Jump to content
Schattenmann

This Week in the Network

Recommended Posts

ODN trying to preserve an ally's safety and well-being doesn't surprise me at all, particularly because 99% of the people here don't give a damn about neutrals or soft-neutrals or unaligned, hypocrisy aside. They are protecting (or trying to) a very valuable asset to them (DBDC), so the fake outrage is amusing to behold.
 
I would have preferred for my ally's government representatives to avoid throwing on the table the weight of their allies, definitely, but I'm willing to chalk it up as rash reaction to a diffficult debate given the information in my possession.


Implying DBDC needs ODN to talk for them due to them being a poor defenceless ally/protectorate. It would make logical sense but since DBDC is neither, it makes it look exactly how it was put forward in the OP.

A rash reaction? Nope thats a case of finding their brothers big boy pants and butting in somewhere they weren't wanted or needed acting all hard with stern warnings.

Unless DBDC wants to confirm to us all they asked ODN to white knight for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Implying DBDC needs ODN to talk for them due to them being a poor defenceless ally/protectorate. It would make logical sense but since DBDC is neither, it makes it look exactly how it was put forward in the OP.

 

NS ranges say otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Much as we <3 stewie, that's BS.

 

NG is normally an alliance with the stones to admit what they are doing. ODN didnt really have any respect to lose but you do.

Stewie hasn't given marching orders yet. He may very well decide to take his lumps and move on. That's up to him. I have little-to-no decision-making responsibilities for the AA. Just a trade monkey.

 

I've never seen CT as anything but a rogue after he attacked DBDC as soon as he dropped them. I fought two rogues last year alongside DoomSquad and IRON so it may have colored my perceptions somewhat. Maybe events transpired differently than that, in which case you can enlighten me. But I don't see WTF accepting CT as any different than MCX accepting Rotavele. In either case, the wars against the rogue will not stop just because a random AA decides to accept them. The exit has to be negotiated before that nation is accepted or the AAs involved have to get bored. Granted, CT isn't nearly as bad as Rotavele, so he's welcome to take his lumps and keep going with whatever grudges he picked up. I doubt I'll ever be at a level for him to strike back at me, but he's welcome to take any swipes he wants to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Vuk, good to see you man.  Whats up?

 

 

 

WTF are friendly and welcome diplomats until they are subject to rudeness, pomposity and threats from diplomats. If you visit the forums at www.worldtaskforce.com you will see how WTF conduct themselves.

 

Schattenmann is absolutely correct, It really is funny watching ODN diplomats act tough. Seriously never seen anything like it. It is like seeing a woman dressed as a man.

 

Anyway.... ODN diplomats where making threats, trying to convince us that WTF was the bad guy for defending themselves etc. Really was pathetic.

 

 

If ODN accepts any nation from DBDC that nation will absolutely be attacked. Just like the nations who ran off to DT, DS etc. Its funny watching DBDC members running to other alliances. Just goes to show that they really are kinda useless and cowardly.

 

 

 

The thing with the OWF,  as all should know if they aren't being political hacks, Is that its just propoganda and selective reasoning.  For example, if I wanted to go through the same thread, I could find examples of WTF people demanding that any individual nation that wants to surrender to them needs to pay thousands of tech in reparations.  That they will perform eternal war on people (they may not use the words eternal war, but when you say that nations won't be allowed to surrender for the forseeable future.. thats eternal war by another name).  etc.  Not the alliance.  Individual nations surrendering.

 

In my book that's pretty bad too.  I've never seen a war where individual nations that wanted to surrender weren't allowed to.  Or at least not allowed to without wrecking and destroying themselves with crazy reps and terms.

 

I've never seen a war where people who mess up aren't given reasonable outs.  A couple of rounds of war say and then peace. A trip to ZI and then they move on.  A publicly posted surrender on the owf then they sit on a pow AA for the duraiton.  WTF seems to find these things not acceptable.  They need huge tech repreations and etenral war.  Again on individual nations, not the AA they have a beef with.

 

Thats far worse in my humble opinion then anything DBDC has done.

 

If we want to talk about weird reactions that date back to the dark days of CN, some of the WTF stances on individual naitons trying to surrender or move on would fit. 

 

For the record, I've no problem  with their war with DBDC.  I would do the same.  And I doubt DBDC minds either.  As far as im concerned, WTF are free to war with DBDC till they surrender, DBDC surrenders, or one of them disbands.  But I don't think they are poor victims.  And somehow, I suspect if DBDC  were making the same comments about individual nations  that WTF is, the Outrage Machine we see in this thread would have been rending their clothes at the inhumanity and the evilness of DBDC.

 

But since politicaly people are sympathetic to WTF, we politely look the other way.

 

And of course this 'fair and balanced' thread overlooked that side as well.

 

And the irony is that division on this issue will once again simply be along poliical lines.  If you like DBDC you will point out WTF's hypocricy when it comes to individual nations surrendering, their demands of staggering reps (for individual nations again, not for DBDC).

 

If you hate DBDC you will call them evil raiders who deserve to be chased from the world and ground to dust.

 

Ultimately we'll have a long ass thread full of bsing here.  Where nothing is done but poltiical spin.  And no one on either side will be convinced to change their minds. But atleast we will waste a little time I suppose lol.

 

 

 

Ohh and for the record im not threatening WTF.  They are free to ignore my feelings on them being asses.  I'll just sit on the sidelines and point out their hypocricy.

Edited by OsRavan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen a war where people who mess up aren't given reasonable outs.  A couple of rounds of war say and then peace. A trip to ZI and then they move on.  A publicly posted surrender on the owf then they sit on a pow AA for the duraiton.  WTF seems to find these things not acceptable.  They need huge tech repreations and etenral war.  Again on individual nations, not the AA they have a beef with.

 

Thats far worse in my humble opinion then anything DBDC has done.

 

If we want to talk about weird reactions that date back to the dark days of CN, some of the WTF stances on individual naitons trying to surrender or move on would fit. 

 

For the record, I've no problem  with their war with DBDC.  I would do the same.  And I doubt DBDC minds either.  As far as im concerned, WTF are free to war with DBDC till they surrender, DBDC surrenders, or one of them disbands.  But I don't think they are poor victims.  And somehow, I suspect if DBDC  were making the same comments about individual nations  that WTF is, the Outrage Machine we see in this thread would have been rending their clothes at the inhumanity and the evilness of DBDC.

A reasonable out for a DBDC nation is removing their supertier status, something that would occur with tech reps, that is the only method of ensuring they will not be a further threat down the road, something every alliance on the losing coalition of this most recent war and likely some members of the winning coalition will soon find out.

 

DBDC has effectively not given an out to anyone who elects to join an alliance that is not to DBDC's liking, and has attacked with impunity anyone who they deem has grown too much, to say that WTF is somehow the villians for simply wishing to remove DBDC nations that have a history of jumping off DBDC's AA to restock nukes and war chests before returning to DBDC with certainty from future attacks against their sovereignty is a a very terrible attempt at political spin.

 

DBDC has done this for several years now, you're going to attempt to claim that no other alliance has the right to want a peace that actually lasts? Look at the terms you handed out for this last war, and then consider that this is just one of a list of attacks against neutral alliances, what exactly are you going to offer that isnt simply kicking the can further down the road for them to be attacked after GPA? Or perhaps WTF can be the summer war for 2016, and you can see if you can gather another coalition to do the heavy lifting for you to stomp Polar again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please Mogar.  I know for a fact that if I had suggested something similar for the people I was fighting last war you would have screamed bloody murder.  I would bet every penny I have on that fact.

 

Since when is "need to remove their ability to fight/be competent" accepted as a justifcation for harsh reps?

 

Seriously ridiculous.  If I had suggested last war that Polar needed to do xyz to remove their ability to fight me in the future can you imagine the outrage?

 

If DBDC decided they needed to remove WTF's threat and demand they destroy THEIR nations... are you ok with that too?  Somehow I doubt it if you are being honest.

 

 

 

What you are REALLY saying Mogar, is "I don't like DBDC, so its OK to do to them what I would not be ok with any other alliance doing to me."

Edited by OsRavan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall forced disbandment, I remember crippling reps, I was here for VietFAN, and Woodstock, and your alliance is willing to play NPO in that scenario because the neutral alliance had the balls to actually defend themselves?  

 

You could have easily suggested it, that does not mean they needed to agree with you, and have the option to continue fighting until they were given a peace they could agree to. That's one of the unfortunate consequences of a war, whether you are the aggressor or defender, you need to find a mutually agreeable peace. There is absolutely no guarantee you can make to WTF that would ensure that future raids would never occur again, at most they would be offered, I believe DBDC's preferred option is a 6 month NAP? Just enough time to grow back into range for another culling. 

If DBDC decided they needed to remove WTF's threat and demand they destroy THEIR nations... are you ok with that too?  Somehow I doubt it if you are being honest.

 

 

 

What you are REALLY saying Mogar, is "I don't like DBDC, so its OK to do to them what I would not be ok with any other alliance doing to me."

DBDC IS doing just that in fact by doing these "tech raids", and has clearly established their standard operating procedure is to raid, and then provide a certain allowance of time to regrow into range for further attacks, and has done this to my alliance and my allies for the past several years, this last war you started amusingly enough, over a tech raid in order to curbstomp my alliance and my allies, somehow I doubt you'd be ok with this, if you're being honest.

 

DBDC wants to remove WTF from the top 250? that's perfectly valid reason, don't expect WTF to take it laying down though. DBDC is a threat to WTF, they may act as they see fit to remove that threat, and DBDC has not exactly proven a reliable alliance in regards to respecting neutrality and independence, and most importantly sovereignty.

Edited by Mogar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF was living peacefully, they have never in the whole time i have know them even considered attacking anyone.

 

DBDC declared a aggressive war on WTF. WTF members are now defending their selves. This is fair.

 

Its about time DBDC stopped being whiny !@#$%*es and fought this 1v1 war without getting their pathetic little meat shield lap dog slaves involved. I mean seriously, DBDC members running off to other aa's, members of other aa's joining DBDC, getting other aa's to beg us for peace etc etc it really is pathetic

 

DBDC seriously have shown the extent to which they r almost incapable of winning a 1v1 long term war. I mean Cuba for example has a wc of about 3b now. He is going down. He will be rank 2 soon and OYA BABY will resume his rightful place as CN NUMBER 1.

Edited by christian trojans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

ODN trying to preserve an ally's safety and well-being doesn't surprise me at all, particularly because 99% of the people here don't give a damn about neutrals or soft-neutrals or unaligned, hypocrisy aside. They are protecting (or trying to) a very valuable asset to them (DBDC), so the fake outrage is amusing to behold.

 

It's not fake outrage or outrage of any kind. It's bemusement.

 

Edit: typo

Edited by Dubh Caireallain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive no problem with WTF fighting back till they either win or lose or decide theyve done enough.  Have at it I say.  If I was wtf I would do the same thing.  I dont think DBDC did anything 'wrong' either.  In my book you can declare a war for whatever reason you want.  Theres nothing wrong about that.  This is a war.  Both sides fight till one is ready to surrender or both declare it a draw.

 

What I dislike is not nations declaring wars or fighting wars.  What I dislike are harsh reps and eternal wars when people try to surrender.  Thats what WTF is doing.  And again.  "harsh repst so you cant fight me later" is not a good excuse.  Look at the  references you cited Mogar.  Thats why its not a good excuse.  EVERYONE always sees themselves as the goodguy.  If you justify those terms on alliance A... then alliance A is going to justify it right back on you.  And we end up in dark days.  Either its OK or its not OK to refuse surrender for individual nations to demand tens of thosuands in tech and to promise eternal war on individual nations to drive them from the world.

 

 

My issue again is that ive not seen individual nations refused surrender or reasonable surrender in a long long long time.  The fact that you Mogar need to reference hegemony era tactics to draw a comparison to what WTF is doing with these individual surrender terms is very telling.

 

 

IF you have an issue with DBDC.. go fight DBDC.  You will win or you will lose.  Either is fine.  To put these cripling demands on individual nations is not OK in my book.

Edited by OsRavan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when is "need to remove their ability to fight/be competent" accepted as a justifcation for harsh reps?

 

When they attack across the web with impunity and then hit you completely unprovoked and do multiple milions of damage to you?

 

Edit:

Either its OK or its not OK to refuse surrender for individual nations to demand tens of thosuands in tech and to promise eternal war on individual nations to drive them from the world.

Bullying in the form of raiding/unprovoked destroying = OK.

"Bullying" in the form of demanding harsh reps of your bullies = NOT OK!

Edited by Prodigal Moon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please prodigal.   Again what you are really saying is "because they are my enemy."

 

What if I went "XX has now fought ODN in the last 6 or 7 global wars.  They are clearly a major threat to our survival.  We need to remove their ability to fight for all time so there wont be an eighth global war against them.  We need to destroy their nations forever."

 

You would have a huge problem with that I suspect.

 

Because again you have your blinders on.  What you are essentially saying is "*I* view dbdc as an enemy.  So its OK to do to them what I would not be OK to have happen to me."

 

 

 

Your stance either needs to be these things are always OK or they are never OK.  Because guesse what?  Surely you've realized by now that each side always thinks the other is the threat/problem.  If you apply that logic to your enemies, they will do the exact same back to you.

 

 

Either something is an acceptable tactic period.  Or it isn't.  You don't get to go "Its an acceptable tactic when I do it, but not when my enemy does."  Unless you are a-ok with people forcing YOUR nations as surrender terms to pay 30,000 tech and delete land and wonders... then you best not demand it of others.  Because the one constant in CN is the shoe will always eventually be on the other foot.

Edited by OsRavan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive no problem with WTF fighting back till they either win or lose or decide theyve done enough.  Have at it I say.  If I was wtf I would do the same thing.  I dont think DBDC did anything 'wrong' either.  In my book you can declare a war for whatever reason you want.  Theres nothing wrong about that.  This is a war.  Both sides fight till one is ready to surrender or both declare it a draw.

 

What I dislike is not nations declaring wars or fighting wars.  What I dislike are harsh reps and eternal wars when people try to surrender.  Thats what WTF is doing.  And again.  "harsh repst so you cant fight me later" is not a good excuse.  Look at the  references you cited Mogar.  Thats why its not a good excuse.  EVERYONE always sees themselves as the goodguy.  If you justify those terms on alliance A... then alliance A is going to justify it right back on you.  And we end up in dark days.  Either its OK or its not OK to refuse surrender for individual nations to demand tens of thosuands in tech and to promise eternal war on individual nations to drive them from the world.

 

 

My issue again is that ive not seen individual nations refused surrender or reasonable surrender in a long long long time.  The fact that you Mogar need to reference hegemony era tactics to draw a comparison to what WTF is doing with these individual surrender terms is very telling.

 

 

IF you have an issue with DBDC.. go fight DBDC.  You will win or you will lose.  Either is fine.  To put these cripling demands on individual nations is not OK in my book.

 

The general reps WTF seemed to drive for were: (not official just a few numbers thrown around)

 

1) 400,000 tech given to WTF

2) 27 billion cash given to WTF

3) DBDC wear WTF POW aa

4) Cuba to sell all land

 

These reps are very low compared to the damage WTF has taken.

 

I personally would consider certain DBDC nations to surrender to WTF. This is my personal opinion by the way. If Noob cake was to surrender he would have to wear the WTF POW tags until the war was over, he would decom all military. bUT AND this is a big but! For every low ns DBDC member who surrenders a top 10 DBDC member would also have to surrender. So for example noob cake and artigo would have to suurender or noob cake and tim etc

Edited by christian trojans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not talking about demands on the alliance dbdc right now.  I think that pretty silly but whatever. Its not like theres much chance of them actually getting that, so I put it as the usual early war posturing.

 

I'm talking about WTF is doing to individual nations trying to surrender.  Not to DBDC the alliance.

Edited by OsRavan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that you are attempting to portray an independent alliance as the villains against the poor innocent tech raiders is pretty telling as well Os, if DBDC did not wish for a war with WTF, then why did they attack WTF? Those nations in DBDC who wish to surrender to WTF should probably find a way to provide WTF with restitution for the attack against the innocent WTF nations that likely have lost tens of billions of dollars in cash, infra, and tech. I'd go read some of your own alliance's agreements as to what occurs should an alliance member of yours harm an ally, before you try to make the claim that we live in a brave new world™ beyond the need for reparations!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The surrender terms WTF suggested where:

 

1) 400,000 tech

2) 27 billion

3) DBDC wear WTF POW aa

4) Cuba to sell all land

 

I personally would consider certain DBDC nations to surrender to WTF. This is my personal opinion by the way. If Noob cake was to surrender he would have to wear the WTF POW tags until the war was over, he would decom all military. bUT AND this is a big but! For every low ns DBDC member who surrenders a top 10 DBDC member would also have to surrender. So for example noob cake and artigo would have to suurender or noob cake and tim etc

 

I just want to point out for the record that the WTF has NOT asked for these or any other surrender terms. When the WTF decides on terms these will be communicated through appropriate channels..

 

I also want to point out for the record that no DBDC nation has surrendered or asked to surrender and was deterred  by the WTF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not talking about demands on the alliance dbdc right now.  I think that pretty silly but whatever. Its not like theres much chance of them actually getting that, so I put it as the usual early war posturing.

 

I'm talking about WTF is doing to individual nations trying to surrender.  Not to DBDC the alliance.

 

No one has tried to surrender

 

I personally would consider certain DBDC nations to surrender to WTF. This is my personal opinion by the way. If Noob cake was to surrender he would have to wear the WTF POW tags until the war was over, he would decom all military. bUT AND this is a big but! For every low ns DBDC member who surrenders a top 10 DBDC member would also have to surrender. So for example noob cake and artigo would have to suurender or noob cake and tim etc

Edited by christian trojans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just want to point out for the record that the WTF has NOT asked for these or any other surrender terms. When the WTF decides on terms these will be communicated through appropriate channels..

 

I also want to point out for the record that no DBDC nation has surrendered or asked to surrender and was deterred  by the WTF.

 

The general reps WTF seemed to drive for were: (not official just a few numbers thrown around)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please prodigal.   Again what you are really saying is "because they are my enemy."

 

What if I went "XX has now fought ODN in the last 6 or 7 global wars.  They are clearly a major threat to our survival.  We need to remove their ability to fight for all time so there wont be an eighth global war against them.  We need to destroy their nations forever."

 

You would have a huge problem with that I suspect.

 

Because again you have your blinders on.  What you are essentially saying is "*I* view dbdc as an enemy.  So its OK to do to them what I would not be OK to have happen to me."

 

 

 

Your stance either needs to be these things are always OK or they are never OK.  Because guesse what?  Surely you've realized by now that each side always thinks the other is the threat/problem.  If you apply that logic to your enemies, they will do the exact same back to you.

 

 

Either something is an acceptable tactic period.  Or it isn't.  You don't get to go "Its an acceptable tactic when I do it, but not when my enemy does."  Unless you are a-ok with people forcing YOUR nations as surrender terms to pay 30,000 tech and delete land and wonders... then you best not demand it of others.  Because the one constant in CN is the shoe will always eventually be on the other foot.

 

Long story short, Os: I wouldn't do anything to anyone that I don't think I would deserve if the situation were reversed. That doesn't mean that a given behavior is always bad or always good and we should ignore context. It's like you can't tell the difference between jail and kidnapping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again Mogar you seem to be missing my point.   I've no issue with WTF fighting DBDC.  Have at it I say.

 

 

But In no recent war on our world though, have nations that surrendered been put through the ringer.  Durring disorder, when XX nations surrendered to me, I didn't demand they pay huge tech or agree to eternal war because XX attacked me aggressivly.  That beef was with the alliances of XX.  And we fought them as long as we could.

 

 

There is an established protocol of what you do when an individual nation tries to surrender in an alliance war.  WTF isn't following that and is being downright abusive.  Their actions would not be accepted if DBDC was making the same demands in reverse.  Hypocricy is our problem here.

 

 

Again.  WTF has a beef with DBDC?  fight it out.  Thats why you go to war.  Individual nations who are done are ALWAYS given a reasonable out.

 

T:LDR: Alliance war is good.  Fight to resolve your issues till one of you surrenders. You consider WTF justified in their war?    I consider DBDC right?  Good for me.  We can debate that, cheer for who we want, help them, whatever. No issues.     Torturing individual nations who want out?  That makes YOU the bad guys.  Period.  And anyone who pretends they wouldn't scream bloody murder over WTF's actions if the shoe was on the other foot is a hypocrite.

 

 

 

And CT:  That's because WTF has publicly stated their demands.... which are ridiculous.  Its essentially self-destroying your nation.  Eternal war or destroy your nation if you want to surrender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The general reps WTF seemed to drive for were: (not official just a few numbers thrown around)

As Spindoctor made plain above, a rogue nation will not be considered the voice of WTF. This will be decided by gov in WTF and AAs involved. Your fate will be decided by them. That's always the way it is with nations that choose to attack their own alliance. It's long past time you accepted this.

Edited by Duderonomy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, an attack by Non Grata on WTF would be defensive, not offensive. CT is a rogue and WTF knew it when they accepted him on the AA. Rogues are open season. Most AAs don't accept them for that reason. WTF has decided to expand the war by attacking Non Grata. Guess I'll get to find out what fighting WTF is like after all.

 

Cool story, bro.  Check the dates/times of when Christian Trojan became a WTF member and the time of his entry into the war with his war dec on Cuba.

 

I'm sure DBDC appreciates what amounts to a minimal offer of help though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their reasonable out is providing restitution as an atonement for their actions, something I see as a fitting demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem in CN Prodigal is we can always think of a justification that half the web will think is right and half wrong.  Surely you've seen that by now?  When has there ever been a war without people thinking both sides deserve to lose?

 

If we take your stance, then each war the winning side does horrible things to the losing, but declares it OK due to xyz logical explanation that makes sense to them but not to you.

 

*OR* you simply say... some things are not OK.  Demanding individual nations who want out pay huge tech or face eternal war is not OK.  Period.  We don't stand for it.

 

 

 

 

You have been in this world too long Prodigal to pretend for a second that

 

That doesn't mean that a given behavior is always bad or always good and we should ignore context.

 

is a real solution.  That theres some way to pass moral judgement on when nations deserve to be tortured and when they don't.  Because all you do is create half the world thinking you and your friends deserve it while you and yours think the other half.  Thats might is right there.

 

If you are being fair, you will recognize that your opinion on who the 'bad guys' are is just that.  An opinion.  And others think the same way about your alliance that you do about theirs.  And thus if you justify your horrible actions based on your view of their 'crimes' they will do the same to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And CT:  That's because WTF has publicly stated their demands.... which are ridiculous.  Its essentially self-destroying your nation.  Eternal war or destroy your nation if you want to surrender.

 

IF  WTF have made their demands public i havent seen it ?

 

Please send me a link.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×