Jump to content

Blackwater using unfair sanctions...


Striker DCS
 Share

Recommended Posts

Titanium of DominationStation (Blackwater) has used his powers as senator of black team to sanction top players in the game for no legitimate reason. This shows how blackwater operates unfairly. Sanctions should be used for good reason and just cause like ghosting or cheating... Not because you "feel" like it...

Isn't this game about fairplay? Isn't that what Judgement was about, enforcing fair play?

I believe all alliances should see this as an unfair, unjust and unwarranted act of misuse of power by a Senator for personal gain by Blackwater and react accordingly.

In case anyone would like to send a message to him and their alliance that this will not be tolerated his addy is.

http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_...tion_ID=1000270

Any alliance that sees this as unfair and would not like this done to their alliance should stand up and let them know this kind of underhanded gameplay will not be tolerated.

Edited by Striker DCS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Titanium of DominationStation (Blackwater) has used his powers as senator of black team to sanction top players in the game for no legitimate reason. This shows how blackwater operates unfairly. Sanctions should be used for good reason and just cause like ghosting or cheating... Not because you "feel" like it...

Isn't this game about fairplay? Isn't that what Judgement was about, enforcing fair play?

I believe all alliances should see this as an unfair, unjust and unwarranted act of misuse of power by a Senator for personal gain by Blackwater and react accordingly.

In case anyone would like to send a message to him and their alliance that this will not be tolerated his addy is.

http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_...tion_ID=1000270

Any alliance that sees this as unfair and would not like this done to their alliance should stand up and let them know this kind of underhanded gameplay will not be tolerated.

It was a poor choice on their part... I hope sanctioning 5 or 6 nations was worth the destruction of the whole alliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you dont want all of the above then peace out like you said you would :) We only attacked nations that attacked us after you guys agreed to peace out. You brought it to a whole new level.

And if we were a "big bad alliance" we would have rolled you up in the beginning and not even tried to get peace so your theory is lame, good try on getting a sympathy vote though

Edited by KingDingaLing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you dont want all of the above then peace out like you said you would :) We only attacked nations that attacked us after you guys agreed to peace out. You brought it to a whole new level.

And if we were a "big bad alliance" we would have rolled you up in the beginning and not even tried to get peace so your theory is lame, good try on getting a sympathy vote though

Haha Bill. I'd fire up the spin machine as quick as possible.

If nothing else you've brought me great entertainment. For that you should be saluted!

Linkage to the most unfair Senator of ALL TIME!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me cast my vote in public......This was not only low and uncalled for, it was also a bad show of character on behalf of your AA!

Last round i had become friends with a few members from BW and tried to get peace between them and a unnamed AA.

This round you guys are not showing you have an hournable side!

BG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me cast my vote in public......This was not only low and uncalled for, it was also a bad show of character on behalf of your AA!

Last round i had become friends with a few members from BW and tried to get peace between them and a unnamed AA.

This round you guys are not showing you have an hournable side!

BG.

That guy last round you talked with about getting peace with the unnamed AA ... that guy was me.

I can honestly say that if after you've seen the screenshots and your opinion is stated as above we definitely do not see eye to eye. Good luck with the remaining round of Tournament Edition.

Edited by metal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That guy last round you talked with about getting peace with the unnamed AA ... that guy was me.

I can honestly say that if after you've seen the screenshots and your opinion is stated as above we definitely do not see eye to eye. Good luck with the remaining round of Tournament Edition.

Well there were a few of you, as i defended some of you and i couldn't really remember you guys nation names if they are even the same.

However i also hold a senate seat and would never sanction a bunch of members in the same AA over war regaurdless of the situation.

I have a very strong dislike against ASSHATS, i do not know the lagistics of the situation, but sanctioning is at the very end of the tatics for war

and should be used to try and get peace not escalade it!

I have no personal ill will towards BW but i wouldn't put up with a roll of one of my nations for a simple raid.....Infact TPF and friends has rolled 2 entire AA's for this

same improper use of defense. I am willing to come to the table with NAAW and BW to get this resolved, if you truely want peace!

BG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there were a few of you, as i defended some of you and i couldn't really remember you guys nation names if they are even the same.

However i also hold a senate seat and would never sanction a bunch of members in the same AA over war regaurdless of the situation.

I have a very strong dislike against ASSHATS, i do not know the lagistics of the situation, but sanctioning is at the very end of the tatics for war

and should be used to try and get peace not escalade it!

I have no personal ill will towards BW but i wouldn't put up with a roll of one of my nations for a simple raid.....Infact TPF and friends has rolled 2 entire AA's for this

same improper use of defense. I am willing to come to the table with NAAW and BW to get this resolved, if you truely want peace!

BG.

BG,

I would argue it's not a "improper use of defense" when our policy is known about ahead of time.

As far as the sanctions we got attacked first , then we got nuked, then we got our nukes spied away. I'm sure TPF wouldn't stand by and let that slide. We won't either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BG,

I would argue it's not a "improper use of defense" when our policy is known about ahead of time.

As far as the sanctions we got attacked first , then we got nuked, then we got our nukes spied away. I'm sure TPF wouldn't stand by and let that slide. We won't either.

Well coming from an AA that also raids i think the policy should be laxed! Lets say one of your guys raided an AA that also did the same thing to your member

that you guys did. Would you just let your member get rolled? And over two simple GA's.......

I would think that you would defend him, and thus support my argument for improper use of defense.

I'm not apposed to a defense, but you can show a proper defense by a simple warning pm or if this was a second raid by this nation against

your members, then 2 or 3 nationd declaring and attacking with GA's only!! not all out WAR.

TPF has never done anything more than this. Thats not to say that we have not rolled an ASSHAT for dirty talk and continued attacks, unwilling to peace out.

It sounds to me like you guys want to keep this going.....This is you call, but i really don't see this going well for either side!

PM me for a solution to this.

BG.

Edited by Burning Glory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well coming from an AA that also raids i think the policy should be laxed! Lets say one of your guys raided an AA that also did the same thing to your member

that you guys did. Would you just let your member get rolled? And over two simple GA's.......

I would think that you would defend him, and thus support my argument for improper use of defense.

I'm not apposed to a defense, but you can show a proper defense by a simple warning pm or if this was a second raid by this nation against

your members, then 2 or 3 nationd declaring and attacking with GA's only!! not all out WAR.

TPF has never done anything more than this. Thats not to say that we have not rolled an ASSHAT for dirty talk and continued attacks, unwilling to peace out.

It sounds to me like you guys want to keep this going.....This is you call, but i really don't see this going well for either side!

PM me for a solution to this.

BG.

We already gave peace a chance. This all comes down to NAAW thinking they could get away with raiding us. When they realized that wouldn't work, they nuked us. They started this and now they will reap the whirlwind.

I don't see why you are so concerned about NAAW though. They have 3 times our nation strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We already gave peace a chance. This all comes down to NAAW thinking they could get away with raiding us. When they realized that wouldn't work, they nuked us. They started this and now they will reap the whirlwind.

I don't see why you are so concerned about NAAW though. They have 3 times our nation strength.

lol, oh i'm not concerned about them...its you aa that i was tring to show the light to!

And as i stated before, a raid does not equal a war! And from what i know, the other AA's of this game will soon

be in to raid your weaken nation as they are depleted of their infra. Do you really want this?

BG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, I believe a BLACK senators sanctioning abilities are empowered by and for the entire BLACK team and as such should not at any time be used for any "individual alliances" benefit or as a preemptive strike for any "individual alliance" especially when it directly has an affect on nations within the senators own BLACK team.

I feel the urge to hunt down some kittens... See below :)

Edited by Striker DCS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, oh i'm not concerned about them...its you aa that i was tring to show the light to!

And as i stated before, a raid does not equal a war! And from what i know, the other AA's of this game will soon

be in to raid your weaken nation as they are depleted of their infra. Do you really want this?

BG.

I'm sorry, but what the heck is your problem?

Blackwater did nothing to deserve this, and you come in here barely comprehensible and complaining about everything they do.

Also, on topic, speaking as the starter of sanction warfare (at least on blue) for two rounds, I don't quite see your problem with it, as sanction warfare has existed since the origins of Tournament Edition. Heck, NAAC at the end of both last rounds sanctioned people left and right, I sanctioned most of the top 10 on blue not in NAAC or WAPA, and no one got mad or called our actions unfair (myself and cyan did this). Its a fair ingame tactic, just like using nukes are.

Edited by Penlugue Solaris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but what the heck is your problem?

Blackwater did nothing to deserve this, and you come in here barely comprehensible and complaining about everything they do.

Are you serious! I really have no problem accept with people who are rude! Your making your way to that list.

BW turned this into a war, unless you think its ok to have your nation rolled for a simple raid.

IF so give me your nation name and i'll make sure that if you do any raiding it happens!

If you haven't been reading the post then don't comment on them, i have tried several times to get this a peaceful ending!

And also i have some what friendship in BW, ahhh, i think thats been said in here to by BW leadership!

I have also stated how much i hate asshatery, and you are pushing the bounds of it!

I'm also a senator and if you think its cool to get sanctioned just let me know, i'll make sure it happens!

And as i calm myself down, you need to learn some respect...same as i give and expect!

BG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, I believe a BLACK senators sanctioning abilities are empowered by and for the entire BLACK team and as such should not at any time be used for any "individual alliances" benefit or as a preemptive strike for any "individual alliance" especially when it directly has an affect on nations within the senators own BLACK team.

By far the best argument yet. Rather than screams of bloody murder, unfairness, and sending me to eternal damnation. This one can at least have an opposing side that COULD be correct.

All I can really say is that when backed into a corner, by a enemy multiple times over in size, sometimes you have to do what you have to do. If I had 300 nations at my disposal , we could have rocked in a more "conventional" method. However, I believe if I did have those 300, we wouldn't have been raided either. Nukes carry a huge "OH NO!" stigma as well. We got nuked first unprovoked none the less, you don't see us here whining about "fair". There's no "fair" if your going to get beat up.

[OOC] I would also argue that the Senate position in TE is not nearly as "important to team stability" as in Standard. [/OOC]

None the less, I'm sure the fine folks of the Black team will speak again , this time in favor of NAAW. The only thing I can guarantee is that at least I'll understand why what's happening to me is happening, and "fair" won't come into play.

Edited by metal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, oh i'm not concerned about them...its you aa that i was tring to show the light to!

And as i stated before, a raid does not equal a war! And from what i know, the other AA's of this game will soon

be in to raid your weaken nation as they are depleted of their infra. Do you really want this?

BG.

BG,

I don't think you quite understand our mindset. Last night we began the stages of an alliance wide strike on an alliance 3-4 times our size. We have no concerns for "depleted infra". If other AA's decide that we have been the most unholy of holy, then so be it. We weren't going to win this war on the ground anyway.

It's about something more than infra. I think that's where maybe we don't see eye to eye. Once you realize that maybe you'll get where we're coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well coming from an AA that also raids i think the policy should be laxed! Lets say one of your guys raided an AA that also did the same thing to your member

that you guys did. Would you just let your member get rolled? And over two simple GA's.......

I would think that you would defend him, and thus support my argument for improper use of defense.

I'm not apposed to a defense, but you can show a proper defense by a simple warning pm or if this was a second raid by this nation against

your members, then 2 or 3 nationd declaring and attacking with GA's only!! not all out WAR.

TPF has never done anything more than this. Thats not to say that we have not rolled an ASSHAT for dirty talk and continued attacks, unwilling to peace out.

It sounds to me like you guys want to keep this going.....This is you call, but i really don't see this going well for either side!

PM me for a solution to this.

BG.

I don't make this rounds policies (but I have been doin a lot of work I didn't want to do...sheesh) but I'm telling you right now: If a BW guy raided an AA we would not only demote him in some fashion, we'd also do something completely crazy... wait for it.... yup, we'd APOLOGIZE to the offended alliance. Shocker eh?

It's OK if you think our policy should be laxed. :) You've got a right to an opinion just as much as anyone else.

However our policy is our policy. It's known going into things.

One last clear explanation incase there's any further confusion:

Man #BW: "Hey everyone listen up, if anyone pushes any of our friends out of their chair, we're gonna beat you up."

Man #1: "Cool BW, got it. You do it your way , we'll do it ours"

Man #2: "YO BW IM 3 TIMES YO SIZE GET OUT MY MOTHA F*@*@ CHAIR" *pushes BW out of his chair*

Man #BW1: "Man #2.. you pushed him out.. not smart" *smack*

Man #BW2: "You pushed him out..not smart" *smack*

Man #BW3: "You pushed him out , even though we stated the policy" *smack*

Really, really clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We already gave peace a chance. This all comes down to NAAW thinking they could get away with raiding us. When they realized that wouldn't work, they nuked us. They started this and now they will reap the whirlwind.

I don't see why you are so concerned about NAAW though. They have 3 times our nation strength.

This is completely false.. thats the point. We only attacked nations attacking ours. We only did so after I talked to one of your guys and was told we would all peace out. After that, the attacks continued so we attacked the guys ATTACKING us not the whole alliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BG,

I don't think you quite understand our mindset. Last night we began the stages of an alliance wide strike on an alliance 3-4 times our size. We have no concerns for "depleted infra". If other AA's decide that we have been the most unholy of holy, then so be it. We weren't going to win this war on the ground anyway.

It's about something more than infra. I think that's where maybe we don't see eye to eye. Once you realize that maybe you'll get where we're coming from.

You know, when we talked last round i began to like you, nothing has changed since this round. I try to be fair to everyone in any situation,

this if looked at from the begining is a serious of wrong choices that has escaladed to this point...I still feel that your defense of a 4 to 1 was excessive,

nothing will change my mind on that, guess you need it to happen to you to get where i'm coming from! You are a good guy, but based on that i feel that the start off

was BW's fault...I know it was in defense of a raid, but man a raid is just that nothing personal and surley not a DOW which an all out assult would eventually lead to.

NAAW may have their blame in this as well, but in all honesty i really really think that if the shoes were reversed on any AA (as i've been there) they would of

done the same.

Now is your time to get things settled.

bg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you serious! I really have no problem accept with people who are rude! Your making your way to that list.

BW turned this into a war, unless you think its ok to have your nation rolled for a simple raid.

IF so give me your nation name and i'll make sure that if you do any raiding it happens!

If you haven't been reading the post then don't comment on them, i have tried several times to get this a peaceful ending!

And also i have some what friendship in BW, ahhh, i think thats been said in here to by BW leadership!

I have also stated how much i hate asshatery, and you are pushing the bounds of it!

I'm also a senator and if you think its cool to get sanctioned just let me know, i'll make sure it happens!

And as i calm myself down, you need to learn some respect...same as i give and expect!

BG.

A) You have problems with people who are rude? Look in a mirror.

B.) I do have problems when you raid that large of an alliance. In case you didn't realize this buddy, I was a Council member of NAAW until a week ago when I resigned, in part because they raid whoever they feel like raiding. When I start to raid whoever I feel like raiding, then sure, I deserve to be attacked. You should know when you raid someone aligned you risk a counter attack and not BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW about how those meanies! attacked you back. Raiding an established alliance like Blackwater is terrible form.

C) You have tried to get a peaceful ending while supporting invalid ideals, yes.

D) I have been reading the posts, I just only cared to comment on yours because its been irritating me. Also, you really show your friendship in this thread so well.

E) Then why do you act in this way, if you hate it so much?

F) I'm on blue, so I don't think you will be sanctioning me any time soon. And its not cool to be sanctioned, just like its not cool to be nuked or attacked. Oh wait, nuking people AND attacking people is an accepted part of TE just like sanctioning is.

G) I have respect for those who deserve it, and after watching you post, I don't have it for you.

Edited by Penlugue Solaris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not as familiar with the ethics of war in CN but I tend to believe this is a simple case of escalation due to overreaction.

Initial tech raid resulted in overreaction by Blackwater initiating an unacceptable response sending three nations to do an all out DOW on offending tech raider, without proper warning or use of diplomatic channels.

UAAW responded correctly directing initial retaliation against Blackwater's attacking nations only and followed with diplomacy.

Blackwater ignored diplomacy and overreacted again initiating further attacks against NAAW, attacking nations not directly involved in the conflict and sanctioning their top nations.

UAAW correctly responded to this overt DOW with a properly posted DOW stating the intention to attack if Blackwater does not agree to immediate cease fire and accept all peace.

To me it looks like a clear cut case of Blackwater:

1. Overreacting and escalating initial tech raid.

2. Ignoring diplomatic attempts.

3. Escalating conflict again by additional unwarranted attacks.

4. Sanctioning nations not involved in conflict.

I would think that rational decisions regarding what is best for your alliance would be your top concern at this point. Causing your alliance to be destroyed over a simple tech raid doesn't sound rational to me and should give pause to others in your alliance.

Take a deep breath and a step back, propose a 24 hour cease fire for further negotiations.

I am not a diplomat or anyone that has any say in any of this. Just an innocent bystander that has been caught up in it.

Edited by Striker DCS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not as familiar with the ethics of war in CN but I tend to believe this is a simple case of escalation due to overreaction.

Initial tech raid resulted in overreaction by Blackwater initiating an unacceptable response sending three nations to do an all out DOW on offending tech raider, without proper warning or use of diplomatic channels.

UAAW responded correctly directing initial retaliation against Blackwater's attacking nations only and followed with diplomacy.

Blackwater ignored diplomacy and overreacted again initiating further attacks against NAAW, attacking nations not directly involved in the conflict and sanctioning their top nations.

UAAW correctly responded to this overt DOW with a properly posted DOW stating the intention to attack if Blackwater does not agree to immediate cease fire and accept all peace.

To me it looks like a clear cut case of Blackwater:

1. Overreacting and escalating initial tech raid.

2. Ignoring diplomatic attempts.

3. Escalating conflict again by additional unwarranted attacks.

4. Sanctioning nations not involved in conflict.

I would think that rational decisions regarding what is best for your alliance would be your top concern at this point. Causing your alliance to be destroyed over a simple tech raid doesn't sound rational to me and should give pause to others in your alliance.

Take a deep breath and a step back, propose a 24 hour cease fire for further negotiations.

I am not a diplomat or anyone that has any say in any of this. Just an innocent bystander that has been caught up in it.

You have some solid points again, I'm sure a lot of it is over-reaction. After all we're human. But I have to ask, is it over-reaction if its already PRE-stated policy?

However before the #2 of Blackwater ignoring diplomatic attempts.. please see the other thread. We were all about peace at first. And #3... we were still getting attacked..... .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not as familiar with the ethics of war in CN but I tend to believe this is a simple case of escalation due to overreaction.

Initial tech raid resulted in overreaction by Blackwater initiating an unacceptable response sending three nations to do an all out DOW on offending tech raider, without proper warning or use of diplomatic channels.

UAAW responded correctly directing initial retaliation against Blackwater's attacking nations only and followed with diplomacy.

Blackwater ignored diplomacy and overreacted again initiating further attacks against NAAW, attacking nations not directly involved in the conflict and sanctioning their top nations.

UAAW correctly responded to this overt DOW with a properly posted DOW stating the intention to attack if Blackwater does not agree to immediate cease fire and accept all peace.

To me it looks like a clear cut case of Blackwater:

1. Overreacting and escalating initial tech raid.

2. Ignoring diplomatic attempts.

3. Escalating conflict again by additional unwarranted attacks.

4. Sanctioning nations not involved in conflict.

I would think that rational decisions regarding what is best for your alliance would be your top concern at this point. Causing your alliance to be destroyed over a simple tech raid doesn't sound rational to me and should give pause to others in your alliance.

Take a deep breath and a step back, propose a 24 hour cease fire for further negotiations.

I am not a diplomat or anyone that has any say in any of this. Just an innocent bystander that has been caught up in it.

I like you. You at least argue clearly and effectively.

Also metal has said what I would typically say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...