DBDC celebrates it's 2nd birthday in style

[WorldConqueror]

Is this http://s4.zetaboards.com/CNtel/topic/10276071/1/ true ?

if this is supposed to be some grand reveal you should probably screenshot instead of linking to something that most can't be bothered to make accounts for.

[white majik]

 
Of Harbinger of Doom?
 
As the original Harbinger of War I disapprove of this use of Harbinger ;)

Then you became a hippy which voided your claim to the title.

[Neo Uruk]

If you guys want to have a brawl with WTF, that's fine with me. Doesn't effect me, even if WTF has always had a neutral/positive relation with us. Our policy is to allow our members to tech deal with whoever they want, since I don't keep up with these random wars and value what long term sellers we have.

So have fun, but we're not changing our tech dealing policy based on this. I don't think a few deals continuing as they have been will effect the war, so don't worry about it and enjoy your party. I didn't suspend tech deals during the blockade on DBDC tech deals during the NpO war or with anyone since Limitless Nexus became an alliance. That has always applied to both sides in any war.

They care, Methrage.

[Gizmo]

Then you became a hippy which voided your claim to the title.

Enderland may be lazy, he might be somewhat flatulent and he probably is a bit indifferent but he is no hippy. He's Grämlin's Ruthless Dictator (when he bothers to show up).

[white majik]

Enderland may be lazy, he might be somewhat flatulent and he probably is a bit indifferent but he is no hippy. He's Grämlin's Ruthless Dictator (when he bothers to show up).

How about the year he spent hiding in a neutral AA? Seems very hippy-ish to me.



Just gonna leave this here....


388,315 Attacking + 68,405 Defending = 456,720 Casualties Edited March 12, 2015 by white majik

[Ayatollah Bromeini]

Someone save me the trouble of reading literally any of this and tell me why DBDC hit WTF, was it justified etc etc etc

[Mogar]

Because they can.

[Sephiroth]

They care, Methrage.

I just think its bad PR to attack an alliance with no CB, then try forcing every other alliance to care about the war enough to blockade trades with whoever is being hit. If they are the strongest alliance and able to declare wars like this just because they can, I would expect them to win without trying to persuade everyone not to tech deal with their target. If they are barely hanging on and some WTF members being able to buy tech could bring about their defeat, then I would understand why more.

If somebody attacks people your alliance are doing tech deals with, it would be polite to give a good reason for hitting somebodies business partners out of the blue. Although that can be overlooked, since most people don't have time to PM people over minor details. However hitting someone our nations have long terms deals going with, not providing justification for the attacks, and then demanding everyone not do deals with those they are hitting I think is rude. The rate a nation can gain tech through dealing is rather small, its not large enough to effect outcomes of wars.

[Rhizoctonia]

If you guys want to have a brawl with WTF, that's fine with me. Doesn't effect me, even if WTF has always had a neutral/positive relation with us. Our policy is to allow our members to tech deal with whoever they want, since I don't keep up with these random wars and value what long term sellers we have.So have fun, but we're not changing our tech dealing policy based on this. I don't think a few deals continuing as they have been will effect the war, so don't worry about it and enjoy your party. I didn't suspend tech deals during the blockade on DBDC tech deals during the NpO war or with anyone since Limitless Nexus became an alliance. That has always applied to both sides in any war.

There was just a million page topic about this very thing from last war where majority called aiding someone during a conflict an act of war. I doubt the little bit of tech will have any effect either, nor would it last war, but doing so did result in an alliance being hit for doing so. I guess the feeling on that will be left to DBDC and alies to decide if you continuing to do tech deals is an act of war against them. If you go by the consensus from the other topic, you continuing to do such deals gives a legitimate CB to be attacked. Edited March 12, 2015 by Rhizoctonia

[EViL0nE]

There was just a million page topic about this very thing from last war where majority called aiding someone during a conflict an act of war. I doubt the little bit of tech will have any effect either, nor would it last war, but doing so did result in an alliance being hit for doing so. I guess the feeling on that will be left to DBDC and alies to decide if you continuing to do tech deals is an act of war against them. If you go by the consensus from the other topic, you continuing to do such deals gives a legitimate CB to be attacked.

I don't think there was any consensus in that topic.
Many members of the XX/TOP side of the war agreed that it was an act of war.
Many members of the DoomSphere side of the war agreed that it was not an act of war.

A nation who agreed that is war an act of war could continue to deal with WTF (or DBDC) and still not be a hypocrite. "Yes, it's an act of war.. I'm going to continue tech dealing" is a valid statement.
A nation who agreed that it is not an act of war could not start attacking those dealing with WTF (or DBDC) and still not be a hypocrite. "No, it's not an act of war.. I'm going to declare on you for committing an act of war" is not a valid statement.

[Sephiroth]

There was just a million page topic about this very thing from last war where majority called aiding someone during a conflict an act of war. I doubt the little bit of tech will have any effect either, nor would it last war, but doing so did result in an alliance being hit for doing so. I guess the feeling on that will be left to DBDC and alies to decide if you continuing to do tech deals is an act of war against them. If you go by the consensus from the other topic, you continuing to do such deals gives a legitimate CB to be attacked.

It becomes annoying when not stepping on DBDC's toes means cutting pre-existing relations whenever DBDC gets into a new fight. However as a favor to Cuba I'll ask my members not start new deals until this is resolved. However I think it is a folly policy. The benefits our smaller nations get for one slot of cash in exchange for one slot of tech is much greater than the benefit nations at war get from that small amount of tech. In the past its usually been to try keeping the cash away from people alliances have tried restricting tech deals, its odd to see the effort put forth to prevent tech from getting to nations sending money away from the war.

Those in DBDC who pointed out the amount of time it would take for such a policy to have an impact when NpO tried on DBDC would cause it to not effect the war were right. So I would think DBDC would realize its pointless. If they have the cash, they can keep fighting as long as they want. That they're using slots to send money out to nations uninvolved in the war should be viewed as a positive by DBDC. They could get the same amount of tech on a slot to slot basis while also financing smaller nations to fight with their cash, if they didn't have long term deals with some of my members pre-dating the war. Edited March 12, 2015 by Methrage

[Rhizoctonia]

I don't think there was any consensus in that topic.Many members of the XX/TOP side of the war agreed that it was an act of war.Many members of the DoomSphere side of the war agreed that it was not an act of war.A nation who agreed that is war an act of war could continue to deal with WTF (or DBDC) and still not be a hypocrite. "Yes, it's an act of war.. I'm going to continue tech dealing" is a valid statement.A nation who agreed that it is not an act of war could not start attacking those dealing with WTF (or DBDC) and still not be a hypocrite. "No, it's not an act of war.. I'm going to declare on you for committing an act of war" is not a valid statement.

Actually it gives DBDC a multitude of reason to do so. XX/TOP side (+majority including IRON) agree it's a legitimate act of war, and thus carried out attacks on DBDC tech dealers, so there should be no one complaining if DBDC enacts the same reasoning and does the same. If anything, if DBDC does act on it, Methrage can thank the people who support that train of thought (majority as stated) for agreeing what they're doing is wrong. If majority (myself included) want to set a rule it's an act of war, then no one should be upset when its enforced against them or others. If something was used against me, I'd use it against my enemies. Also, the majority of the past topic was not people disagreeing it's and act of war (besides who you attacked who were vocal it wasnt) but the fact it was only implemented against a small alliance when there were many others who were that neither were told not to stop nor attacked for doing so. There's a difference in agreeing it's an act of war and disagreeing on choosing to only enforce such rules on a sole alliance when many were doing the same without repercussions.

I have no idea if DBDC will go after Methrage and his alliance for continuing, I'm not them. My comment was directed at him for saying that the little bit of tech deals shouldn't make a difference nor forced to stop, yet there are many who would say different. I would expect anyone (including myself) who supported the unwritten rule that tech deals with alliances at war is and act of war, and publicly say to Methrage it's an act of war like I have, and he should know better. I'm merely reminding him that it doesn't matter if he feels the amount of tech deals isn't going to change anything, as doing so could be looked as an act of war so he can choose whatever he wants to Edited March 12, 2015 by Rhizoctonia

[Rhizoctonia]

It becomes annoying when not stepping on DBDC's toes means cutting pre-existing relations whenever DBDC gets into a new fight. However as a favor to Cuba I'll ask my members not start new deals until this is resolved. However I think it is a folly policy. The benefits our smaller nations get for one slot of cash in exchange for one slot of tech is much greater than the benefit nations at war get from that small amount of tech. In the past its usually been to try keeping the cash away from people alliances have tried restricting tech deals, its odd to see the effort put forth to prevent tech from getting to nations sending money away from the war.Those in DBDC who pointed out the amount of time it would take for such a policy to have an impact when NpO tried on DBDC would cause it to not effect the war were right. So I would think DBDC would realize its pointless. If they have the cash, they can keep fighting as long as they want. That they're using slots to send money out to nations uninvolved in the war should be viewed as a positive by DBDC. They could get the same amount of tech on a slot to slot basis while also financing smaller nations to fight with their cash, if they didn't have long term deals with some of my members pre-dating the war.

I would agree that the amount of tech being sent is not going to be a make or break anything,and the bigger impact is to the growing smaller nations. I just wanted to point out that many, including myself, could see this as an act of war, and was a large discussion last war. I am not sure if DBDC or an ally would act on it if you didn't stop, but the unwritten law agreed on by many is it gives them a legit CB to if they wanted.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Both LN and CA have held our positions on this issue for years,  consistently, even in the face of threats and war, and no one should expect anything else. 

 

That said, Meth, I suspect you are being baited a little here. Best I know, no one said anything about it until you mentioned it here and posters that are not actually involved started poking you. Just trying to get a reaction, I suspect.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Sephiroth]

Actually it gives DBDC a multitude of reason to do so. XX/TOP side and others agree it's a legitimate act of war, and thus carried out attacks on DBDC tech dealers, so there should be no one complaining if DBDC enacts the same reasoning and does the same. If anything, if DBDC does act on it, Methrage can thank the people who support that train of thought (majority as stated) for agreeing what they're doing is wrong. If majority want to set a rule it's an act of war, then no one should be upset when its enforced against them or others. If something was used against me, I'd use it against my enemies. Also, the majority of the past topic was not people disagreeing it's and act of war (besides who you attacked who were vocal it wasnt) but the fact it was only implemented against a small alliance when there were many others who were that neither were told not to stop nor attacked for doing so. There's a difference in agreeing it's an act of war and disagreeing on choosing to only enforce such rules on a sole alliance when many were doing the same without repercussions.

I have no idea if DBDC will go after Methrage and his alliance for continuing, I'm not them. My comment was directed at him for saying that the little bit of tech deals shouldn't make a difference nor forced to stop, yet there are many who would say different. I would expect anyone who supported the unwritten rule that tech deals with alliances at war is and act of war, and publicly say to Methrage it's an act of war like I have, and he should know better. I'm merely reminding him that it doesn't matter if he feels the amount of tech deals isn't going to change anything, as doing so could be looked as an act of war so he can choose whatever he wants to

Its not an act of war and we can tech deal with whoever we want. The occasional alliance who thinks they can dictate the economies of other nations and alliances doesn't make it a rule. More often that not, almost every alliance continues tech deals during war and ignore tech deals on the other side. I can only think of one other alliance who has tried restricting who me or my alliance can do do tech deals with. Even they don't do it anymore.

Anyways I got the message from Cuba today and while I don't like it, I'll ask my members not start new deals. Guess its been a damaging war for him. I don't intend for DBDC to be an enemy, but would prefer minimal economic disruptions when DBDC wants to war alliances buying tech from our nations at optimal prices for the seller. Its no conspiracy when our smaller nations keep sending tech to those who keep sending them cash. That is how long term tech dealing relationships work and are very beneficial for smaller nations.

Also I don't think what you publicly say in regards to your opinion on whether it is an act of war is relevant. MoIA of IRON? That's internal affairs right?

[Rhizoctonia]

Both LN and CA have held our positions on this issue for years,  consistently, even in the face of threats and war, and no one should expect anything else. 
 
That said, Meth, I suspect you are being baited a little here. Best I know, no one said anything about it until you mentioned it here and posters that are not actually involved started poking you. Just trying to get a reaction, I suspect.

If by posters you mean me, I'm not trying to get a reaction,' just responding that such actions at continuing to tech deal could lead to them being hit, and many wouldn't disagree with it. I am merely responding to Meths post here about being told to stop, that was the first I heard DBDC told anyone to stop

[Sigrun Vapneir]

If by posters you mean me, I'm not trying to get a reaction,' just responding that such actions at continuing to tech deal could lead to them being hit, and many wouldn't disagree with it.

 

Anything or nothing can get you hit, as has been quite dramatically demonstrated here recently. I really dont see any point in worrying about such things. We've been hit for it before and we'll probably be hit for it again. The tree of liberty has always required manure.

 

It's an interesting situation though, at least hypothetically. CA is doing business with DS (among others), LN with WTF (among others) so *in theory* you could see WTF attack CA while DBDC goes for LN. We'd activate our treaty and cross-declare, and thus we would wind up at war with both DBDC and WTF for maximum hilarity and maximum target density.

 

But seriously, I think people are grasping at straws looking for drama where it is unlikely to appear. I hardly imagine either DBDC or WTF has any desire to be distracted dealing with us over a couple of tech deals.

[wes the wise]

Just a thought....If there is no CB whatsoever that started the war, then how does DBDC gain a CB against people minding their own business trying to make a dime in a tech deal? Everyone's gotta back off because DBDC is on another unprovoked war? Not that DBDC or half the AA's still playing this game take CB's seriously anymore, this is the world we've created. 

[Gizmo]

388,315 Attacking + 68,405 Defending = 456,720 Casualties

Not our fault everyone we hits ducks into turtle mode with the very notable exception on the alliance who started this thread who actually showed up and fought. Edited March 12, 2015 by masterbake

[Auctor]

enderland IS a hippy tho.

[PrMn]

But seriously, I think people are grasping at straws looking for drama where it is unlikely to appear.

I hardly imagine either DBDC or WTF has any desire to be distracted dealing with us over a couple of tech deals.

Speaking only for myself (as any good WTFer), I doubt that this will ever occur.

Our enemies are ... well, our enemies. :D

That includes their splinter groups, mercenaries and those that attack from another alliance and then change their AA.

(that's ben happening quite a bit lately) Basically any and all attackers of the WTF.

Runners to other AA's and those of our own, who bolted at the first sign of war, shall be dealt with later.

Tech dealers supplying the enemy (and a few who aren't actually dealers) are a minor annoyance but

I don't think that we're going to get all radical over it.

Edited March 12, 2015 by PrMn

[white majik]

Not our fault everyone we hits ducks into turtle mode with the very notable exception on the alliance who started this thread who actually showed up and fought.

Excuses

[Rhizoctonia]

Its not an act of war and we can tech deal with whoever we want. The occasional alliance who thinks they can dictate the economies of other nations and alliances doesn't make it a rule. More often that not, almost every alliance continues tech deals during war and ignore tech deals on the other side. I can only think of one other alliance who has tried restricting who me or my alliance can do do tech deals with. Even they don't do it anymore.Anyways I got the message from Cuba today and while I don't like it, I'll ask my members not start new deals. Guess its been a damaging war for him. I don't intend for DBDC to be an enemy, but would prefer minimal economic disruptions when DBDC wants to war alliances buying tech from our nations at optimal prices for the seller. Its no conspiracy when our smaller nations keep sending tech to those who keep sending them cash. That is how long term tech dealing relationships work and are very beneficial for smaller nations.Also I don't think what you publicly say in regards to your opinion on whether it is an act of war is relevant. MoIA of IRON? That's internal affairs right?

I'm not stating you can't tech deal with whoever you want, nor am I saying you need to knock it off. You and your alliance have the right as anyone else to tech deal with who you want to, when you want to. I read your stance earlier of you were going to continue and your reasoning of believing it wouldn't efffect the outcome (which I agree), and your feeling that it was a simple tech deal to help your nations and not for the purpose of aiding them against their fight with WTF. I was merely alluding to 2 alliances (believe DT probes and the other alliance I forget their name) both who weren't involved in last global war and were doing tech deals amd felt the same as you, and were attacked for it. MH was aiding TOP last war as well, and they were also hit for doing so by IRON (some of which were banned later for being multi's). My point was not to deliberately turn the conversation in a rehash of an earlier one, but was merely letting you know that such actions are looked at as an act of war by many alliances in this game. You called DBDC out for telling you to stop, I was merely pointing out that if people left their hate of DBDC out that they would agree that tech dealing with an alliance at war was an act of war against the opponent. You're free to do as you wish, hell DBDC may not do anything, i don't know.

I edited my earlier posts to put our stance, but IRON's opinion is the same as the majority, such actions would be seen as an act of war by helping our enemy. Acting on it would likely be dependent on the situation and how much benefit it was really helping the enemy. As its been mentioned, many still do tech deals during war and it's usually hard to enforce if multiple alliances were doing it, but still seen to IRON as such.

  

Just a thought....If there is no CB whatsoever that started the war, then how does DBDC gain a CB against people minding their own business trying to make a dime in a tech deal? Everyone's gotta back off because DBDC is on another unprovoked war? Not that DBDC or half the AA's still playing this game take CB's seriously anymore, this is the world we've created.

You make a valid point. That being said, most wars nowadays don't have valid CB's in the first place, so to honestly say DBDC or last war were the only ones with no or made up CB's would be a lie. Rarely is there any true good CB for wars besides a past grudge. But to your point, if no CB is needed for DBDC to hit WTF, then they don't need one to hit someone aiding them, however doesn't still take away that the majority agree tech deals during war is frowned on. One could argue the one alliance from last war(forget name and on tablet) was minding their own business and just doing tech deals to grow and they were attacked for doing the same. They were told to stop or be attacked, they wanted to continue because they saw them as tech deals and not aiding, and they were attacked. So using same logic, DBDC is not in the wrong for asking the same of someone doing it against them.


I really don't care what you do, you're free to do as you choose nor do I know if DBDC really care enough about your deals if you continue to warrant any escalation. I just figured I'd direct methrage to an already had conversation, and how methrage's opinion of tech deals during war differs from the rest as he felt like Cuba was dictating what he can and can't do, yet what he asked was not out of line from others opinion on the matter Edited March 12, 2015 by Rhizoctonia

[Unknown Smurf]

Not our fault everyone we hits ducks into turtle mode with the very notable exception on the alliance who started this thread who actually showed up and fought.

 

Join Kaskus, I'll find you casualties.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Unknown Smurf

[Prodigal Moon]

lol Methrage, you've been cheering DBDC on while they throw their weight around, but now that it's interfering with your life suddenly they're being unreasonable? This is what they do.