Alexio15 Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 Well, as the war draws to a conclusion, and if DBDC refuses to negotiate despite the desires of the "peasants" in their coalition to go home in peace, we might just have a chance to test that loyalty a little more strongly. Maybe so but loyalty is pretty hard to break, history has proven that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 Maybe so but loyalty is pretty hard to break, history has proven that. I don't know about that, I've already gotten one seller to agree to not send them tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirWilliam Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 On the one hand financial aid of any nature, whether resultant from a contractual obligation or with more sinister intentions in mind, can be frowned upon. On the other, it's clear WFF falls into the former category and objectively speaking Fark's resources could be and probably should be better used against nations that were up until now directly involved in the war. Good for you though, WFF. The world can be an uncompromising place for a micro and even if you have protectors in your corner sometimes you've got to take an aggressive stance of your own. Regardless of what necessitated Fark's attacks this is certainly an instance where you're justified in retaliating (assuming the warscreen ends up reflecting it). Best of luck. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Kiloist Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 I don't know about that, I've already gotten one seller to agree to not send them tech. If it meant you would stop talking to me I'd agree too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 Didn't you declare all out war against DBDC tech sellers? Because to me that is pretty damn close to eternal war. Why you may ask. Simple the tech sellers aren't going to stop selling to DBDC. They are loyal. You can hit them all they want but they won't stop. So essentially in essence you will be in eternal war.That's not what happened, nor is it the definition of eternal war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musmahhu Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 Regardless, A no CB war on a Protected alliance is considered a rogue action. Welcome to the gutter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 Regardless, A no CB war on a Protected alliance is considered a rogue action. Welcome to the gutter. The rogue action was willfully supplying tech to an Enemy of Fark despite warnings beforehand to stop. That was the Casus Belli right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musmahhu Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 So infringing on the sovereignty of a 6 man micro with 3 active and 1 Stock Market between them is just another day at the office then? Stop it, Call it what it is...An easy statement to make to save some kind of face. "The best defense of a wounded ego is emotion". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 So FARK, being unable to take the war to anyone who mattered, decided to take this to WFF and beat on a micro to prove their ability? Good show. Do you also jump children for their lunch money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 So infringing on the sovereignty of a 6 man micro with 3 active and 1 Stock Market between them is just another day at the office then? Where were you when DBDC was infringing the sovereignty of Polaris and her allies, except for no reason other than to exploit upper tier nations? Oh wait, looks like you are enjoying fruits of said exploitation, looking at your alliance stats. In any case, sovereignty was not violated... this wasn't a random act of aggression as DBDC is prone to inflict on others... it was a measured response that this micro decided to inflict upon themselves with their flagrant non-cooperation. So FARK, being unable to take the war to anyone who mattered, decided to take this to WFF and beat on a micro to prove their ability? Good show. Do you also jump children for their lunch money? Again, this micro is facing the consequences of their decision. This was not a random raid with no warning beforehand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 Again, this micro is facing the consequences of their decision. This was not a random raid with no warning beforehand. Regardless, all this reveals to me is the weakness of Fark's military and it's command structure. The fact that they made as big a brouhaha about this as they did tells me they are unable to prosecute the war effectively and have been reduced to these "For the Honor of the Flag" style battlefields. By crowing over its offense against WFF, it reveals the weaknesses and atrophy hidden within. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 Regardless, all this reveals to me is the weakness of Fark's military and it's command structure. The fact that they made as big a brouhaha about this as they did tells me they are unable to prosecute the war effectively and have been reduced to these "For the Honor of the Flag" style battlefields. By crowing over its offense against WFF, it reveals the weaknesses and atrophy hidden within. FARK didn't start this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 FARK didn't start this thread. Don't be obtuse. I'm speaking to the fact that they pursued this war at all, instead of better targets, and the level of response they've given this in the OWF. It speaks to weakness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 Don't be obtuse. I'm speaking to the fact that they pursued this war at all, instead of better targets, and the level of response they've given this in the OWF. It speaks to weakness. What would "better targets" be? Upper tier nukers, I'm sure you would say. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musmahhu Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 Whatever Tywin, all it is doing is delaying the inevitable. This is a battle that cannot be won. Every alliance views the tech business differently. My point of view says that as long as no military assistance has been sent to a warring alliance ie Soldiers or tech for no compensation, then no hostile actions have been taken. But you can go ahead with the neanderthal theory that basic tech deals are an act of war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 What would "better targets" be? Upper tier nukers, I'm sure you would say. lol Stop the propaganda mouth for a second and face facts. Fark is bragging here and elsewhere about wupping on a six nation AA. If that doesn't make you worry about your ally, you haven't been paying attention to the world during your entire history here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 I would brag about destroying a 1-man AA, but that's just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dajobo Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Stop the propaganda mouth for a second and face facts. Fark is bragging here and elsewhere about wupping on a six nation AA. If that doesn't make you worry about your ally, you haven't been paying attention to the world during your entire history here. Actually this thread was started by Nord Belka of WFF in a pathetic cry for the sympathy vote after WFF decided despite knowing the repercussions, they'd aid an alliance at war. All Fark have done is explain what happened. Perhaps the propaganda should stop because whilst your side feel obligated to oppose Fark's decision you know damn well it's a reasonable one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 While I as well do not know what happened behind closed doors do know that our (loosely used here) position is for the freedom of whom to tech deal with during war. Those aid slots were CLEARLY used for tech dealing and correctly documented as such in the reason for aid. This is just egregious and an overreach of boundaries for the sole purpose of looking for nations in range to target. If you wanto talk about "an [egregious] overreach of boundaries for the sole purpose of looking for nations in range to target.", your alliance just a week or so ago attacked an alliance solely for being allied to another alliance at war. That is FAR worse than going after tech sellers. Most of the time tech selling during war goes under the radar, because it's relatively minor and most people know when to stop. But it's ALWAYS been a thing that people had a right to object to someone sending money or tech, even as part of a tech deal, to someone they are at war with. The only thing that has varied has been what people have been able or willing to do about it. And now I have to go wash my mouth out because I've been forced to agree with FARK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razgriz24 Posted January 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Actually this thread was started by Nord Belka of WFF in a pathetic cry for the sympathy vote after WFF decided despite knowing the repercussions, they'd aid an alliance at war. All Fark have done is explain what happened. Perhaps the propaganda should stop because whilst your side feel obligated to oppose Fark's decision you know damn well it's a reasonable one. Actually, I started the topic because FARK FAILED to make a public DoW. I felt it necessary to bring this to an open forum since you guys couldn't handle it privately or even have the decency to DoW if feeling soooo justified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helios Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Actually this thread was started by Nord Belka of WFF in a pathetic cry for the sympathy vote after WFF decided despite knowing the repercussions, they'd aid an alliance at war. All Fark have done is explain what happened. Perhaps the propaganda should stop because whilst your side feel obligated to oppose Fark's decision you know damn well it's a reasonable one. It may well be a reasonable decision but I'm having trouble seeing the military utility in it. Not only could Smontag's slots be put to much better use elsewhere but these nations will be rebuilt very quickly. I mean, if this is about principles or face-saving or hell maybe the Fark guy needs a holiday from the real fight then fair enough but I just don't see why there is a need to go to all this trouble, especially when it's unlikely to change WFF's views on whom they sell tech to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaricus The First Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 o/ Fuck them up WFF farkistan needs to learn fear tactics wont work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerschbs Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 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. This and Dream's posts are about the only rationale ones I've seen. FARK has an absolute right to hit any alliance they want for tech dealing with their enemies. Just because this hasn't been strictly enforced over the years doesn't make 8 years worth of precedent disappear. Like Letum says, the effectiveness of this policy, and the merits of target selection are subjective to those that chose to act upon it. Personally I don't think it's worth the effort, but that doesn't make it wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) Fark (or really just Mr. Vicarious) claiming this is a separate conflict from the one Fark is engaged in is laughable at best. Fark (or really just Mr. Vicarious) only messaged DT/GLoF tech sellers to go $%&@ themselves, not ODN or NoR. Fark (or really just Mr. Vicarious) ignored reason and decided to continue to be a !@#$ about the whole thing. Best of luck to WFF fighting off the assault from smontag and Mr. Vicarious's mouth. Edited January 21, 2015 by Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Actually this thread was started by Nord Belka of WFF in a pathetic cry for the sympathy vote after WFF decided despite knowing the repercussions, they'd aid an alliance at war. All Fark have done is explain what happened. Perhaps the propaganda should stop because whilst your side feel obligated to oppose Fark's decision you know damn well it's a reasonable one. My point is that Fark's pursuit of this conflict in lieu of a better military target is a tacit admission that they lack the ability to fight the war at a level above this conflict they've engendered with WFF. 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.