The Zigur Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 He's just going to keep repeating that they have a stock market without addressing any actual points raised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musmahhu Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 He's just going to keep repeating that they have a stock market without addressing any actual points raised. I apologize. I didn't realize that WFF was pushing tech to DT to the point that they were swaying the war effort in DTs favor by themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 I apologize. I didn't realize that WFF was pushing tech to DT to the point that they were swaying the war effort in DTs favor by themselves. I wasn't aware that anyone said they were. That's not the claim or the benchmark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The R00STER Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 I fixed your post for you, no need to thank me. DT supreme defenders of justice Don't correct them, they don't appreciate your cleverness. Why are their 19 pages of this? Don't you people get bored of saying the same shit 400 times? WFF graciously chose to tech deal with DT. Fark chose to exercise their right to hit WFF, Fark is a sovereign state not chained to the will of DBDC. DT has chosen to send aid to WFF to help them out. Why does understanding the above require NINETEEN pages. Did I mention you've been at it for 19 pages? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterman1043 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) Nvm, this is stupid. It would be moronic to continue to argue with these people. Edited January 28, 2015 by Hunterman1043 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuiNur Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Don't correct them, they don't appreciate your cleverness. Why are their 19 pages of this? Don't you people get bored of saying the same !@#$ 400 times? WFF graciously chose to tech deal with DT. Fark chose to exercise their right to hit WFF, Fark is a sovereign state not chained to the will of DBDC. DT has chosen to send aid to WFF to help them out. Why does understanding the above require NINETEEN pages. Did I mention you've been at it for 19 pages? They need to be absolutely sure they "win" this argument. Otherwise they have nothing to show for. "Oh, we will never have a top tier, but we can limit their tech deals" is literally their argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) Why are their 19 pages of this? Don't you people get bored of saying the same !@#$ 400 times? WFF graciously chose to tech deal with DT. Fark chose to exercise their right to hit WFF, Fark is a sovereign state not chained to the will of DBDC. DT has chosen to send aid to WFF to help them out. Why does understanding the above require NINETEEN pages. Did I mention you've been at it for 19 pages? Nobody made your protectorate post this thread. lol (Unless you did). Edited January 28, 2015 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterman1043 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Nobody made your protectorate post this thread. lol (Unless you did). Nobody told you to be a dick either.... (Unless they did) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The R00STER Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Nobody made your protectorate post this thread. lol (Unless you did). This likely got overlooked somewhere in the now 20 (TWENTY!) pages of text so I won't stress it too much, but WFF is a protectorate of Sengoku and please inform me if I'm wrong but I believe Reavers too. DT has no obligation to WFF, I'm not trying to make it look like we are super amazing guys and that Fark are terrible humans stealing breast milk from babies, but you've really got us pegged wrong. An alliance that's been good to us has run into a hard time because of it, we choose to help them because we appreciate them. It's really simple as that. Fark/DT/WFF/CN is going to do what they gotta do. Everyone should state how mad they are once or twice then be done with it. Page 20, the nonsense continues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles the Tyrant Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) 20 pages about declaring war on nations sending aid to alliances involved in hostilities. I thought that particular issue was decided years ago? Edited January 28, 2015 by Charles the Tyrant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razgriz24 Posted January 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Fark/DT/WFF/CN is going to do what they gotta do. This sums it up right here. I think everyone needed a topic to argue about politics, glad to have been of service. For the record: WFF and it's citizens are not retarded, just stubborn and proud, as if those two things are different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Nobody told you to be a dick either.... (Unless they did) coming from someone who is in an alliance that is directly supporting the destruction of hundreds of billions of dongs worth of infra and tech(OOC: and realistically THOUSANDS of RL dollars) on people who have agreed to neutrality, it's rather amusing you feel that someone's posts on the OWF are terrible, look in your own backyard for the terrible people, you're gonna have to deal with people calling out their behavior until they stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterman1043 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 coming from someone who is in an alliance that is directly supporting the destruction of hundreds of billions of dongs worth of infra and tech(OOC: and realistically THOUSANDS of RL dollars) on people who have agreed to neutrality, it's rather amusing you feel that someone's posts on the OWF are terrible, look in your own backyard for the terrible people, you're gonna have to deal with people calling out their behavior until they stop. So in other words I support people who like war and who attack neutral alliances because they aren't neutral enough to be in peace mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 So in other words I support people who like war and who attack neutral alliances because they aren't neutral enough to be in peace mode. you support people who cause far more harm to this world than any other group, I am curious to see how many stay in this world after being "raided" and losing a year or two of progress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIEIXIAIS Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) 20 pages about declaring war on nations sending aid to alliances involved in hostilities. I thought that particular issue was decided years ago? The morals of war are a matter of convenience. It should be no surprise that what they find acceptable suddenly changes when a policy becomes convenient or inconvenient. The only thing I find distasteful about this turn on tech dealing during war is the hypocrisy of the attacking parties. They once supported the idea that tech dealing during war was okay. They would be better off making pancakes. Edited January 28, 2015 by TIEIXIAIS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterman1043 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) you support people who cause far more harm to this world than any other group, I am curious to see how many stay in this world after being "raided" and losing a year or two of progress. I agree with you about people leaving this world but I still think that it's not the older players we need to be worried about.. It's the new nations that are getting destroyed for tech dealing with us. (OOC: If its an older player, they are already hooked on the game. They know how to rebuild. They usually aren't discouraged easily. If they are, then honestly they have no place in my circle.) Edited January 28, 2015 by Hunterman1043 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 I agree with you about people leaving this world but I still think that it's not the older players we need to be worried about.. It's the new nations that are getting destroyed for tech dealing with us. (OOC: If its an older player, they are already hooked on the game. They know how to rebuild. They usually aren't discouraged easily. If they are, then honestly they have no place in my circle.) Losing a year or two of statistics is slightly different than losing a few weeks at most, one aid package every 5 days can keep me at 1000 infra forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterman1043 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Losing a year or two of statistics is slightly different than losing a few weeks at most, one aid package every 5 days can keep me at 1000 infra forever. So you are telling me that it's our fault these players don't have warchests worthy of a nation of their size? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuiNur Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) So you are telling me that it's our fault these players don't have warchests worthy of a nation of their size? yes. we are the parasites of the world. go be a producer hunter. Edited January 28, 2015 by AuiNur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 So you are telling me that it's our fault these players don't have warchests worthy of a nation of their size? "they should spend ANOTHER year doing nothing just to be sure that when you raid them they can recover the damage :^)" Come on, we both know that's an absurd argument to make, since even with a large warchest why bother rebuilding if it just puts them into range to be raided yet again? you can pretend it's not a problem all you'd like, everyone not directly allied to DBDC realizes what a major issue it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EViL0nE Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 The only thing I find distasteful about this turn on tech dealing during war is the hypocrisy of the attacking parties. They once supported the idea that tech dealing during war was okay. They would be better off making pancakes.Fark is the attacking party. Please, show me any instance, EVER that Fark defended the idea that tech dealing during was was not an act of war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Fark is the attacking party. Please, show me any instance, EVER that Fark defended the idea that tech dealing during was was not an act of war. Glad we have recognized that Fark is the attacking party here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Glad we have recognized that Fark is the attacking party here. :facepalm: Its like all you can do is throw up obvious strawmen rather than debate the points being discussed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIEIXIAIS Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Fark is the attacking party. Please, show me any instance, EVER that Fark defended the idea that tech dealing during was was not an act of war. It's been a common position by most major alliances for the last few years. FARK not once protested the practice until now. Either FARK has been biting it's tongue for a long time, or it was never relevant, or it is no longer of convenience to the alliance, hence the change of policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EViL0nE Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Glad we have recognized that Fark is the attacking party here.Really? It took you 20 pages to realize that Fark is the attacking party? You're kind of slow there, sparky. Let me run through this one more time for you. Sadly I have no crayons to draw you a diagram with.WFF aided an alliance we're at war with. This is an act of war.Fark asked WFF to stop and explained our position (that aiding alliances we're at war with is an act of war)WFF responded by stating they would find more nations Fark was at war with to send aid to.Fark waited until new aid packages were sent by WFF to an alliance we were at war with.Fark attacked WFF nations sending aid to alliance we were at war with.It's really not rocket science. It's been a common position by most major alliances for the last few years. FARK not once protested the practice until now. Either FARK has been biting it's tongue for a long time, or it was never relevant, or it is no longer of convenience to the alliance, hence the change of policy.Please, just show me *one* example of Fark agreeing that the practice of an alliance not at war sending aid to one that is should not be considered an act of war. Show me Fark's old policy so that we can compare it to their current policy.I'll wait. 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.