The FARKLAND war

[kingzog]

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.

 

Here, let me help get the argument going around the same circle again.

 

Are you attacking every alliance that is sending aid to alliances you're at war with? No? Then you're being awfully selective about your definition of 'war' and how you respond to it.

[Schattenmann]

 

Here, let me help get the argument going around the same circle again.

 

Are you attacking every alliance that is sending aid to alliances you're at war with? No? Then you're being awfully selective about your definition of 'war' and how you respond to it.

I guess NoR has been permanently at war for the past 5 years because it attacks every alliance that crosses it every time.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Schattenmann

[Starfox101]

Here, let me help get the argument going around the same circle again.
 
Are you attacking every alliance that is sending aid to alliances you're at war with? No? Then you're being awfully selective about your definition of 'war' and how you respond to it.

I don't really understand the basis of this argument. There are plenty of cases in CN history of those selectively hitting certain alliances. This is not an argument that can be used to discredit someone.

You can choose to attack whoever you want. This sort of nitpicking seems incredibly misplaced in a war featuring multiple no-CB attacks.

This is what happens when you blindly argue for your side. You end up making Tywin arguments.

[The Zigur]

Lol take another shot

[TIEIXIAIS]

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.
 
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.

Firstly,
you grossly construe the topic. The topic is tech dealing. Tech dealing and aid are two very different things. Your attempt to make it seem like the defending alliance was sending tech out without getting anything out of it is rather sad.

Secondly,
You're missing my point. My argument is the fluidity of convenience in what is right or wrong in war. FARK's silence about the issue and the undeniable fact they they have tech dealt in war time is sufficient evidence that it was FARk's practice and policy in the past. This matter was settled almost five years ago and widely accepted by all alliances, including fark. farks lack of protest for the past five years is testament to that.

Whether or not you want to take offense to someone pointing out your actions is entirely up to you, but I wouldn't waste much breath on it. It is common for alliances to make drastic changes in policy in times of 'desperation' (Though I wouldn't call it that, FARK has been in worse positions and prevailed, but the point remains). No alliance is immune to change of policy especially in the circumstances such as FARK's. However, if this argument lacks the sufficiency you require my retort will be "Please, just show me *one* example of Fark attacking another alliance for tech dealing during war. Show me Fark's old policy so that we can compare it to their current policy.
I'll wait."

[EViL0nE]

Here, let me help get the argument going around the same circle again.
 
Are you attacking every alliance that is sending aid to alliances you're at war with? No? Then you're being awfully selective about your definition of 'war' and how you respond to it.

Not all acts of war require retaliation to make them acts of war. Do you disagree with that?
 

Firstly,
you grossly construe the topic. The topic is tech dealing. Tech dealing and aid are two very different things. Your attempt to make it seem like the defending alliance was sending tech out without getting anything out of it is rather sad.

Sending aid is sending aid. It doesn't matter *why* the aid is sent.

Secondly,
You're missing my point. My argument is the fluidity of convenience in what is right or wrong in war. FARK's silence about the issue and the undeniable fact they they have tech dealt in war time is sufficient evidence that it was FARk's practice and policy in the past. This matter was settled almost five years ago and widely accepted by all alliances, including fark. farks lack of protest for the past five years is testament to that.

Whether or not you want to take offense to someone pointing out your actions is entirely up to you, but I wouldn't waste much breath on it. It is common for alliances to make drastic changes in policy in times of 'desperation' (Though I wouldn't call it that, FARK has been in worse positions and prevailed, but the point remains). No alliance is immune to change of policy especially in the circumstances such as FARK's. However, if this argument lacks the sufficiency you require my retort will be "Please, just show me *one* example of Fark attacking another alliance for tech dealing during war. Show me Fark's old policy so that we can compare it to their current policy.
I'll wait."

Here's the deal.
This thread clearly shows that there are several large alliances remaining in this world who view sending aid to be an act of war. So I'm curious as to how you can view the content of this thread and come to the conclusion that this matter was settled five years ago.

You continue to state what Fark has or hasn't done in the past. I'm demanding that you back up your statements with data. It's really easy to type a bunch of nonsense about how Fark has done something in the past or how our policies have changed and hit post. It's a lot harder to actually back up those words with data.
So, unless you can provide the following I will assume you have Fark confused with another alliance and/or are suffering from some sort of dementia
1) An example of an alliance not at war with Fark aiding an alliance that is at war with Fark and Fark doing nothing about it.
2) An example of Fark doing tech deals with an alliance that is at war with an alliance that Fark was not at war with.
3) An example of Fark's supposed policy of finding the act of sending aid to our enemies to not be an act of war.

These three examples would have to exist somewhere for your arguments to be based in fact. Since my argument is that your accusations are false, I'm not sure if someone has solved the prove a negative problem yet.
I'll wait.

[hartfw]

Not all acts of war require retaliation to make them acts of war. Do you disagree with that?
 
Sending aid is sending aid. It doesn't matter *why* the aid is sent.

Here's the deal.
This thread clearly shows that there are several large alliances remaining in this world who view sending aid to be an act of war. So I'm curious as to how you can view the content of this thread and come to the conclusion that this matter was settled five years ago.

You continue to state what Fark has or hasn't done in the past. I'm demanding that you back up your statements with data. It's really easy to type a bunch of nonsense about how Fark has done something in the past or how our policies have changed and hit post. It's a lot harder to actually back up those words with data.
So, unless you can provide the following I will assume you have Fark confused with another alliance and/or are suffering from some sort of dementia
1) An example of an alliance not at war with Fark aiding an alliance that is at war with Fark and Fark doing nothing about it.
2) An example of Fark doing tech deals with an alliance that is at war with an alliance that Fark was not at war with.
3) An example of Fark's supposed policy of finding the act of sending aid to our enemies to not be an act of war.

These three examples would have to exist somewhere for your arguments to be based in fact. Since my argument is that your accusations are false, I'm not sure if someone has solved the prove a negative problem yet.
I'll wait.

 

Sure, #1 is in this thread.

 

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. 

 

 

Others have been listed as well.

 

 

Here you go for #2:

 

Aid Offer Date Aid Offered By Aid Offered To Aid Offered Status 1/7/2015 11:52:51 AM 
"Fark DBDC!!" 
* Expired *

ENDONESAH
Ruler: Prozenz
Fark

Jenne
Ruler: Jenne
Random Insanity Alliance

$9,000,000
100 Tech
4000 Soldiers

Approved

1/7/2015 11:20:11 AM 
"Technology Transfer" 
* Expired *

Devil Reef
Ruler: BillyBob Kenobi
Fark

Jenne
Ruler: Jenne
Random Insanity Alliance

$9,000,000
100 Tech
4000 Soldiers

Approved

1/7/2015 11:18:55 AM 
"Fark DBDC" 
* Expired *

ASU4Life
Ruler: smontag
Fark

Jenne
Ruler: Jenne
Random Insanity Alliance

$0
100 Tech
4000 Soldiers

Approved

1/7/2015 11:11:24 AM 
"Financial Assistance" 
* Expired *

Zbigniew
Ruler: Shinfat
Fark

Jenne
Ruler: Jenne
Random Insanity Alliance

$9,000,000
100 Tech
4000 Soldiers

Approved

1/7/2015 11:07:29 AM 
"Kill DBDC with fire" 
* Expired *

decided4us
Ruler: Decide R Inchief
Fark

Jenne
Ruler: Jenne
Random Insanity Alliance

$9,000,000
100 Tech
4000 Soldiers

Approved

1/2/2015 6:27:29 AM 
"moth" 
* Expired *

ASU4Life
Ruler: smontag
Fark

Xythra
Ruler: Great Lord, Moth
Random Insanity Alliance

$0
100 Tech
4000 Soldiers

Approved

1/1/2015 6:25:11 PM 
"Farkistan Tech Support" 
* Expired *

Metallian
Ruler: Ayreonaut
Fark

Xythra
Ruler: Great Lord, Moth
Random Insanity Alliance

$0
100 Tech
0 Soldiers

Approved

1/1/2015 5:29:16 PM 
"Kentucky Fried DBDC" 
* Expired *

Llama Nation
Ruler: Beanolink
Fark

Xythra
Ruler: Great Lord, Moth
Random Insanity Alliance

$0
100 Tech
0 Soldiers

Approved

1/1/2015 5:15:10 PM 
"Kill DBDC with fire" 
* Expired *

decided4us
Ruler: Decide R Inchief
Fark

Xythra
Ruler: Great Lord, Moth
Random Insanity Alliance

$9,000,000
100 Tech
0 Soldiers

Approved

 

Unless Fark is also at war with AB, it seems pretty clear, and they weren;t tech deals either.

 

 

Maybe the problem is you have no fucking idea how your alliance is conducting itself?

Edited January 28, 2015 by hartfw

[TIEIXIAIS]

Not all acts of war require retaliation to make them acts of war. Do you disagree with that?
 
Sending aid is sending aid. It doesn't matter *why* the aid is sent.

Here's the deal.
This thread clearly shows that there are several large alliances remaining in this world who view sending aid to be an act of war. So I'm curious as to how you can view the content of this thread and come to the conclusion that this matter was settled five years ago.

You continue to state what Fark has or hasn't done in the past. I'm demanding that you back up your statements with data. It's really easy to type a bunch of nonsense about how Fark has done something in the past or how our policies have changed and hit post. It's a lot harder to actually back up those words with data.
So, unless you can provide the following I will assume you have Fark confused with another alliance and/or are suffering from some sort of dementia
1) An example of an alliance not at war with Fark aiding an alliance that is at war with Fark and Fark doing nothing about it.
2) An example of Fark doing tech deals with an alliance that is at war with an alliance that Fark was not at war with.
3) An example of Fark's supposed policy of finding the act of sending aid to our enemies to not be an act of war.

These three examples would have to exist somewhere for your arguments to be based in fact. Since my argument is that your accusations are false, I'm not sure if someone has solved the prove a negative problem yet.
I'll wait.

I'd explain it to you, but I left my crayons in another jacket. Perhaps attending one of your nations Prestigious universities (Preferably one that isn't rubble) would do you some good. I'd suggest studying philosophy or the realities of politics. Furthermore, I'd recommend not letting your ignorance get in the way of your education.

[Schattenmann]

 This matter was settled almost five years ago and widely accepted by all alliances

 

Nope.  http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/99571-a-protectorate-agreement/page-2#entry2656146

 

Folks from VE, CoJ, 64Digits, BFF, and TLR explicitly acknowledged that tech dealing to nations at war is an act of war, everyone who came out against CoJ/64D did not do so because of a philosophical disagreement, but based solely on political positioning ("you're not on our side so shut up") and none of them denied the issue at hand, including NG's Steve.

 

There has never been any "wide" acceptance by "all" alliances that sending aid during war is no longer an act of war.  It was always an act of war, it is still an act of war.

What there has been is a decrease in the times it has been cited as a CB, because while MK, GOONS and their allies were dominant, there was very little concern about CBs or any sort of formalism at all. 

Edited January 28, 2015 by Schattenmann

[the rebel]

Are you attacking every alliance that is sending aid to alliances you're at war with? No? Then you're being awfully selective about your definition of 'war' and how you respond to it.

Aid has always been viewed as an act of war, its acted on only when seen fit.

Legion and Tetris war comes to mind where TLR, GATO and others started aiding the Tetris side and could be seen as goading Legion and/or allies.

Then NpO started aiding Legion and could be seen as goading the Tetris side and/or allies.

All parties involved had reason to use aid bombs as entry into war and openly mocked each other basically saying "come at me bro" neither side took the plunge.

[TIEIXIAIS]

 

Nope.  http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/99571-a-protectorate-agreement/page-2#entry2656146

 

Folks from VE, CoJ, 64Digits, BFF, and TLR explicitly acknowledged that tech dealing to nations at war is an act of war, everyone who came out against CoJ/64D did not do so because of a philosophical disagreement, but based solely on political positioning ("you're not on our side so shut up") and none of them denied the issue at hand, including NG's Steve.

 

There has never been any "wide" acceptance by "all" alliances that sending aid during war is no longer an act of war.  It was always an act of war, it is still an act of war.

What there has been is a decrease in the times it has been cited as a CB, because while MK, GOONS and their allies were dominant, there was very little concern about CBs or any sort of formalism at all. 

I'm glad your opinion hasn't changed on the matter. I still fail to see how that defends fark.

Perhaps I used the wrong word "all." If it were all it would have to include Schatterman the great, which clearly it doesn't. Perhaps "widely accepted" is more appropriate.

The time discrepancy of when opinions changed on the matter is about right. I'm glad your opinion on the matter was unwavering which is clear from the link you gave me. This has not been an issue until NpO encountered an unforeseen enemy. Now this is suddenly the norm and ya'll act as if things have never changed. Your frustration is cute, but much like a child, it gets rather annoying.

Quit making excuses for yourself and accept politics change, and the relevance of the issue has caused fark and NpO to approach subjects opposite to what they would have done two years ago.

[Schattenmann]

I'm glad your opinion hasn't changed on the matter. I still fail to see how that defends fark.

Perhaps I used the wrong word "all." If it were all it would have to include Schatterman the great, which clearly it doesn't. Perhaps "widely accepted" is more appropriate.

The time discrepancy of when opinions changed on the matter is about right. I'm glad your opinion on the matter was unwavering which is clear from the link you gave me. This has not been an issue until NpO encountered an unforeseen enemy. Now this is suddenly the norm and ya'll act as if things have never changed. Your frustration is cute, but much like a child, it gets rather annoying.

Quit making excuses for yourself and accept politics change, and the relevance of the issue has caused fark and NpO to approach subjects opposite to what they would have done two years ago.

If your argument is "politics change" fine: Here we are, sending tech to nations at war is an act of war "again."
"Changes aren't permanent, but change is." Edited January 28, 2015 by Schattenmann

[Hunterman1043]

We still fight for the freedom of tech dealing for all!

[AlmightyGrub]

I'm glad your opinion hasn't changed on the matter. I still fail to see how that defends fark.

Perhaps I used the wrong word "all." If it were all it would have to include Schatterman the great, which clearly it doesn't. Perhaps "widely accepted" is more appropriate.

The time discrepancy of when opinions changed on the matter is about right. I'm glad your opinion on the matter was unwavering which is clear from the link you gave me. This has not been an issue until NpO encountered an unforeseen enemy. Now this is suddenly the norm and ya'll act as if things have never changed. Your frustration is cute, but much like a child, it gets rather annoying.

Quit making excuses for yourself and accept politics change, and the relevance of the issue has caused fark and NpO to approach subjects opposite to what they would have done two years ago.

 

 

I have followed the discourse in this thread, absorbed the arguments of both sides and have objectively determined the following;

 

1.  Certain alliances have decided, for their convenience, that tech dealing is somehow a special kind of aid that is not subject to outside interference.  They argue that it has always been this way, or at least it has been that way for some time because they can not remember getting called on it for a little while.  Given that the attention span of this side is roughly that of a gold fish, I find their argument to be credible.  Of course these are the same alliances who feel compelled by nature and opportunist philosophies to steal tech at their convenience so I struggle to reconcile the concepts just a little but I am prepared to concede I have no comprehension of this mindset so I will again concede their argument to be credible.

 

2.  Certain other alliances have always held that sending aid to an enemy during war time constitutes an act of war.  There is no great revelation from these alliances, they have just accepted the rules of diplomacy developed over the last 9 years and agreed that these conventions are ones they subscribe to.  I find that many of the people on this side are somewhat confused by the new argument now being made by the members of group #1 because it appears to be somewhat of a divergence of the concepts they know to be conventional.  I find this group to be consistent in their beliefs, some might say stuck in time, but they believe what they believe and will continue to believe so despite all protests that they should come around to their bowl smear opponents way of thinking.

 

3.  There seems to be a confusion however about the resolution of these conflicts.  I can not help but notice that on average Group #1 appears to be at war with Group #2.  Central to this conflict is Group #1's desire to do whatever they wish whenever they, unencumbered by conventions and any kind of diplomacy bearing any semblance to the previous 9 years or so.  If Group #2 follows the mindset of #1 then it is free to decide anything it likes and act upon it however it sees fit however #1 seems to be taking umbrage to this radical thinking, even though it appears consistent with Group #2's beliefs and isn't in conflict with #1's do whatever you like attitude.  It appears the only real argument is that it doesn't suit Group #1 messing with their central belief that they can do whatever they like, but everyone else should follow some convention.

 

4.  The fact that Group #1 is currently occupying the members of #2, many of whom are involved in numerous wars or in anarchy, it seems somewhat trite to suggest that #2 isn't really exercising its defense of its beliefs in a meaningful way therefore rendering its beliefs as null and void.

 

If I have it wrong feel free to justify your actual position.

[Starfox101]

The summary of their argument is that it is unjust to go to war over nations sending aid to your opponents, but it is perfectly acceptable to go to war because you are bored.

 

CN logic.

[Mogar]

 

Sure, #1 is in this thread.

 

 

 

Others have been listed as well.

 

 

Here you go for #2:

Unless Fark is also at war with AB, it seems pretty clear, and they weren;t tech deals either.

 

 

Maybe the problem is you have no !@#$@#$ idea how your alliance is conducting itself?

Fark is at war with DBDC, and their gracious assistance was much appreciated, since both GLoF and AB attacked nations that had no intentions of fighting either alliance and were focused on DBDC. Of course, you know this and are merely trying to score OWF brownie points, but at least put forth more effort next time.

[hartfw]

Fark is at war with DBDC, and their gracious assistance was much appreciated, since both GLoF and AB attacked nations that had no intentions of fighting either alliance and were focused on DBDC. Of course, you know this and are merely trying to score OWF brownie points, but at least put forth more effort next time.

 

He asked for proof fark was aiding an alliance.  If RIA disbands, you will be less dumb. Actually, if they didn;t simultaneously try and collect you rota and rey...

 

 

Also, it sure appears like one of them hit AB before AB ever hit them -- https://cybernations.lyricalz.com/war?nation1=47669&nation2=

 

So, not just was your point, dumb, off topic, and dumb, it was also wrong.

 

FARK is aiding nations that are aggressively attacking AB after RIA dow'ed on AB, and yet in here explaining how they don't do that sort of thing.  Its the sort of double talk that have made many think fark is full of !@#$.

Edited January 29, 2015 by hartfw

[Starfox101]

Then use it as a CB. I honestly don't think Fark would complain. This is some of the most pointless debate of all time.

[hartfw]

Then use it as a CB. I honestly don't think Fark would complain. This is some of the most pointless debate of all time.

 

I'm just here to correcting the factual record for Fark's minister of defense, for what acts Fark is committing, as he was either unaware (or for reasons I don't understand the politics of pretending to be so).

 

Here was his request:

I'm demanding that you back up your statements with data. It's really easy to type a bunch of nonsense about how Fark has done something in the past or how our policies have changed and hit post. It's a lot harder to actually back up those words with data.

So, unless you can provide the following I will assume you have Fark confused with another alliance and/or are suffering from some sort of dementia

 

 

Data has been provided showing just that, as requested.

 

In return, I would I wouldn't mind to know if Fark policy always includes that any private embassy of someone else's forums can be screenshot and posted here, or if that was another case where Fark policy, and Fark actions have nothing in common with each other.

[Schattenmann]

 

He asked for proof fark was aiding an alliance.  If RIA disbands, you will be less dumb. Actually, if they didn;t simultaneously try and collect you rota and rey...

 

 

Also, it sure appears like one of them hit AB before AB ever hit them -- https://cybernations.lyricalz.com/war?nation1=47669&nation2=

 

So, not just was your point, dumb, off topic, and dumb, it was also wrong.

 

FARK is aiding nations that are aggressively attacking AB after RIA dow'ed on AB, and yet in here explaining how they don't do that sort of thing.  Its the sort of double talk that have made many think fark is full of !@#$.

 

I quote my-2011-self again
 

 

 

What are you going to do? Declare war on [them]?

 

Fark and RIA are already at war on the same side of the war fighting the same coalition. The situations are not the same, and I don't believe that you actually believe they are (but I have also learned never to place constraints on stupid).

Edited January 29, 2015 by Schattenmann

[hartfw]

Edit: Not gonna get pulled off topic by the worthless posters of here.  

 

Evilone asked for proof.  Proof has been provided.

 

Feel free to respond about the embassy question, when you get time.

 

Thanks.

Edited January 29, 2015 by hartfw

[Schattenmann]

Edit: Not gonna get pulled off topic by the worthless posters of here.  

 

Evilone asked for proof.  Proof has been provided.

 

Feel free to respond about the embassy question, when you get time.

 

Thanks.

Takes one to know one. ;)

You're full of crap, I don't need to be in Fark to point it out.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Schattenmann

[Walford]

The summary of their argument is that it is unjust to go to war over nations sending aid to your opponents, but it is perfectly acceptable to go to war because you are bored.

 

CN logic.

 

That's about it. Any post after the above one is redundant.

[Charles the Tyrant]

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.

 

There are no morals involved. The precedent that sending aid to alliances at war equated to a CB was established years ago.

 

Don't want to be attacked then don't send aid to an alliance at war. Claiming special dispensation because you have only a few members isn't special enough. 

 

One may argue that FARK are dastardly scoundrels for their actions but there certainly isn't anything outwardly notable about these actions when their reason for war is a pretty much established CB and has been since 06. 

Edited January 29, 2015 by Charles the Tyrant

[Hunterman1043]

Still going on after 22 pages people.