For Real DoW, I Checked

[Ogaden]

 

Ahahahaha, so now Aurora Borealis isn't allowed to fight RIA, either? Your alliance declared war on us.

 

RIA is going to fight me. Right now. You don't have a choice. If you didn't have such a terrible warchest, I would tell you to get up to my level. Instead, I'm going to fight my way down to yours.

We shall endeavor to aid you in this noble quest of losing about 80,000 NS in any way we can

 

edit: except Delta, I don't think I've seen him since the Disorder War, though if he logs in say hi for me

Edited December 6, 2014 by Ogaden

[mmansfield68]

Good luck RIA. I hope you completely destroy these scoundrels who would rather fight you than the real target of TOP. AZTEC would prefer other people do their fighting.

You don't know what you're talking about.  AZTEC has never bowed, nor shook a fight.

 

Hell yeah GLoF!  Kick their respective hindquarters!

 

#AZTEC

[Great Lord Moth]

Somoza, I get the distinct impression that you do not understand why we attacked DBDC. We did not declare any war on DBDC for this coalition. We are continuing a war between our individual alliances from months ago that never formally ended.

 

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Baldr_War

 

Several months ago, Baldr was raided by DBDC nations after we were told we would be taken off their raid list. When Baldr fought back, reprisals were made against Baldr's generals. War was then officially recognized by the RIA. After two weeks of war, the last DBDC nation in range, noob cake, bought his way out of range, forcing a stalemate. During the confrontation, DBDC posted a surrender that we neither negotiated nor accepted. When this coalition war caused a doombird to fall within our range, we went right back to where we left off. If you wish to come in on us in defense of AB, fine. If you want to attack RIA nations who haven't attacked AB nations, that's fine too. We won't begrudge you any of the wars you declare on us, because your primary reason for declaration, the defense of AB, is completely valid. But don't pretend that DBDC didn't have it coming, and that you're just defending a friend who got jumped. Your actions indicate a supportive stance on DBDC's tech raids, and that's what would form my opinion of GLOF.

 

I am still waiting for noob cake to make good on his threat from months ago, the one in my sig.

[Hereno]

at least mogar is interesting

that's more than i can say for 90% of the people on this forum

[Farnsworth]

Well shucks, I'm still arguing about the war like everyone else. :D

 

I'm legitimately curious as to why GLOF cares that we're attacking DBDC, though. There's only one possible reason that makes sense to me, and if it is the case then I might have to have an opinion on GLOF post-war.

Here's another possibility to throw out there for the conspiracy theorists: AZTEC is a MADP bloc. SCM, as a member (and indeed gov member) of DT, is on the DBDC AA, as DBDC-DT maintain a treaty of an undisclosed nature. GLOF is thereby defending DT. Problem solved?*

 

It seems the time has come for me to step in here and explain how to deal with the crying that comes with these DoWs.  Do not debate, do not justify, do not try and be nice.  It is war.  People boo hoo and cry with nothing but, propaganda in mind.  Simply agree and then take it to next the level.

 

Attacking side - DoW on these guys

Boo Hoo side - why don't you hit your real target, a bigger alliance, somebody with X treaty ect.

Attacking side - Do not worry they will all burn at our leasure.

Boo Hoo side - you are puppets, you are cowards, you will get in next war, peace mode, you are bad, etc.

Attacking side - We feast on your tears

Boo Hoo side - blah blah blah 

Attacking side - We feast on your tears

 

Stick with, We feast on your tears over and over the crying will stop.  Just a hint from The Bad.   

This pretty much sums it up quite nicely.

 

 

*Of course the problem is far from solved - I know that. I just like to stir the pot and then look on at the ensuing horror in disbelief. #masochism

Edited December 6, 2014 by Farnsworth

[Lysistrata]

Somoza, I get the distinct impression that you do not understand why we attacked DBDC. We did not declare any war on DBDC for this coalition. We are continuing a war between our individual alliances from months ago that never formally ended.

 

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Baldr_War

 

Several months ago, Baldr was raided by DBDC nations after we were told we would be taken off their raid list. When Baldr fought back, reprisals were made against Baldr's generals. War was then officially recognized by the RIA. After two weeks of war, the last DBDC nation in range, noob cake, bought his way out of range, forcing a stalemate. During the confrontation, DBDC posted a surrender that we neither negotiated nor accepted. When this coalition war caused a doombird to fall within our range, we went right back to where we left off. If you wish to come in on us in defense of AB, fine. If you want to attack RIA nations who haven't attacked AB nations, that's fine too. We won't begrudge you any of the wars you declare on us, because your primary reason for declaration, the defense of AB, is completely valid. But don't pretend that DBDC didn't have it coming, and that you're just defending a friend who got jumped. Your actions indicate a supportive stance on DBDC's tech raids, and that's what would form my opinion of GLOF.

 

I am still waiting for noob cake to make good on his threat from months ago, the one in my sig.

Okay lemme get this straight... DBDC posted a surrender (which I saw)... which means they will not be attacking you anymore. That is not a negotiation. They just did it. You continued to attack them? If so, that makes you the aggressor and in open war with an IRON ODoAP partner. Last time I checked an ODoAP treaty trumps a FAP. Is this the road you really wish to take?

 

This is how I'm interpreting this... please correct me if I'm wrong, and I do not speak for IRON Council. Just want to understand.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Lysistrata

[Ogaden]

Here's another possibility to throw out there for the conspiracy theorists: AZTEC is a MADP bloc. SCM, as a member (and indeed gov member) of DT, is on the DBDC AA, as DBDC-DT maintain a treaty of an undisclosed nature. GLOF is thereby defending DT. Problem solved?*

 

This pretty much sums it up quite nicely.

 

 

*Of course the problem is far from solved - I know that. I just like to stir the pot and then look on at the ensuing horror in disbelief. #masochism

 

Does this mean DT also attacked us six months ago and we are in a defensive war with you already?

[CubaQuerida]

In war, you can never get a clean break so that none of your allies are hit, it's impossible.  Last war, RIA fought on the side opposite R&R, Fark hit NATO (R&R's MADP ally), etc. etc, all of Dos Equis declared on NATO and TIO, etc. etc.
 
One thing that didn't happen was R&R coming on the OWF and yelling at all it's allies on the other side for "greenlighting" attacks, because that's not what happened then and it's not what happening now.
 
I'm just wondering when you are going to stop !@#$posting, last war you were all over the OWF screaming about your godlike ability to decimate new nations, this war you're yelling about R&R/IRON okaying all these attacks.
 
I can honestly say I've never had a bad opinion of RIA, but as a gov member posting all this trash, you are on your way!

Amen brother. Found this on page 4 and I might just stop here.

[CubaQuerida]

Baldr is still launching offensive wars, meaning if he went untouched, it's likely he would attack AB. 
 
 
I haven't said that all, though. More that Smurf's account of the situation is far off the mark and he is sour because things didn't go his way.

Agree completely about baldr
Additionally, It's usually a safe assumption that smurf's assessment is 'off the mark', but at least it's consistently off.

[Garion]

Okay lemme get this straight... DBDC posted a surrender (which I saw)... which means they will not be attacking you anymore. That is not a negotiation. They just did it. You continued to attack them? If so, that makes you the aggressor and in open war with an IRON ODoAP partner. Last time I checked an ODoAP treaty trumps a FAP. Is this the road you really wish to take?

 

This is how I'm interpreting this... please correct me if I'm wrong, and I do not speak for IRON Council. Just want to understand.

 

I don't know if this is a clumsy attempt at lowering yourself to Mogar's level: if not, since when an alliance surrendering ends a war? Could SNX or Polar give up and say "we're done" tomorrow and leave the fight, clean slate, no hard feelings? If that's the case I'll join IRON in accepting Polar's coalition surrender tomorrow, you guys know where my inbox is.

[CubaQuerida]

No one in aztec attacked RIA when RIA attacked DBDC.
 
But you went and attacked Aztec.  Even if you then tried to  explained it was cause of dbdc.  So whine all you want.  But you attacked Aztec, and that is resulting in a counter on your alliance.

sums up the entire thread. Well done.

[Lysistrata]

 

I don't know if this is a clumsy attempt at lowering yourself to Mogar's level: if not, since when an alliance surrendering ends a war? Could SNX or Polar give up and say "we're done" tomorrow and leave the fight, clean slate, no hard feelings? If that's the case I'll join IRON in accepting Polar's coalition surrender tomorrow, you guys know where my inbox is.

Let's be serious here. DBDC surrendering was a gift. RIA should have taken it. They didn't. They get smacked, and smacked by allies of DBDC. My advice if you don't want to be raided by DBDC... leave the alliance they have a problem with and join an alliance they don't have a problem with. Other than sweeping changes to the rules of the game, which will not happen... that is your only option. If not, live with the threat and quit whining. But that's just me I could be wrong.

[Auctor]

Disputing RIA's right to fight back against DBDC is dumb. Inferring that that right shields their nations from the consequences of RIA's attacks on another alliance is equally dumb.

[CubaQuerida]

Let's be serious here. DBDC surrendering was a gift. RIA should have taken it. They didn't. They get smacked, and smacked by allies of DBDC. My advice if you don't want to be raided by DBDC... leave the alliance they have a problem with and join an alliance they don't have a problem with. Other than sweeping changes to the rules of the game, which will not happen... that is your only option. If not, live with the threat and quit whining. But that's just me I could be wrong.

I will expound upon this.

We did in fact surrender, meaning that we conceded the war and victory to RIA. We did not wish to deal with a long term stalemate and assumed they wouldn't either. Fast forward six months and RIA hits on a nation that wasn't even in DBDC at the time of the original war. This, done in the name of an expired/surrendered war, is expected to hold up to owf scrutiny.

Intelligent people are expected to just look past the entire coalition effort and assume that wars declared on DBDC are somehow allowed to be independent from everything else because it makes sense in ria's fantasyland?

[Farnsworth]

 

Does this mean DT also attacked us six months ago and we are in a defensive war with you already?

Tbh, I don't know what you're talking about. Probably some DBDC raids. I cannot speak as to which AA SCM -- or anyone else aside from myself -- was on at that time. Nor will I speak as to the nature of the DBDC-DT treaty. However, you or anyone else is welcome to (continue to) partake of the pot's offerings. I really don't mind stirring.

[Baldr]

I will expound upon this.

We did in fact surrender, meaning that we conceded the war and victory to RIA. We did not wish to deal with a long term stalemate and assumed they wouldn't either. Fast forward six months and RIA hits on a nation that wasn't even in DBDC at the time of the original war. This, done in the name of an expired/surrendered war, is expected to hold up to owf scrutiny.

Intelligent people are expected to just look past the entire coalition effort and assume that wars declared on DBDC are somehow allowed to be independent from everything else because it makes sense in ria's fantasyland?

 

You posted a joke surrender.  You continued to fight, and we continued to fight.  You are complaining that a fight you started didn't end the way you wanted.

 

Quick and easy surrenders are exactly what tech raiders want.  You get to hit, steal some tech, do some damage, and then the whole thing ends.  But when you attacked me, it didn't go that way.  I didn't kiss your butt, you were unable to anarchy me in your initial attacks, and I declared on three more of your nations and fought 6-1.  Then you kept pushing with RIA and they decided that since you were going to keep hitting us anyway, they may as well go on the offensive.

 

If you want peace with RIA, talk to Ogaden. 

[Garion]

Let's be serious here. DBDC surrendering was a gift. RIA should have taken it. They didn't. They get smacked, and smacked by allies of DBDC. My advice if you don't want to be raided by DBDC... leave the alliance they have a problem with and join an alliance they don't have a problem with. Other than sweeping changes to the rules of the game, which will not happen... that is your only option. If not, live with the threat and quit whining. But that's just me I could be wrong.

 

Your statement is terrible, and I do hope your Council doesn't share your views.

[Great Lord Moth]

Okay lemme get this straight... DBDC posted a surrender (which I saw)... which means they will not be attacking you anymore. That is not a negotiation. They just did it. You continued to attack them? If so, that makes you the aggressor and in open war with an IRON ODoAP partner. Last time I checked an ODoAP treaty trumps a FAP. Is this the road you really wish to take?

 

This is how I'm interpreting this... please correct me if I'm wrong, and I do not speak for IRON Council. Just want to understand.

There were negotiations on private channels. We gave them terms, they refused, so we continued fighting. We have enough dignity to deny our enemy the privilege of making a-lateral decisions on our behalf. A surrender comes with compliance to terms. It's that simple.

 

Also, for the record, I don't speak for the RIA gov. >_> The last time I was gov was during, like, the Unjust War.

[Lysistrata]

 

Your statement is terrible, and I do hope your Council doesn't share your views.

It may be terrible but the truth is sometimes hard to swallow.

 

There were negotiations on private channels. We gave them terms, they refused, so we continued fighting. We have enough dignity to deny our enemy the privilege of making a-lateral decisions on our behalf. A surrender comes with compliance to terms. It's that simple.

 

Also, for the record, I don't speak for the RIA gov. >_> The last time I was gov was during, like, the Unjust War.

Well good luck getting that "compliance", your dignity combined with arrogance and pride will get you... nowhere.

We are involved in coalition war and currently you're on the other side.

Best to stop crying, elawyering the treaty chain, and dance.

The governments will settle it all when the radiation levels improve.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Lysistrata

[Great Lord Moth]

Well good luck getting that "compliance", your dignity combined with arrogance and pride will get you... nowhere.

We are involved in coalition war and currently you're on the other side.

Best to stop crying, elawyering the treaty chain, and dance. The governments will settle it all when the radiation levels improve.

I like my pride and arrogance. In fact, your words make me feel even more arrogant. You must've read, like, only two of my posts here. Do you even know who you're talking to? :D

[Lysistrata]

I like my pride and arrogance. In fact, your words make me feel even more arrogant. You must've read, like, only two of my posts here. Do you even know who you're talking to? :D

Wow. The last time I heard that line was Reese Witherspoon trying to talk her way out of drunk driving... or was it Barack Obama to Benjamin Netanyahu? Doesn't matter, but in all cases it's inappropriate. I read more of the OWF than I post. I really don't like these boards very much at all. The way you talk to me... if you're not my wife, or one of my kids, I really don't care who you are.

[Great Lord Moth]

Wow. The last time I heard that line was Reese Witherspoon trying to talk her way out of drunk driving... or was it Barack Obama to Benjamin Netanyahu? Doesn't matter, but in all cases it's inappropriate. I read more of the OWF than I post. I really don't like these boards very much at all. The way you talk to me... if you're not my wife, or one of my kids, I really don't care who you are.

So you're too lazy to seek the greater context, and you defend your laziness with apathy. You sure are well-rounded! Someone clearly worth taking seriously!

 

I'd be interested in an actual, rational response to my point from earlier. A surrender comes with compliance to terms. We were not unfair. But I also feel like things are getting too derailed here. >_> I don't have a Baldr War thread to post in that wouldn't be gravedigging. Would anyone on either side like to formally re-declare war?

[Garion]

It may be terrible but the truth is sometimes hard to swallow.

Not as hard as all the swallowing you must have been doing, if IRON's FA policy sums up to "we'll bend over for anyone stronger than us". I have the impression that is not the case, but hey, feel free to disappoint me.

[d3mon]

Let's be serious here. DBDC surrendering was a gift. RIA should have taken it. They didn't. They get smacked, and smacked by allies of DBDC. My advice if you don't want to be raided by DBDC... leave the alliance they have a problem with and join an alliance they don't have a problem with. Other than sweeping changes to the rules of the game, which will not happen... that is your only option. If not, live with the threat and quit whining. But that's just me I could be wrong.

 

So.. um.. bendover or run away.. You will find that some people don't find either option acceptable. I remember a time when fighting against the odds to defend your alliance was considered an honorable act by many in IRON, I hope that hasn't changed.

[Lysistrata]

 

So.. um.. bendover or run away.. You will find that some people don't find either option acceptable. I remember a time when fighting against the odds to defend your alliance was considered an honorable act by many in IRON, I hope that hasn't changed.

My advice had nothing to do with IRON fighting against the odds for honor. My advice was to join an alliance DBDC doesn't have a problem with instead of getting raided by them. That's all. Nothing to do with bending over or running away from anyone. This place loves to take what people say and twist into what they want to hear... and then turn it back into them. Sorry not playing that game. The game does not prohibit anyone from getting attacked. We do that ourselves with words like honor, treaty, optional,  and DoW. When DBDC is prohibited by the game to not declare war on anyone they can reach... then you have an arguement. Until then, I see nothing wrong with what they do.