Congratulations to the followers of the Dumb Bird

[Dajobo]

The only threats of eternal war we've seen have been from Polar.

I'd appreciate a link to where we've said that. I will in return supply you a link of where I have stated otherwise. Fair deal?

[Williambonney]

From today forward until a peace agreement has been struck between the New Polar Order and DBDC, we reserve the right to add any nation sending tech to DBDC to our target lists and they may be attacked at anytime.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/124958-imperial-decree-dbdc/


Although Dajobo's right, Cuba did threaten eternal war in that same thread. Must be aliens.

[CubaQuerida]

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/124958-imperial-decree-dbdc/


Although Dajobo's right, Cuba did threaten eternal war in that same thread. Must be aliens.

Threaten is a very strong word.  I merely acknowledged.  Consider it a bluff called.

[Lamorak]

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/124958-imperial-decree-dbdc/


Although Dajobo's right, Cuba did threaten eternal war in that same thread. Must be aliens.

 

By that logic every alliance declaring on us is at eternal war against us. :rolleyes:

[President Gunn]

Not sure how time works in Mogarland but the war has been going for just over a month from my perspective. Admittedly the slow rate of expansion may mean that the war necessarily drags on longer than most, but the blame for that falls on both coalitions.

All the talk of excessively long war comes from your side, with 4 month engagements (Invicta) and eternal war (Polar) being thrown around from the start.

Since Kashmir has been parading around discussing how "Invicta wasted no time promising in private that this would be a four month long engagement" I thought I would discuss this a little since I am the one promising it would be 4 months long. Sir William didn't want to log dump me because it would make him look like an idiot. Below are the logs where we "promised that this would be a 4 month long engagement."

Session Start: Mon Nov 24 00:44:51 2014
Session Ident: SirWilliam
01[00:44:52] <12Nascar8FanGA> Hi
[00:45:16] <SirWilliam> hello
01[00:45:33] <12Nascar8FanGA> Just wanting to wish Kashmir luck in our little war :)
[00:46:16] <SirWilliam> i'm guessing more like our skirmish :v
01[00:46:27] <12Nascar8FanGA> that'd be a better way to describe it atm
01[00:46:28] <12Nascar8FanGA> lol
01[00:46:55] <12Nascar8FanGA> But I'm sure we'll trade plenty of nukes in the next like 4 months
[00:48:00] <SirWilliam> heh, i guess after SUN finishes rolling over we will be
01[00:48:32] <12Nascar8FanGA> Once I get nuked down a little lower I'll make sure to get a few wars with you guys
Session Close: Mon Nov 24 01:14:06 2014

If you notice I said "like 4 months" which could be anywhere from 3-5. But I mean lets be honest. It's not like Invicta has been in one or two, four month long wars in the past several years to base this off handed comment while telling Kashmir good luck. Edited December 9, 2014 by President Gunn

[shahenshah]

ok,

Here's where it started http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/124958-imperial-decree-dbdc/page-10#entry3332065
Keyword being: 'forever', Key point being:Grub is not government. But hey, it's OWF, it spins it's own truths.

 

Polar promised a long war until an agreement and DBDC said they'll oblige until Polar and DBDC reach an agreement. Hope this helps, but offcourse, everyone's free to believe thier own propaganda.

Edited December 9, 2014 by shahenshah

[WorldConqueror]

Since Kashmir has been parading around discussing how "Invicta wasted no time promising in private that this would be a four month long engagement" I thought I would discuss this a little since I am the one promising it would be 4 months long. Sir William didn't want to log dump me because it would make him look like an idiot. Below are the logs where we "promised that this would be a 4 month long engagement."

Session Start: Mon Nov 24 00:44:51 2014
Session Ident: SirWilliam
01[00:44:52] <12Nascar8FanGA> Hi
[00:45:16] <SirWilliam> hello
01[00:45:33] <12Nascar8FanGA> Just wanting to wish Kashmir luck in our little war :)
[00:46:16] <SirWilliam> i'm guessing more like our skirmish :v
01[00:46:27] <12Nascar8FanGA> that'd be a better way to describe it atm
01[00:46:28] <12Nascar8FanGA> lol
01[00:46:55] <12Nascar8FanGA> But I'm sure we'll trade plenty of nukes in the next like 4 months
[00:48:00] <SirWilliam> heh, i guess after SUN finishes rolling over we will be
01[00:48:32] <12Nascar8FanGA> Once I get nuked down a little lower I'll make sure to get a few wars with you guys
Session Close: Mon Nov 24 01:14:06 2014

If you notice I said "like 4 months" which could be anywhere from 3-5. But I mean lets be honest. It's not like Invicta has been in one or two four month long wars in the past several years to base this off handed comment while telling Kashmir good luck.

I don't know where you're pulling that bolded line from so I can't speak to that, for my part I was referencing posts I thought you guys made near the start of the war. Not sure how any of this is making SW look like an idiot though. You may have fought 4 month long wars in the past, the timeframe of such things is usually dictated by your willingness to surrender I would have thought.

[Lamorak]

You may have fought 4 month long wars in the past, the timeframe of such things is usually dictated by your willingness to surrender I would have thought.

 

In my time around here, no major war ended just because one side was ready/willing to surrender. There are always conditions in addition to that willingness, like reparations, enough damage dealt to the enemy nations etc. Saying the length of a war usually depends just on the willingness of the losing side to surrender is dishonest at best.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Lamorak

[WorldConqueror]

In my time around here, no major war ended just because one side was ready/willing to surrender. There are always conditions in addition to that willingness, like reparations, enough damage dealt to the enemy nations etc. Saying the length of a war usually depends just on the willingness of the losing side to surrender is dishonest at best.

I'm not talking about coalitions, I'm talking about specific alliances. Losing alliances on peripheral fronts are sometimes able to gain themselves an early peace. You are right in that there are sometimes certain conditions, I suppose what I meant by surrender was accept an arrangement with the victors whereupon peace is agreed. The acceptance of such arrangement by the losing alliance, whether it includes a simple withdrawal from the wider war or reps or whatever, still boils down to their cost/benefit analysis of fighting on or peacing out.

E: By peripheral fronts I was thinking of the wars emanating from SUN. Edited December 9, 2014 by WorldConqueror

[Dajobo]

ok,
Here's where it started http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/124958-imperial-decree-dbdc/page-10#entry3332065
Keyword being: 'forever', Key point being:Grub is not government. But hey, it's OWF, it spins it's own truths.
 
Polar promised a long war until an agreement and DBDC said they'll oblige until Polar and DBDC reach an agreement. Hope this helps, but offcourse, everyone's free to believe thier own propaganda.

I like quoting Shah because it's harder for the one eyed to debate their own side :D

Note: for the people who still don't get it, I bolded the key word.

So what if we are at war forever and ever and ever, peace is a lie.

Also to help people out, read the entire sentence. Grub stating he doesn't care how long it goes for isn't threatening anything!

[Rayvon]

I like quoting Shah because it's harder for the one eyed to debate their own side :D

Note: for the people who still don't get it, I bolded the key word.


Also to help people out, read the entire sentence. Grub stating he doesn't care how long it goes for isn't threatening anything!

 

Spin spin spin .. Like my slicks in the snow :(

 

;)

[kingzog]

Also to help people out, read the entire sentence. Grub stating he doesn't care how long it goes for isn't threatening anything!

 

No, let me help you out.

 

I have seen the future and there are corpses piled high on my doorstep, most of them mine.  DBDC are rabid dogs, they are off the leash and no one seems to care.  Since they have attacked us for a third time in circumstances that could hardly be engendered as a raid of any kind, we are at war.  We will accept their surrender at any time or enter into any sensible negotiation, but we are no longer standing idly by whilst every nation who strays into their backyard gets gunned down.

 

Enough is enough..... unless you are suggesting that DBDC are somehow involved in a strategy related to the Pacifican vs SnX fiasco.  Nah, still doesn't change anything.  We are not going to play by the ''rules'' if DBDC doesn't have to play by any common convention.   So what if we are at war forever and ever and ever, peace is a lie.  I am tired of the whole machinations of Bob, you do whatever it is you want to do, we will do likewise.

 

DBDC surrendering? I don't think there's a person with an IQ over 75 who expects that to happen.

 

Sensible negotiation? Perhaps, but beginning with your own surrender, as has been stated in multiple places elsewhere. And that surrender will no doubt involve a public retraction.

 

Your own policy -- you know, that foolish one that you enunciated -- states you will consider any nation that aids DBDC to be in a de facto state of war with Polaris and therefore subject to attack. Many have responded with statements that you don't seem to understand that an attack on a nation is an attack on that nation's alliance. I get the feeling you still don't understand that sentiment.

 

You don't seem to realize that whether or not you attack is not what matters. A threat is a threat, regardless of whether you have the nerve or even the ability to follow up on it.

 

Let me put this in a way that even you can understand.

 

Imagine that you say you are reserving the right to punch anyone wearing a green shirt right in the face. One day, a fellow in a green shirt walks over and sucker-punches you. His friends, wearing many different-colored shirts, proceed to join in because, after all, the fellow in the green shirt is their friend. With your last bit of consciousness fading, you plead, "But why? I didn't do anything to you!" And the guy in the green shirt says, "What, I was supposed to wait for you to hit me first?"

 

Do you get it now? (I'll bet you don't.)

 

It is you -- indeed, you personally -- who has threatened eternal war. You may say that's not what you intended, but the fact remains that it is what you said.

 

But in case you think I'm making all this up, how about we look at what Grub said, to me, in direct response to my criticisms?

 

 

There is no PR stunt, just a simple promise. 

Edited December 9, 2014 by kingzog

[Lamorak]

 

It is you -- indeed, you personally -- who has threatened eternal war. You may say that's not what you intended, but the fact remains that it is what you said.

 

 

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

 

How is it "threatening eternal war" when there are exit options that arent really that far-fetched?

 

Edit: Also funny how you needed to quote AlmightyGrub to show how Dajobo personally threatened someone with eternal war.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Lamorak

[Unknown Smurf]

 
No, let me help you out.
 
 
DBDC surrendering? I don't think there's a person with an IQ over 75 who expects that to *snip*
 

The surrender part was probably a joke considering how DBDC 'surrendered' to RIA.

I agree with most everything else you said though, just not the way you said it.

If Polar wanted to keep 20 or so sellers down they probably have the organization to do so. At significant cost though, especially when you have NPO/C&G/IRON keeping Polar&Co at war to protect DBDCs upper tier (&their own by extention).

When you go to the long term (3, 6+ monthes) Polar definitely will suffer. Their nations keeping the DBDC sellers down will have been in perpetual war while NPO/Doomsphere can cycle nations.

But I think Polar argues that the coalition arrayed against them won't stick together to accomplish this in the long term. To take it one step further though, I think Polar underestimates DBDCs diplomatic ability if they think this is feasible.

[The Zigur]

Speaking of eternal war, what a blast from the past!

18:01 Gatorback05 hey tywin can you get to at least 10k ns?
18:01 Lord_Boris|AFK so he finally learned how to play the game and only go to 5 when you collect?
18:02 Tywin_Lannister Gatorback05 lulzicide is easier at 3k NS
18:02 Gatorback05 i think i need to find someone to drop to your ns with MP and perma zi you
18:03 Tywin_Lannister haha thats been tried before
18:03 Gatorback05 did you reroll?
18:03 Tywin_Lannister many times
18:03 Gatorback05 ill find someone to constantly follow you
18:03 Tywin_Lannister I was once personally EZI'd by Moo himself
18:03 *** SlimCad quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.91 [Firefox 33.1/20141106120505])
18:03 Gatorback05 will be fun and my new goal now

[The Zigur]

The surrender part was probably a joke considering how DBDC 'surrendered' to RIA.
I agree with most everything else you said though, just not the way you said it.
If Polar wanted to keep 20 or so sellers down they probably have the organization to do so. At significant cost though, especially when you have NPO/C&G/IRON keeping Polar&Co at war to protect DBDCs upper tier (&their own by extention).

So is the God King also the Godfather? Cyber racketeering lmbo. Edited December 9, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[WarriorSoul]

You used those same logs like 2 days ago. Nobody cared then either.

[Mogar]

I suppose what I meant by surrender was accept an arrangement with the victors whereupon peace is agreed. The acceptance of such arrangement by the losing alliance, whether it includes a simple withdrawal from the wider war or reps or whatever, still boils down to their cost/benefit analysis of fighting on or peacing out.

Did you not argue in another thread that RIA is aggressive because DBDC surrendered to us, but yet they would not agree to the terms we asked for?

[shahenshah]

The surrender part was probably a joke considering how DBDC 'surrendered' to RIA.

I agree with most everything else you said though, just not the way you said it.

If Polar wanted to keep 20 or so sellers down they probably have the organization to do so. At significant cost though, especially when you have NPO/C&G/IRON keeping Polar&Co at war to protect DBDCs upper tier (&their own by extention).

When you go to the long term (3, 6+ monthes) Polar definitely will suffer. Their nations keeping the DBDC sellers down will have been in perpetual war while NPO/Doomsphere can cycle nations.

But I think Polar argues that the coalition arrayed against them won't stick together to accomplish this in the long term. To take it one step further though, I think Polar underestimates DBDCs diplomatic ability if they think this is feasible.

 

I personally think it's all tough talk as there always is at the start of the war and everyone's pissed etc, few months in, and cost of continuing the conflict far outweights the gains in peace, positions soften and some grounds for agreements are reached. Notice how both Polar and DBDC used the most important keyword here 'until we reach an agreement'. Amidst the bantering, both sides left open the door to close the front eventually, no one *actually* took an absolute position, sure they all wrapped it around tough words and it's OWF, so you like to discuss what's more controversial.

[Prodigal Moon]

 

No, let me help you out.

 

 

DBDC surrendering? I don't think there's a person with an IQ over 75 who expects that to happen.

 

Sensible negotiation? Perhaps, but beginning with your own surrender, as has been stated in multiple places elsewhere. And that surrender will no doubt involve a public retraction.

 

Your own policy -- you know, that foolish one that you enunciated -- states you will consider any nation that aids DBDC to be in a de facto state of war with Polaris and therefore subject to attack. Many have responded with statements that you don't seem to understand that an attack on a nation is an attack on that nation's alliance. I get the feeling you still don't understand that sentiment.

 

You don't seem to realize that whether or not you attack is not what matters. A threat is a threat, regardless of whether you have the nerve or even the ability to follow up on it.

 

Let me put this in a way that even you can understand.

 

Imagine that you say you are reserving the right to punch anyone wearing a green shirt right in the face. One day, a fellow in a green shirt walks over and sucker-punches you. His friends, wearing many different-colored shirts, proceed to join in because, after all, the fellow in the green shirt is their friend. With your last bit of consciousness fading, you plead, "But why? I didn't do anything to you!" And the guy in the green shirt says, "What, I was supposed to wait for you to hit me first?"

 

Do you get it now? (I'll bet you don't.)

 

It is you -- indeed, you personally -- who has threatened eternal war. You may say that's not what you intended, but the fact remains that it is what you said.

 

But in case you think I'm making all this up, how about we look at what Grub said, to me, in direct response to my criticisms?

 

 

Soooo...attempting to force DBDC into a sensible negotiation by standing up to their repeated unprovoked attacks = guaranteed eternal war?

 

If that's the case, so be it. I can't speak for Polaris, but personally I'd rather just fight until bill-lock than accept another entitiy attacking at will, without reprisal. That's not living. The rest of you will find out what that's like soon enough.

[The Zigur]

Personally judging by the parasitic character of Cubaquerida I think a long war is inevitable, he will make unreasonable demands and not soften his position because his allies and "friends" are just slaves to be expended. He himself feels invincible to the pressures of war.

 

But to try to spin it around to be Polar's fault, after over a year of aggressive actions by DBDC against Polar and other civilized alliances, is amateurish at best. Anyone with half a brain can see through that.

[kingzog]

 

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

 

How is it "threatening eternal war" when there are exit options that arent really that far-fetched?

 

When one person says that doing a certain thing may or may not lead to a certain reprisal, then that constitutes a threat against anyone doing or intending to do the first thing.

 

It's really very simple. So simple, in fact, that I think you probably get it but are being intentionally obtuse.

 

 

Edit: Also funny how you needed to quote AlmightyGrub to show how Dajobo personally threatened someone with eternal war.

 

OK, so maybe I'm wrong and you aren't being intentionally obtuse. I apologize.

 

 

Soooo...attempting to force DBDC into a sensible negotiation by standing up to their repeated unprovoked attacks = guaranteed eternal war?

 

"So <insert incorrect interpretation of a statement that was never even implied>? Gotcha."

 

I am so tired of seeing this same moronic formulation used, regardless of whichever side uses it.

[kerschbs]

 

I personally think it's all tough talk as there always is at the start of the war and everyone's pissed etc, few months in, and cost of continuing the conflict far outweights the gains in peace, positions soften and some grounds for agreements are reached. Notice how both Polar and DBDC used the most important keyword here 'until we reach an agreement'. Amidst the bantering, both sides left open the door to close the front eventually, no one *actually* took an absolute position, sure they all wrapped it around tough words and it's OWF, so you like to discuss what's more controversial.

 

You and your logic, it's not welcome here!

[Lamorak]

[...] a certain reprisal, [...]

 

Where did Dajobo ever make this certain reprisal of "eternal war"? Also stop trying to make fancy words and try to use arguments instead.

[murtibing]

I bet it's NEW.

 

I bet it's not NEW.