Gatherum Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 I think he means the word baw? Aye, that's what I just explained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Solidus Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 No, of course not because look at the treaty web and you'll see why. Yeah, I also base my strength and courage on who can be my meat shield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auto98 Posted February 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 (edited) [OOC] Did you skip over my entire post or just punch your keyboard and hit the post button? [OOC] It had to be one of the two because you missed most all of my point except the two out-of-context things that you quoted. Perhaps your memory is just a bit short, so let me quote and highlight some things that you missed completely.I understand that those nations didn't know he was in Vox (mostly their fault) and in that sense yes it is a scam. However it still WILL NOT, WILL NOT affect them any differently than a normal tech deal. I think you know this and just feel like milking this discussion out to make it seem like you had a point for starting it when in actuality it was a pre-mature, misinformed talk that wrongly accused someone of not wanting to pay back their deal. Not this ^^^^ The thing is, we all know, and indeed you know and have admitted, that it is a scam. You are arguing it isn't for no reason other than...well i dunno, if you aren't in vox I'm guessing you are a secret sympathiser? How it affects the nations involved isn't relevant, as we have already established it is their fault for doing the trade, but gatherum's intent was to deceive - It is impossible to argue it isn't a scam [OOC btw all of this i am doing is IC, there was no reason to go OOC] Look, this news report was essentially a warning to others not to do the same thing - it is others who have blown this up into something it isn't, including yourself Jofna - if you hadn't started hyping it this thread news report would probably have not even been noticed. But thanks, more people will now have seen the thread, and know who gatherum is. Edited February 20, 2009 by auto98 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 What do you mean? We've always hated BAAAAWWWWing Wait, what? Since when? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayOvfEnnay Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Not this ^^^^The thing is, we all know, and indeed you know and have admitted, that it is a scam. You are arguing it isn't for no reason other than...well i dunno, if you aren't in vox I'm guessing you are a secret sympathiser? How it affects the nations involved isn't relevant, as we have already established it is their fault for doing the trade, but gatherum's intent was to deceive - It is impossible to argue it isn't a scam [OOC btw all of this i am doing is IC, there was no reason to go OOC] Look, this news report was essentially a warning to others not to do the same thing - it is others who have blown this up into something it isn't, including yourself Jofna - if you hadn't started hyping it this thread news report would probably have not even been noticed. But thanks, more people will now have seen the thread, and know who gatherum is. How much would you like to bet that every nation who has said something here not only knows who Gatherum is, but would atleast check their tech deal's war history. I'm arguing with you because you're acting as though Gatherum would be so dishonorable as to not repay the tech. I'm arguing with you because you're acting as though you at all matter in what he does. I'm arguing because you keep spewing the same crap over and over and over again no matter what I say. Gatherum, as you've said, "the only person who knows 100% of the story" (and for the record you know about 5%) has given his input and said I was completely correct. You ignored his post fully and decided to take my post and still ignore half of the things in it so that you could rephrase what you've been saying the entire time. So I guess to rephrase what Gatherum said a bit: Stop bawing. YOU dow'd on his alliance. YOU are trying to destroy it. YOU allied to the alliance that hates them most. YOU as well will suffer any possible consequence that can be delivered in the bounds of ingame rules. This is probably my last thought in this discussion since it is in itself worthless and as I stated earlier, it only shows how uninformed the population of your membership is. PS- "A secret sympathiser"? I guess you just went through the same process as your members do before they send me cash, huh? You heard part of what I said, looked at my name, and took your action. I'm not a "secret sympathiser" I'm a very public supporter of Vox. Possibly the only reason I haven't joined is my deep sense of respect for Valhalla and those within it. I'm on EZI with NPO and I'm at war with 5 of their people right now. So next time before you label me something that I'm not, do think first. It's something most members don't do before they send me 3mil in cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Encouraging nations from an alliance at war with you to send you aid is a scam, no matter how you look at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 (edited) Encouraging nations from an alliance at war with you to send you aid is a scam, no matter how you look at it. I don't think so. That's like saying a person can't do business with a person of another country because the two are at war. If they are both honorable about their deals, there should be no issue with the transaction. All you protectionists. Bah! Free market ftw. Edited February 20, 2009 by MegaAros Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Please explain the situation and how they typically stand against it. Is it weaker nations taking advantage of stupid more powerful nations? This embodies what they stand for. Strength doesn't make a nation right or better than any other nation. I was simply under the impression that Vox was against average CNers being taken advantage of. Apparently when THEY do it, however, it's the guy's fault. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freelancer Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 I was simply under the impression that Vox was against average CNers being taken advantage of. Apparently when THEY do it, however, it's the guy's fault.-Bama Hold IT !!! Gatherum did his with style and flair, not only did he choose a nation that basically has declared war on his whole alliance, he intends to honor his commitments, did he go choose some NooB alliance with 30 members who no nothing of the global scene, hell no he went to GGA, you gota love the irony of it all. Some might call this creative financing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Solidus Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 I was simply under the impression that Vox was against average CNers being taken advantage of. Apparently when THEY do it, however, it's the guy's fault.-Bama Have you read the Vox posts on their ideals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 (edited) Every member of Vox chose their fate when they joined up to enter into conflict with civilization, they are not victims. And you are no great thinker. Instead of paraphrasing your own weak ideas and arguments how about you address my point? That this aid theft is simply another non-traditional form of warfare that Vox's enemies have little ability to counter. Edited February 21, 2009 by Ragashingo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 And you are not great thinker. Instead of paraphrasing your own weak ideas and arguments how about you address my point? That this aid theft is simply another non-traditional form of warfare that Vox's enemies have little ability to counter. I never disagreed with that point, it is just a tactic, although futile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Solidus Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 I never disagreed with that point, it is just a tactic, although futile. Yeah, getting your enemy to aid you is useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 I don't think so.That's like saying a person can't do business with a person of another country because the two are at war. If they are both honorable about their deals, there should be no issue with the transaction. All you protectionists. Bah! Free market ftw. a) It's highly unlikely that one party (in case the buyer) is aware that they starting a deal with an enemy, that is part of the deception. It would be different if the deal were started on full disclosure and not a deception. B) OOC- You can't trade war materials with a member of an enemy nation, and in CN money is basically a tool for war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 (edited) a) It's highly unlikely that one party (in case the buyer) is aware that they starting a deal with an enemy, that is part of the deception. It would be different if the deal were started on full disclosure and not a deception.B) OOC- You can't trade war materials with a member of an enemy nation, and in CN money is basically a tool for war. A: How do you not know the enemy? Seriously? B: Yes, but I have traded many times with the NPO when I was on red, while at war with them. It's not that direct nation I'm at war against. Individualism ftw. Edited February 21, 2009 by MegaAros Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatherum Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 Heh... ...Pacifica, you have a good fighter in Trigon. You'd best be thanking him later for his efforts, for he is the one who put me in Anarchy and endangered my ability to effectively make my technology payments in eight days (and yes, I know that I am now eating the words that I said before, that there was nothing to worry about ). We shall see. For the time being, in case I am late, I have added the three nations that have aided me to my Saved Nations page. Whether they receive their Tech in eight days or many times that much, they shall receive it. Apologies in advance to those nations in case I am unable to make it on time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 Yeah, getting your enemy to aid you is useless. It is useless if your struggle is futile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freelancer Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 It is useless if your struggle is futile. Time will tell, wont it ? OCC It took Russia 10 years to figure out fighting Afghanistan was useless, we have a similar situation here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 Time will tell, wont it ? OCC It took Russia 10 years to figure out fighting Afghanistan was useless, we have a similar situation here. History will absolve me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 A: How do you not know the enemy? Seriously? B: Yes, but I have traded many times with the NPO when I was on red, while at war with them. It's not that direct nation I'm at war against. Individualism ftw. A: You're not an active member and don't read the OWF, and don't know the individual ruler names of enemy's that are hiding under a different AA B: Resource trading isn't the same as monetary aid. When an alliance is at war with an alliance, every nation is at war with every nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayOvfEnnay Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 A: You're not an active member and don't read the OWF, and don't know the individual ruler names of enemy's that are hiding under a different AAB: Resource trading isn't the same as monetary aid. When an alliance is at war with an alliance, every nation is at war with every nation. A: Well if the member did it right, he or she would check to see that all of us at the time, Aros, Gatherum AND I all had active wars going at the time of our aiding. I was in anarchy some of the time I was getting aided, and all of those wars were with allies of those giving us aid. Not to mention that NPO and friends have target lists with our names on it. Basically a little bit of research any of those nations aiding us would have found us an unsuitable tech deal and thus not sent aid. B: So every NPO'er is at war with me? Because if so they really need to analyze why 1 nation (me) has Rambo'd their army and continued growing despite under the pressure of 921 nations. What I'm saying is, is that if I'm officially DOW'd on a nation (ingame) then I don't consider them my opponent or enemy. Not until I'm effectively doing something to stop or reverse their growth do I really consider myself at war, which is why I feel (and I can imagine others as well) that if I, I specifically, don't feel as though the nation is at war with me then it's not immoral to request their aid. Once again I mention that those two in Vox were declared all EZI targets, and I myself two nights ago was told by Moo that I will probably not get peace for a very long time if ever. Under these circumstances, I'm prepared and ready to use every tool at my expense. If NPO wanted a fight, NPO is getting a fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 A: Well if the member did it right, he or she would check to see that all of us at the time, Aros, Gatherum AND I all had active wars going at the time of our aiding. I was in anarchy some of the time I was getting aided, and all of those wars were with allies of those giving us aid. Not to mention that NPO and friends have target lists with our names on it. Basically a little bit of research any of those nations aiding us would have found us an unsuitable tech deal and thus not sent aid. That's what they SHOULD do, and obviously they are stupid if they don't do it. However if you spam a bunch of people you're bound to come across a few not very active members that via ignorance and/or stupidity don't check all that. B: So every NPO'er is at war with me? Because if so they really need to analyze why 1 nation (me) has Rambo'd their army and continued growing despite under the pressure of 921 nations. What I'm saying is, is that if I'm officially DOW'd on a nation (ingame) then I don't consider them my opponent or enemy. Not until I'm effectively doing something to stop or reverse their growth do I really consider myself at war, which is why I feel (and I can imagine others as well) that if I, I specifically, don't feel as though the nation is at war with me then it's not immoral to request their aid. See I consider someone to be my enemy if our alliances are at war, even if limited slots or other in-game restrictions or strategy mean that our nations aren't officially at war. You may not be fighting them directly but they may directly fight one of your alliance mates or other allies. Once again I mention that those two in Vox were declared all EZI targets, and I myself two nights ago was told by Moo that I will probably not get peace for a very long time if ever. Under these circumstances, I'm prepared and ready to use every tool at my expense.If NPO wanted a fight, NPO is getting a fight. I'm not arguing against your right to scam people as part of a war, just arguing against the notion that this isn't a scam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moridin Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 (edited) Would you please name every member of every alliance you are at war with, including those that may not actually be flying the AA of those alliances, or are you talking pish and poddle.It is a scam whether or not he sends the tech out, because as he admits he changed AA to get the deals. How is that at all relevant? I'm not afraid of getting aid scammed and I doubt other Vox members are either. If your alliance is concerned about aid scamming then take the time out of your day to compile a list of the thirty or so nations under the Vox AA right now and tell your members to check the list before making a a tech deal with a nation outside the alliance. I can't believe I'm actually talking this through with you, you'd think a sanctioned alliance would have the minute amount of sense necessary to figure something as basic as this out. It doesn't matter if it's a scam or not, and even if it is, there's nothing really all that unprecedented about it - unless he's actually going to pay IRON back, which would mean he's a far better man than I. Is there something genuinely surprising about the idea that someone with whom you are at war might try to take some of your money? Is it such a revolutionary idea that NOBODY considered the possibility that Vox nations might try to scam aid? It shouldn't be, we did it in August too. I'd just appreciate it if everyone would stop feigning horror and just come to terms with the fact that when you're at war with someone, stealing 3 million isn't really a crime against humanity and in this situation is really quite easy to prevent if your membership has a pulse and the leadership has the smallest inkling of intelligence. Edited February 22, 2009 by Moridin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayOvfEnnay Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 That's what they SHOULD do, and obviously they are stupid if they don't do it. However if you spam a bunch of people you're bound to come across a few not very active members that via ignorance and/or stupidity don't check all that.See I consider someone to be my enemy if our alliances are at war, even if limited slots or other in-game restrictions or strategy mean that our nations aren't officially at war. You may not be fighting them directly but they may directly fight one of your alliance mates or other allies. I'm not arguing against your right to scam people as part of a war, just arguing against the notion that this isn't a scam. Well those members are the ones that I pray upon. You see, I respect someone like Gramlins far too much to ever do this too them, but if NPO had a tighter more well knit membership like Gre, then this wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem. This is the problem that comes with a large membership and a twitchy trigger finger. If those allies aren't helping them though, then I consider them no different. Meh, fundamental disagreement I suppose. And yes, I do acknowledge that under some states of mind this is a scam, but in the sense that those nations will still recieve 100 tech it isn't really any different. They agreed to it the second they sent that aid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Litler Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 History will absolve me. You're not even trying anymore. That quote makes no sense in this context. Anyway, the problem with NPO member especially is that many of them joined simply to be part of the strongest alliance and are inactive and/or indifferent. I'd like to see how many will actually stay if/when the NPO starts losing. This isn't intended as an attack on the New Pacific Order. In fact, many alliances are plagued by the same cancer but I imagine the NPO would be especially susceptible to such given their status as the strongest of the strong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.