Petro Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) Who said I'm a government member? I'm assuming we're going to keep on ignoring that everyone in the Doomsphere had the opposite opinion when they were the ones sending the soldiers. Your in-game bio said Head of Econ hours ago. Apparently not only can you read the future when you predict what DBDC will be doing in 6 months but you can change the past as well. If you learned how to accurately describe your actions in the present without spinning out of control you'd have it made. Edited March 14, 2015 by Petro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted March 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 You mean, when they were at war with you? Gosh, I wonder why they did that. We're making progress Auctor, now what does it make you if you support something when you do it, but denounce it when others do it? Your in-game bio said Head of Econ hours ago. Apparently not only can you read the future when you predict what DBDC will be doing in 6 months but you can change the past as well. If you learned how to accurately describe your actions in the present without spinning out of control you'd have it made. I wasn't aware my ingame bio has any relevance to anything, if I change it to King of Sengoku, are you going to bow? I can predict DBDC's actions because they've been incredibly predictable, it's not exactly as though its difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 We're making progress Auctor, now what does it make you if you support something when you do it, but denounce it when others do it? Mogar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted March 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Mogar? Wanna back that up with some evidence of me flip flopping? I'm merely following the rules of conduct your sphere has graciously determined as proper etiquette during war time, and yet, when anyone else does it, it's improper? How baffling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 I'm not sure which is more idiotic: Mogar or the DT people who made the arguments Mogar is parodying here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMeTheHorizon Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 This is a perfect example of the IC/OCC divide we have created for ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eejack Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Tech deals are not an act of war, but sending soldiers disguised as tech deals is an act of war. Quoting for posterity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 You're just jealous you don't have access to the pink anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 You're just jealous you don't have access to the pink anymore. Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted March 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 I'm pretty content on maroon, and knowing that whatever tech I get from maroon nations is at least far more likely to be legitimate than any from pink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhizoctonia Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Wanna back that up with some evidence of me flip flopping? I'm merely following the rules of conduct your sphere has graciously determined as proper etiquette during war time, and yet, when anyone else does it, it's improper? How baffling. How aren't you flip flopping? You blantently pointed out that doing tech deals with an alliance during war is an act of war, yet you then go ahead and do it anyway and then come on here claiming it's not. You literally say one thing then do another. You want to use DBDC stance that it's not a act of war when you said it is before, and then whine when the tables are turned and they use your stance that it is an act of war against you. The only difference is, DBDC didn't go out of their way to do such. You being your normal self searching to be in the limelight of things and stirring up !@#$ decided to get involved to get a reaction. Well you got a result, and got sanctioned which tbh is quite minimal compared to your obvious attempt to purposefully piss them off and look to go against your NAP. I'm glad you like to put the rest of RIA in harm for a stunt that only has backfired on you, and the only ones who believe it wasn't a stunt or believe s normal tech deal involves soldiers is the DBDC haters who will blindly go against DBDC. You did tech deals with an alliance at war, which you stated in your opinion is an act of war against their opponent, thus blantently broke your NAP. Either you follow what you believe in, or you follow DBDC's opioion on tech deals during war....you don't get to swap when it works for you and then call someone out. By your new stance of following DBDC's opinion, I expect from now on that you defend any alliance who choose to tech deal during wars and call out anyone who says different or attacks someone for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted March 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Victors have always established the proper decorum of our world, I followed the same rules that DBDC and friends follow, but when I do it, it's denounced, when they did it, it was just. I would think I'm not the one changing my opinion, it would be your friends who find it appropriate to send soldiers with tech deals and consider them to be only tech deals, so long as its not soldiers to nations they are at war with, then its terrible and an act of war! As for all of RIA, you can't honestly pretend that NAP was signed for our benefit, look at who we had as a counter this last war, your goal wasn't to counter us properly, it was to save Rikhard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhizoctonia Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 So how is denouncing DBDC and others who tech deal during war, and then you do it, any different then them doing it and them denouncing you for it? Absolutely nothing. The only difference is you were the first to do the opposite of what you believe in to use it against them, and once you did they turned around and did the same thing to you. You merely want to turn their belief around on them, but call someone out for when they pull the same move on you. You look stupid to call them out that they flip flopped on their view when you were the one to originally do so, and they returned the favor. Besides a simple Sanction, they could easily used your opinion it's an act of war and that RIA as a whole broke their NAP agreement. So far, all I see is penalizing you for pulling a stunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted March 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) So how is denouncing DBDC and others who tech deal during war, and then you do it, any different then them doing it and them denouncing you for it? Absolutely nothing. The only difference is you were the first to do the opposite of what you believe in to use it against them, and once you did they turned around and did the same thing to you. You merely want to turn their belief around on them, but call someone out for when they pull the same move on you. You look stupid to call them out that they flip flopped on their view when you were the one to originally do so, and they returned the favor. Besides a simple Sanction, they could easily used your opinion it's an act of war and that RIA as a whole broke their NAP agreement. So far, all I see is penalizing you for pulling a stunt I don't recall ever denouncing it, aid during war isn't going to change anything overall, and if I'm in a war that's actually that close, I'd feel this world was finally alive again, but we're no longer in the Great War Era. Think they have the political willpower to do it though? How much of your coalition is willing to fight round 2? Edited March 14, 2015 by Mogar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krihelion Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 paging stewie paging stewie need a maroon sanction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted March 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 One Big Happy Family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 See doll, honesty really is the best policy! Indeed. Now you try it. Admit that your "Totally just a tech deal" was actually an attempt to bait DBDC/make a political point and we can move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 So how is denouncing DBDC and others who tech deal during war, and then you do it, any different then them doing it and them denouncing you for it? Absolutely nothing. The only difference is you were the first to do the opposite of what you believe in to use it against them, and once you did they turned around and did the same thing to you. You merely want to turn their belief around on them, but call someone out for when they pull the same move on you. You look stupid to call them out that they flip flopped on their view when you were the one to originally do so, and they returned the favor. Besides a simple Sanction, they could easily used your opinion it's an act of war and that RIA as a whole broke their NAP agreement. So far, all I see is penalizing you for pulling a stunt If he's tech dealing in order to prove a point it's not exactly flipflopping. It's just stupidity. Mogar I like you but: http://imgur.com/r/reactionpics/bF6Cp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted March 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Indeed. Now you try it. Admit that your "Totally just a tech deal" was actually an attempt to bait DBDC/make a political point and we can move on. I will be receiving Tech and my soldiers back, thus it would in fact be a tech deal. My soldier were escorting and then defending my money, if is a long way from Mogatopia's capital of Neo Tokyo, to Prague, and Czechoslovakia was in anarchy after all, with riots were engulfing the nation. I ensured my aid reasoning was to be sure it wouldn't be considered something else, such actions could be misconstrued after all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhizoctonia Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) I don't recall ever denouncing it, aid during war isn't going to change anything overall, and if I'm in a war that's actually that close, I'd feel this world was finally alive again, but we're no longer in the Great War Era. Think they have the political willpower to do it though? How much of your coalition is willing to fight round 2? Without going through pages of discussions that happened in the WFF topic to look at everything you posted (don't have the time), you seem quite supportive of the right for an alliance to declare war on an alliance doing tech deals and its a legitimate reason to do so. To go along with that, your first comment of "maybe you should of stopped doing tech deals" would not be a comment of someone who supports the right of people to continue tech deals with nations at war...as no where in the first two pages did I ever see you defend ones right to do so, but instead comment that people have the right to attack for doing so. If you truely supported the allowing of tech deals you would have said nothing or spoke up against your side for going after WFF for doing deals. This you didn't do. So, by your words, and following your statement, DBDC has the right to cut off tech supplies. It's quite simple, you used their opinion of tech deals against them, and they used yours against you. The difference is you started it, they responded, and you made a topic calling them out for something you're just as guilty of as them. So this whole topic is pointless, you wanted to use someone's word against them but make a topic calling them out when the same is done to you. To your other part, I truely couldn't tell you. I don't really think it will evolve to that, this seems pretty much dealt with Edited March 14, 2015 by Rhizoctonia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted March 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) I'm receiving tech, not sending it! You did try to make the situations comparable though, our side lost, thus your set of rules obviously is the proper method of warfare, after all, tech is about the free market, and we should defend tech sellers rights to free trade, is that not what was said of DT Probes? The topic is that clearly if the proper method of warfare is to treat tech deals as something entirely seperate from warfare, then there is no purpose to sanctioning me, as I am merely participating in a technology trade, and thus not breaching any non aggression. We both know you can't sell "let's start another war!", there's much more important things to focus on for the majority of the Victors. Edited March 14, 2015 by Mogar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hapapants Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 I am surprised DS of all alliances, as bastions of defense of the free market, would complain about tech deals. Capitalism, ho! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caladin Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) WTF, go sanction this guy: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=539368It's only fair, DBDC clearly doesn't believe aid should be sent to members of alliances that are at war.Edit/And these two:http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=542518http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=566321 Edited March 14, 2015 by Caladin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 WTF, go sanction this guy: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=539368 It's only fair, DBDC clearly doesn't believe aid should be sent to members of alliances that are at war. Edit/ And these two:http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=542518http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=566321 Do it and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBRaiders Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Quoting for posterity. Keep it copied. I have a whole list of posts from you prodding us when you could just sit in the corner with your mouth shut counting your pixels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts