allies) will be equally convinced that it's defensive. The end product will be the same either way. Pretty much. It's all about perception. Edited November 16, 2014 by Gibsonator21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 Why do people keep saying this is "taking a stand".... FFS are you all that gullible. Its a stand with zero risk. Polar will be (or is , depending on perspective) getting rolled soon. This "policy" will be defunct as part of any peace agreement down the road. Its a fish for warm fuzzies and hails. Its not a "stand"... Jesus educate yourselves about how Planet Bob works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 Don't let the mighty TLR war machine scare you off, Polar. I realize you think this is a clever pot shot, but it was really not all that clever. In fact, my threat is at LEAST as much of a "stand" as this policy is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Bad Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 Only the people who would be inclined to send tech anyway, but you just go right on believing that :huh: It matters not if they have been inclined to do so before or not. The fact is they will and you will not be able to anything about it. In fact if I was leading the coalition on the otherside I would create a punishment in peace terms for every tech seller you attack. If you attack any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurnipCruncher Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 Dajobo, as ideas go, this one is bad. Tywin bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 I realize you think this is a clever pot shot, but it was really not all that clever. In fact, my threat is at LEAST as much of a "stand" as this policy is. I wasn't trying to be clever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 Why do people keep saying this is "taking a stand".... FFS are you all that gullible. Its a stand with zero risk. Polar will be (or is , depending on perspective) getting rolled soon. This "policy" will be defunct as part of any peace agreement down the road. Its a fish for warm fuzzies and hails. Its not a "stand"... Jesus educate yourselves about how Planet Bob works. Perhaps, perhaps not. Time will tell. It's an interesting move and certainly one no one thought of before, or at least never dared voice before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 Dajobo, as ideas go, this one is bad. Tywin bad. Only cowards think my ideas are bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 Perhaps, perhaps not. Time will tell. It's an interesting move and certainly one no one thought of before, or at least never dared voice before. Remove everything after the 1st perhaps, and you are correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurnipCruncher Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 Only cowards think my ideas are bad. Do you only talk in absolutes? Like all Muslims are terrorists, milk only comes in bags etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 Remove everything after the 1st perhaps, and you are correct. I wouldn't try misquoting me, please and thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Bad Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 Remove everything after the 1st perhaps, and you are correct. I guess some people have forgotten all the plotting on ways to deal with Citadel back in the day. Of course we all know such a tactic would only be effective if used by a winning side who was willing to spend years enforcing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 ....this is not and will not constitute a declaration of war on any alliance because a member decided to send aid. Attacking a member of an alliance constitutes an act of war against that alliance, formal declaration or not. And you don't get to have an opinion on how an alliance will defend its membership. This is without question the most foolish statement I have seen in some time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 Attacking a member of an alliance constitutes an act of war against that alliance, formal declaration or not. And you don't get to have an opinion on how an alliance will defend its membership. This is without question the most foolish statement I have seen in some time.Everyone's gotten so used to DBDC doing it that people have forgotten how that works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessKitty Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 Thats a damn shame. NO ONE TELLS KITTY WHERE SHE CAN AND CANT SEND AID. I send when where how and why i feel like it. I will smash you. Jk, dont hurt kitty shes poor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 Attacking a member of an alliance constitutes an act of war against that alliance, formal declaration or not. And you don't get to have an opinion on how an alliance will defend its membership. This is without question the most foolish statement I have seen in some time. Aiding a rogue or nation at war counts as an act of war, and such an aiding operation happens before the retaliatory strike. So logically speaking the aiding action is the first act of war and equivalent to a rogue action, which the offending government should attempt to resolve with Polaris. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 Attacking a member of an alliance constitutes an act of war against that alliance, formal declaration or not. And you don't get to have an opinion on how an alliance will defend its membership. This is without question the most foolish statement I have seen in some time. Tell that to DBDC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walshington Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 Sending aid to an alliance at war is an act of war on the alliance they are fighting. The convention for several years now has been to overlook this, as it was usually insignificant in the big picture. When did this convention change? I thought this was a thing. Who made it so this wasn't a thing? This should not be overlooked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 Aiding a rogue or nation at war counts as an act of war, and such an aiding operation happens before the retaliatory strike. So logically speaking the aiding action is the first act of war and equivalent to a rogue action, which the offending government should attempt to resolve with Polaris. You are a fool. The last umpteen global wars, thousands and thousands of tech deals on both sides were started and completed... not one was noted.. not one was targeted for action, not one even garnered a single OWF post,. much less an alliance-wide threat. This is Polar wanting some warm and fuzzies, and the Polar meatshields rushing here to give the warm and fuzzies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 I like it too. Bold move. Anyone can defend their allies, but it takes real leadership to slam tech farms. Well, the strategy does have some sense to it. Most of their nations and their allies' nations will be out of range of DBDC within a week or week and a half. To have any substantial impact on you in the long term, they need to cut off your supply of tech. Now, given that you have some committed sellers in DS, I am not sure force will stop them from sending tech. However, Polar might at the very least be able to slow the tech stream to DBDC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2BKs Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 Oh cool!! So DS will have more targets! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 You are a fool. The last umpteen global wars, thousands and thousands of tech deals on both sides were started and completed... not one was noted.. not one was targeted for action, not one even garnered a single OWF post,. much less an alliance-wide threat. This is Polar wanting some warm and fuzzies, and the Polar meatshields rushing here to give the warm and fuzzies. I think Emperor Dajobo was generous recognizing war with DBDC, in my opinion they are nothing but rogues. But you are correct about the warm fuzzies, my Ivan Moldavi senses are tingling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted November 16, 2014 Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 Why do people keep saying this is "taking a stand".... FFS are you all that gullible. Its a stand with zero risk. Polar will be (or is , depending on perspective) getting rolled soon. This "policy" will be defunct as part of any peace agreement down the road. Its a fish for warm fuzzies and hails. Its not a "stand"... Jesus educate yourselves about how Planet Bob works. What makes you think we'd get rolled and then just go back to a peace situation where DBDC is even more in control, without exhausting every last resource to try to change that? 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.