The FARKLAND war

[Alexio15]

What I've learned from this thread:
 
- A private embassy with FARK doesn't really mean it will stay private.
 
- If you are tech dealing with any alliance currently on the opposite side of the war as FARK, they have declared war on you and you should recognize hostilities and coordinate your efforts with the other 35 alliances.

So what your saying is war for freedom? I think I just found you a new avatar :P

[TBRaiders]

Tywin,

 

Surprising you didn't understand we are both high tier alliances before this thread.  With the amount of energy and time spent talking about us, I assumed you knew at least basic stuff about us.

Edited January 20, 2015 by TBRaiders

[The Zigur]

Tywin,
 
Surprising you didn't understand we are both high tier alliances before this thread.  With the amount of energy and time spent talking about us, I assumed you knew at least basic stuff about us.

I said many months ago that your actions would culminate in long term class warfare. Feel free to go back and point out where any of my predictions have proven false. Edited January 20, 2015 by Tywin Lannister

[Alexio15]

Really why do we still indulge tywin? The posts are just repetitive.

[TBRaiders]

You also said you defeated us back during the Jihad vs Neutrality.  How's that working out?

[Tehmina]

Please use 'fuck Bourgeois', 'class warfare' abd other terms carefully. They means a lot to some of us around.

[brucemania]

I think everyone on the OWF is well aware that WFF is a protectorate of Sengoku and Reavers. So let's drop the "poor widdle AA that can't defend itself" routine. They have two fairly well connected protectors and I'm sure that fact was considered when they decided to continue sending tech to DT.

As for this precedent you think we set. What precedent, specifically, do you think we set?

That aiding an enemy is an act of war? Sorry, not a precedent we set.

Attacking a smaller AA during an ongoing war because they did something you didn't like?
Sorry, this has happened many times. Generally that's because larger AAs are either neutral or already involved in the hostilities, so they're already engaged at some level or another.
It happened to NPL a couple wars ago, except there wasn't a catalyst beyond "because we can" for that one.
And did not pretty much all members of AZTEC just start attacking GO a few weeks ago for a single nation sending aid to a nation that one of them was at war with? (I believe the aid was even sent BEFORE that war was declared) That was at least one of their excuses. So not a precedent we set, either.
It happened to FAN and Avalanche as well this war. Not that they're small AAs, but at the tiers they were attacked at is similar to us attacking WFF.

Most of these precedents were set by NPO&Co a long, long time ago or by Umbrella&Co in the time since Karma. Both of which are squarely on your side of this particular conflict.

 

Just to get this right then .. with the past that was justified for the Karma war and what all fought agianst to stop is now okay ? ... Seems to me a matter of being hippocratic to your convenience that you are now justifying what you have supposedly stood against in the past. Just as you stood against terms in the past but yet when there is a will terms against NPO seem to still be the norm. Man we are facing a interesting new world in the future .. so much double talk so much idiocy

 

oh and just one last question .. did you happen by any chance to go to one of WFFs allies to see if a resolution could be made through mediation or something to maybe avoid this at all ? I know others go to the extreme to do so as sometimes it stops any communication breakdown?

Edited January 20, 2015 by brucemania

[The Zigur]

You also said you defeated us back during the Jihad vs Neutrality.  How's that working out?

That's a funny bit of DBDC revisionism you got going there:

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/118776-doombird-doomcave-terms-of-service/

"DBDC declared war on The Democratic Alliance (TDO) in a joint effort with Mushqaeda (MQ), but does not and has not ever supported a Jihad on Neutrality."

- Future God King Cubaquerida

I do recall the crusaders claimed victory against Mushqaeda but for my part I believed that DBDC would remain a growing threat to civilization. Edited January 20, 2015 by Tywin Lannister

[The Zigur]

Please use '$%&@ Bourgeois', 'class warfare' abd other terms carefully. They means a lot to some of us around.

The term class warfare is fitting because two classes have indeed developed in our world: producers and parasites.

[EViL0nE]

Just to get this right then .. with the past that was justified for the Karma war and what all fought agianst to stop is now okay ? ... Seems to me a matter of being hippocratic to your convenience that you are now justifying what you have supposedly stood against in the past. Just as you stood against terms in the past but yet when there is a will terms against NPO seem to still be the norm. Man we are facing a interesting new world in the future .. so much double talk so much idiocy

Yes, you've got that right. Fark is over here trying to force alliances to disband, supporting the use of PZI/EZI/Viceroys and waging eternal wars. Clearly that is what we're doing.

But please, point me to the peace where Fark levied terms against NPO.
We fought NPO in our holy war, we lost.
We fought NPO in the Unholy war, we lost.

That's the only two times I can find that we've fought NPO.

Most of the people involved in most of the wars where NPO received terms, are sitting on your side of this war.

Of course you know that already, and you know that my post asked you to explain what precedent you felt Fark set by attacking the WFF nations that were actively sending tech to DT after acknowledging that we considered it a hostile act and saying they would not only continue those deals but actively seek out new ones just to prove their point.

So I'll ask again. What precedent did we set by our action?
I guess you could potentially argue we set a precedent of an AA on the losing side of a war continuing to defend their freedom to retaliate against hostile acts against their AA.
But I'm guessing that's been done before as well.

[Dre4mwe4ver]

I've always been a huge proponent of war time tech dealing. There are three primary resources being exchanged in a tech deal: cash, tech and time. When a tech deal is paid for, the payment includes the shipping and handling for a timely delivery. Given the slot restrictions, time is perhaps the most important of these resources. To attempt to restrict the delivery of tech that has already been paid for is a form of theft.

At the same time, it is fully within the rights of any alliance to regard any aid (or any action, for that matter) as a valid reason to respond with an escalation to military action, and the risk of such response is heightened when there is a war involving one or more of the tech dealing parties.

No party has any obligation to renege upon a tech deal due to there being a state of war. That said, to engage in mid war tech dealing is to assume the risks that come with it. You may not be guilty of any crime, but nor should you be paying the victim card.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Dre4mwe4ver

[brucemania]

Yes, you've got that right. Fark is over here trying to force alliances to disband, supporting the use of PZI/EZI/Viceroys and waging eternal wars. Clearly that is what we're doing.

But please, point me to the peace where Fark levied terms against NPO.
We fought NPO in our holy war, we lost.
We fought NPO in the Unholy war, we lost.

That's the only two times I can find that we've fought NPO.

Most of the people involved in most of the wars where NPO received terms, are sitting on your side of this war.

Of course you know that already, and you know that my post asked you to explain what precedent you felt Fark set by attacking the WFF nations that were actively sending tech to DT after acknowledging that we considered it a hostile act and saying they would not only continue those deals but actively seek out new ones just to prove their point.

So I'll ask again. What precedent did we set by our action?
I guess you could potentially argue we set a precedent of an AA on the losing side of a war continuing to defend their freedom to retaliate against hostile acts against their AA.
But I'm guessing that's been done before as well.

 

 

Which side were you on in Disorder ? ..

[The Zigur]

I've always been a huge proponent of war time tech dealing. There are three primary resources being exchanged in a tech deal: cash, tech and time. When a tech deal is paid for, the payment includes the shipping and handling for a timely delivery. Given the slot restrictions, time is perhaps the most important. To attempt to restrict the delivery of tech that has already been paid for is a form of theft.
That said, it is fully within the rights of any alliance to regard any aid as a valid reason to respond with an escalation to military action, and the risk of such response is heightened when there is a war involving one or more of the tech dealing parties.
No party has any obligation to renege upon a tech deal due to there being a state of war. That said, to engage in mid war tech dealing is to assume the risks that come with it. You may not be guilty of any crime, but nor should you be paying the victim card.

I think this is a fair post, but it isn't hard to deduce from it why ambushing and looting tech logistics is a very valid part of war. In fact, I have made full use of the tactic myself this war.

[The R00STER]

I want you all to know that I do not appreciate the walls of text. Who has this much time to type? Jesus.


WFF I appreciate that stance you are taking. Penguin, sorry I got you attacked but it will come back to you. Scouts honuor man!

Edited January 20, 2015 by Terrence Krillins

[Sarkin]

The point that people are missing (or intentionally ignoring) is this: the issue isn't that Fark considers a tech deal during a war an act of war, it's who they chose to make an example of. WFF is a tiny, tiny alliance with absolutely no real military capacity. Fark had literally 25 alliances to choose from, and this is who they chose to attack.

 

Now, a couple of Fark folks have argued that the reason they picked WFF was attitude: "WFF didn't roll over, they insisted on continuing to do tech deals with whoever they want, including our opponents." Let's break this down into two parts:

 

- WFF's side: WFF is, again, an absolutely tiny alliance with no large members. For an alliance like that to grow, it must do external tech deals. It doesn't have the resources for an internal aid program or internal tech deals. Therefore, economic freedom is a key principle for WFF and it's not really one that they can afford to budge on if they hope to last.

 

- Fark's side: They're at war, they don't like the people they're at war with getting aid. Fair enough. However, was WFF really causing that much of a problem, given that they only had tech deals with five DT nations, just two of whom are actually in range of Fark nations? Is the military impact here such an important motivator that it's worth it to kick around a new micro just to get your point across? Obviously not.

 

So, what was Fark's motivation for hitting WFF instead of the other 24 alliances dealing tech to their opponents? Basically, they didn't like WFF's attitude, knew that they couldn't fight back and decided to teach them a lesson. It's both petty and pathetic.

[brucemania]

The point that people are missing (or intentionally ignoring) is this: the issue isn't that Fark considers a tech deal during a war an act of war, it's who they chose to make an example of. WFF is a tiny, tiny alliance with absolutely no real military capacity. Fark had literally 25 alliances to choose from, and this is who they chose to attack.

 

Now, a couple of Fark folks have argued that the reason they picked WFF was attitude: "WFF didn't roll over, they insisted on continuing to do tech deals with whoever they want, including our opponents." Let's break this down into two parts:

 

- WFF's side: WFF is, again, an absolutely tiny alliance with no large members. For an alliance like that to grow, it must do external tech deals. It doesn't have the resources for an internal aid program or internal tech deals. Therefore, economic freedom is a key principle for WFF and it's not really one that they can afford to budge on if they hope to last.

 

- Fark's side: They're at war, they don't like the people they're at war with getting aid. Fair enough. However, was WFF really causing that much of a problem, given that they only had tech deals with five DT nations, just two of whom are actually in range of Fark nations? Is the military impact here such an important motivator that it's worth it to kick around a new micro just to get your point across? Obviously not.

 

So, what was Fark's motivation for hitting WFF instead of the other 24 alliances dealing tech to their opponents? Basically, they didn't like WFF's attitude, knew that they couldn't fight back and decided to teach them a lesson. It's both petty and pathetic.

 

 

well said but of course you will get the double talk back as why it is not okay for some but perfectly legitimate for them

[Sir Kiloist]

All I'ma say is I gave tech to DBDC and no one did a damn thing.. 

[Hunterman1043]

The point that people are missing (or intentionally ignoring) is this: the issue isn't that Fark considers a tech deal during a war an act of war, it's who they chose to make an example of. WFF is a tiny, tiny alliance with absolutely no real military capacity. Fark had literally 25 alliances to choose from, and this is who they chose to attack.
 
Now, a couple of Fark folks have argued that the reason they picked WFF was attitude: "WFF didn't roll over, they insisted on continuing to do tech deals with whoever they want, including our opponents." Let's break this down into two parts:
 
- WFF's side: WFF is, again, an absolutely tiny alliance with no large members. For an alliance like that to grow, it must do external tech deals. It doesn't have the resources for an internal aid program or internal tech deals. Therefore, economic freedom is a key principle for WFF and it's not really one that they can afford to budge on if they hope to last.
 
- Fark's side: They're at war, they don't like the people they're at war with getting aid. Fair enough. However, was WFF really causing that much of a problem, given that they only had tech deals with five DT nations, just two of whom are actually in range of Fark nations? Is the military impact here such an important motivator that it's worth it to kick around a new micro just to get your point across? Obviously not.
 
So, what was Fark's motivation for hitting WFF instead of the other 24 alliances dealing tech to their opponents? Basically, they didn't like WFF's attitude, knew that they couldn't fight back and decided to teach them a lesson. It's both petty and pathetic.

Hear hear!

[BringMeTheHorizon]

As Sarkin has pointed out, Riot Society are doing tech deals with DT (odd but I digress), and I have not been approached to stop, cease, or discontinue said deals, we also have a tech deal with Umbrella. Fark can sit here, and say that they've gone to people tech dealing with DT (albeit we only have maybe 2 deals with them) but I've yet to hear from them. I only know one other AA who was approached by Fark, and they told them to shove it that they were going to keep dealing with DT, yet they weren't attacked,

 

So from my own dealings with another AA who was approached, said fuck off, who actually has nations 50k+ ranges, and nukes; were not attacked. I was not approached about our deals with DT, maybe not as many as WFF, but still on the opposite side of Fark. This is just very silly for Fark to continue to claim anything else other than we targeted them because they were weak, and wouldn't fight back. Which I don't have a problem with it, but don't hide behind saying you've talked to others, and the others have said they'd stop, when that's simply not true. 

[Rush Sykes]

As Sarkin has pointed out, Riot Society are doing tech deals with DT (odd but I digress), and I have not been approached to stop, cease, or discontinue said deals, we also have a tech deal with Umbrella. Fark can sit here, and say that they've gone to people tech dealing with DT (albeit we only have maybe 2 deals with them) but I've yet to hear from them. I only know one other AA who was approached by Fark, and they told them to shove it that they were going to keep dealing with DT, yet they weren't attacked,

 

So from my own dealings with another AA who was approached, said $%&@ off, who actually has nations 50k+ ranges, and nukes; were not attacked. I was not approached about our deals with DT, maybe not as many as WFF, but still on the opposite side of Fark. This is just very silly for Fark to continue to claim anything else other than we targeted them because they were weak, and wouldn't fight back. Which I don't have a problem with it, but don't hide behind saying you've talked to others, and the others have said they'd stop, when that's simply not true. 

 

Impossible. Fark has approached all of them. They said so.

[Hunterman1043]

Impossible. Fark has approached all of them. They said so.

^Farkistan's FA Department

#KeepOnDigging

Lol Edited January 20, 2015 by Hunterman1043

[Letum]

Most of the people involved in most of the wars where NPO received terms, are sitting on your side of this war.

It's an even split actually, though that does depend on how you decide to count disbanded and merged alliances. Not that it's a particularly relevant point.

I don't think Fark is generating any particular "precedent" here in what is a pretty minor sideshow to a sideshow. They have a "right" to such action, and whilst their choice of target can be questioned form a perspective of fairness and effectiveness, they don't really have any obligation to be fair to anyone and they are accountable only to themselves in terms of whether it produces results or not. If I was on a losing side of a war, I might very well consider the possibility of getting more lower tier targets just to piss in the other side's soup. Of course, whether it'll have any positive effect in the end in terms of intimidating other micros without big sponsors (you might need a bit more effort than making an "example" out of just one micro) or whether it's just creating drama (and bad relations) for nothing is something we'll all have to wait and see.

[Hunterman1043]

It's an even split actually, though that does depend on how you decide to count disbanded and merged alliances. Not that it's a particularly relevant point.

I don't think Fark is generating any particular "precedent" here in what is a pretty minor sideshow to a sideshow. They have a "right" to such action, and whilst their choice of target can be questioned form a perspective of fairness and effectiveness, they don't really have any obligation to be fair to anyone and they are accountable only to themselves in terms of whether it produces results or not. If I was on a losing side of a war, I might very well consider the possibility of getting more lower tier targets just to piss in the other side's soup. Of course, whether it'll have any positive effect in the end in terms of intimidating other micros without big sponsors (you might need a bit more effort than making an "example" out of just one micro) or whether it's just creating drama (and bad relations) for nothing is something we'll all have to wait and see.

I just want to be put on the record that during Karma, while I was for the war based on past transgressions to my alliances from NPO, I was heavily outspoken against rediculous terms towards them. Edited January 20, 2015 by Hunterman1043

[kingzog]

Thus far, from what I know, we have been consistent. WFF is just the only AA to this point that has taken our inquiries to mean they should try and find ways to send more tech to our enemies and force our hand.

 

That "from what I know" is a handy little out for you. When proven wrong, I suppose you'll just plead ignorance.

 

You didn't approach all of the others. Deals from other alliances are ongoing. And, finally, you aren't attacking anyone other than WFF.

 

The fact is that there are multiple alliances dealing with DT (and NoR, for that matter) and you've chosen to attack the smallest of the lot. Plenty of other alliances are 'forcing your hand', and you're doing nothing.

 

My criticism stands. You and Polaris are made for each other.

[ChairmanHal]

I think it's funny how people on both sides of this conflict are pointing fingers at each other regarding this issue, when in reality both sides have engaged in a variety of preemptive attacks, aid interdictions, and other total warfare tactics, some officially declared wars, others completely undeclared and almost missed by the OWF.