The Farkin ADULT's are goin to war!

[idsfa]

Someone needs to learn how to conduct themselves. I have no problem getting stomped into the ground by a larger alliance. We stomped ADULT pretty good it's true. We sure as hell didn't rub it in when we did. We said we overestimated them and were sorry we did it. Did we deserve this stomping? Possibly, I'm not denying that we didn't. It's your words on here that get me. There's no need to act the way you're acting. All we've done is show our distaste in getting stomped for the second time by a force ridiculously larger than us when all we want is a good fair war and that is the reply that we receive? Thanks buddy, you're a real nice guy.

I'm afraid I must take umbrage at your comment.

Various whiners have complained ad nauseum about being attacked after having been given ample warning that this would be the reward for attacking our allies.

I have pointed out this cognitive dissonance.

You have labeled my response as a form of gloating. Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary?

I repeat (at risk of further ad hominem): we made a promise, we told everyone that we made a promise, we honored that promise.

Do you have anything to offer beyond mudslinging?

Is the worst thing you can honestly think of to say about us is that we honour our commitments?

[thaisport]

Both sides have their points so I'm gonna weigh in on this with "MY" opinion.

Is there such thing as a fair war?

I don't think anyone on the losing end of a battle or war would ever say it is fair. Take Pearl Harbor for example, one of the most devastating hits the American took in the Second World War. US was blindsided by the attack, to which the Japanese tried to give the US fair warning of 30 minutes (due to translation issues it was an hour late). As unfair as that was, the nuclear bombs hitting Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed many civilians and harmed ruined many innocent lives (We won’t go into arguments for and against).

Cybernation TE & SE:

First off, people need to separate the two games. I don’t think they are related, period. People will argue TE is for practice, however, the counter argument to that is simple; there are people who only play TE and therefore take the game seriously, as seriously as SE.

The only think I would consider unfair is finding a bug and exploiting it to your advantage. That is cheating. Outside of that anything is fair game, in SE or TE.

This is very different from earning respect. You earn respect by the actions you make. For example Murder Inc (round 2 winner); they thought they could throw their weight around in round three and use people. This backfired and now they aren’t on the radar this round at all (no offense to MI and company cuz I’ve have respect them).

Edited April 7, 2009 by thaisport

[thaisport]

People Make TE & SE to personal:

I think people take both games too seriously. Now granted in SE you have more to lose because the game hasn’t reset in ages but regardless, it is first and foremost a game. I will be honest and will tell you last round my spat with Burning Glory got personal but I can also tell you now that I learn a lot from that experience. I could have easily taken the first war and the last war with LE on a personal note, but why? You live, you learn, you move on, you get better.

Fark jumping in on SWAT:

Do I think it was wrong what they did? No

Did they honor a treaty? Yes

Could they have handled this better? I’m sure. Some will view it as FARK using this as a free tech raid, others will say they are honorable to honor their treaty, others still will say they had nothing better to do.

Who is right and who is wrong? No one is right or wrong. It’s each individual’s opinion. The more popular opinion will win the day but people change their opinions like the wind. What seem right today could be wrong tomorrow.

Human Nature:

People want to win, that’s the bottom line and if something stops them from doing so, they take it personal. Win is very subjective, it doesn’t have to mean win the round, it could be a goal you had but now can’t achieve.

I hate bandwagonners but there’s nothing against bandwagonning in the rules and people do it to get an edge. People will more often than not take advantage of the situation if the opportunity presents itself. It is just a simple fact.

A lot of people hypocrites because many have said they wanted “fair” wars yet use technicalities or excuses to achieve what they want, hence going with their desire to protect their alliance / nation against harm.

What does this mean in the end? I don’t think FARK did anything wrong. Unless you are cheating everything in this game is fair game, however, it doesn’t mean you will earn the respect of others and in the long run it may do you more harm than good, time will tell how people saw the FARK’s action.

Edited April 7, 2009 by thaisport

[George the Great]

Where was your logic in the war that was started on rumours in the beginning of the round? You just so happened to "rediscover" it this time around the bend?

Your "logic" is cut and dry and leaves out a ridiculous amount of variables, like the current state of affairs in TE, the fact that the war was fairly balanced in the first place and the fact that Fark could have mediated, or at least have responded proportionally. You're also running around like you just announced the treaty yesterday, and that it's the first thing on everyone's mind. The treaty was signed in the very beginning of the round an is a few pages down the line. Also, there is nothing in your treaty that says you have to obliterate the attacking alliance to kingdom come. Anyway, you simply removed any variables that conflicted with your views and presented them as fact, I can do the same:

Did you know that a bunch of 1v1 wars were going on this week? Yes

Did you butt in anyway? Yes

Did you make a Fark policy statement addressing the current state of TE affairs? No

Did you respond with extreme force? Yes

Did you factor in any sense or morality in your decision, aside from "honoring a treaty"? No

Does history show that you wouldn't have helped out if the war wasn't obviously in your favour? Yes

Refute or STFU.

Or even:

Have you eaten a bratwurst? Yes

Have you driven a Volkswagen? Yes

Do you like beer? Yes

THEN YOU'RE German

Refute or STFU.

You could very well be a German, but there's a very good chance you aren't either. The conclusion can be reached with those premises, but the premises aren't sufficient enough to prove someone to be a German. Nor is it necessary for a German to answer those questions with a yes. Multiple conclusions can be reached from the premises provided. Just like if you factor in some more premises, you can stand a chance at getting to a clearer conclusion. You also seem to think that your policies are accepted by everyone in this game, when it seems to be only you folks that accept those policies, for the most part. SWAT's actions were within the realm of what's been going on for the past week. Fark's actions were not.

Fark has a very Machiavellian approach to this game and it's getting old. It seems as though the end always justify the means for you folks, and that end is Fark dominating.

You also forgot to add:

Is this CN:SE? No

CN:TE doesn't have to be just like CN:SE, especially if it hasn't been defined as such.

You guys are telling us to sit back and have fun. I have 489.99 infra before yesterday's update. By the time the attacked were finished post update, I was left with 85. How is not being able to do anything fun? Even if I wanted to, I can't do anything but turtle. At least with LE I actually got to fight back to a minimal degree.

You guys also forget that SWAT attacked ADULT with nations that were close in strength to the ones being attacked. Fark attacked back with nations that were barely in range of the nations they were hitting.

[Wilhelm the Demented]

@Wilhelm: It might be best if you made sure you understood the entire analogy first. SWAT was the slightly larger stereotypical nerd in said analogy.

So we are a slightly larger stereotypical nerd on crutches?

got it

Edited April 7, 2009 by wilhelm the demented

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Cry some more!

Why do I have to keep reposting that

[Salmacis]

Or even:

Have you eaten a bratwurst? Yes

Have you driven a Volkswagen? Yes

Do you like beer? Yes

THEN YOU'RE German

Hmm... Yeah... He must be German. I'm 100% sure.

Look, everybody is sorry for your nation kk? You need to chill out. I'm sure those mean Farkers will get what they deserve next round.

[FurQ]

The guys who got to top position via other nations hard work are acting like tyrants and posting cry more memes? Who would have expected that?

also

I repeat (at risk of further ad hominem): we made a promise, we told everyone that we made a promise, we honored that promise.

you don't know what ad hominem means

Edited April 7, 2009 by FurQ

[idsfa]

Fark says: If anyone does X, we will do Y. SWAT does X. Fark does Y.

Your "argument" tries to claim Z.

with a little

thrown in for luck.

As for your whining about your precious pixels ...

[Derka Derek]

I'm afraid I must take umbrage at your comment.

Various whiners have complained ad nauseum about being attacked after having been given ample warning that this would be the reward for attacking our allies.

I have pointed out this cognitive dissonance.

You have labeled my response as a form of gloating. Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary?

I repeat (at risk of further ad hominem): we made a promise, we told everyone that we made a promise, we honored that promise.

Do you have anything to offer beyond mudslinging?

Is the worst thing you can honestly think of to say about us is that we honour our commitments?

It was the matter in which you took action that stumped us, we didn't expect next update to be in an all out war with Fark, personally I don't mind and I'm not questioning that you shouldn't have done this.

It's true, some SWAT members are taking this a bit worse than others, I apologize for this but either way I still stand by my comrades.

Not exactly gloating, the diction you used made it sound more aggressive than you meant it. I apologize if I took it too offensively.

I never had a problem with you honoring that promise, we're just taken aback at your response. Yeah in the textbook it wasn't wrong what you did, but if you look at the common sense involved in it some might complain.

Mudslinging? I've stated nothing but what's on my mind, if it was mudslinging then I've failed to realize that. Looking back at my post now I can tell you have a valid point. I apologize for this and will remind you that other than that post I've said nothing about my distaste at Fark's actions and I still feel the same way.

I joined TE for war, fair or unfair, war is certainly what I got, it was a bit different than I expected it would be, but that's besides the point.

[CelenAzrael]

@Wilhelm: No crutches involved unless you used those crutches as beating sticks against ADULT. Admittedly, that analogy was a bit off, my apologies. Have fun with the war, though.

@George: For all of what you say, I have to wonder if you would be saying the exact same things if you weren't winning fairly well against ADULT when we joined and if we were not doing fairly well against you now. I don't know whether you would, but I am definitely skeptical about what you say. You say and act as though we have butted into a 1v1 that was completely fair and honorable, but clearly ADULT didn't think that. Your argument is unilateral (as it should be), the problem is that you seem to be making the assumption that your view is the truth. Obviously both sides (SWAT and ADULT) did not feel the same way. You feel that the battle was completely fair, but I don't think we would have been asked to join in if ADULT felt the same way, at very least, I'm fairly sure that they could have asked us not to join in.

As for your argument about us now reminding you on the treaty: It was not our responsibility to remind you of that. It is up to you to either know all of the variables (the variables which you claim we have ignored) or to pay for the consequences for not knowing. Ignorance is not a valid excuse here.

[Andrewbw]

Ignorant post

I love how you completely ignored everything George said, fantastic logic.

Oh yeah, all those "big words" and whatnot...do you mean to come off as pretentious? Is that what it is? Do you not get enough attention elsewhere, so we have to marvel at your intelligence?

"Refute or STFU"

You're whole ad hominem bit is getting annoying too. "Yeah I'm going to go ahead and bash the source and not pay attention to content at all, cause if I can bash the source I can go to bed happily knowing that my e-peen just got a little bigger."

[Arcturus Jefferson]

I joined TE for war, fair or unfair, war is certainly what I got, it was a bit different than I expected it would be, but that's besides the point.

I'm sorry next time we'll only use cruise missiles so people don't have their feelings hurt.

The guys who got to top position via other nations hard work are acting like tyrants and posting cry more memes? Who would have expected that?

Mmmm?

[Methax]

Are you kidding me?

"Dear ADULT,

We are going to raid you in 24 hours, please don't hit us first!!

love,

SWAT"

This isn't SE; F- politics, F- treaties, F- all that BS.

I don't care if FARK and ADULT had a treaty; TE isn't supposed to be about politics and treaties. If it was, there would be no wars as everybody would recruit the new nations and there would be nobody to attack without risking some massive global war. Thats dumb.

As an earlier poster said -- keep up the BS politics and unfair pwn matches and there is no incentive to play TE because it'll become the same BS that SE is.

You acknowledge that it's TE, then disregard the fact that this is TE and pretend this is SE again. Update strikes are to be expected in this game, as they happen regularly. If you care about your nation at all, you log into it regularly and make sure everything's ship shape. This is especially true at update, at least. Any alliance that relies on a treaty to keep it safe and sits around in defcon 5 with no GCs and minimal military is pretty sad, imo. Again, this is especially true in this case given the fact that this week is random war week and alliances have been going to war for the fun of it. We were expecting to get hit by someone randomly every night, just not the way Fark hit us.

Either I'm not clear in what I'm trying to say or you guys are interpreting it wrong. Obviously I would never just tell a target we're about to attack you etc, but you guys are the one complaining about this war not being "fair."...I have no problem with update strikes/surprise attacks at all (what would CN be without them), it's just that you guys keep saying you guys wanted a fair fight when you picking on ADULT really wasn't. I agree SE politics should gtfo but there's nothing wrong with simple treaties and allies...w/e I don't really want to start some argument on what TE should be. But even if you don't agree with them you should have expected Fark to attack knowing we had a treaty :/

Were you in Fark last round? GREAT was "preemptively" attacked by M*A*S*H with an update strike whilst the GREAT/Fark (Farkin Great) treaty was being announced on the OWF. Fark then decided they weren't sure who attacked who so they opted to stay out of the war. Fark was also allied to other MDoAPed on our side of the fray. Had Fark joined, however, the war would have been fairly balanced. Then again, a balanced war doesn't assure victory.

tl;dr - TE ≠ SE

Learn it, accept it and lets have fun.

...

again with the balanced war...war is never balanced. "Learn it, accept it and lets have fun. "

anyways good luck with the war, going on vacation =P

[treygreen13]

I thought TE was where everyone fought and had fun, right? What happened to the wild and crazy TE atmosphere?

If you insist on using this game as a training ground, fight amongst members of your own alliance. Nobody is going to get upset at you if you had a SWAT/SWAT fighting scenario set up. Fark wouldn't have randomly ambushed your training exercises.

However, declaring on other alliances and then complaining that your pixel-robbery was for "training" is stupid.

[UltimateDogg]

I thought TE was where everyone fought and had fun, right? What happened to the wild and crazy TE atmosphere?

If you insist on using this game as a training ground, fight amongst members of your own alliance. Nobody is going to get upset at you if you had a SWAT/SWAT fighting scenario set up. Fark wouldn't have randomly ambushed your training exercises.

However, declaring on other alliances and then complaining that your pixel-robbery was for "training" is stupid.

you get out of here with your common sense and logic!

OUT!

[Wilhelm the Demented]

Fark says: If anyone does X, we will do Y. SWAT does X. Fark does Y.

Your "argument" tries to claim Z.

with a little

thrown in for luck.

As for your whining about your precious pixels ...

Z is for fun

[George the Great]

Fark says: If anyone does X, we will do Y. SWAT does X. Fark does Y.

Your "argument" tries to claim Z.

with a little

thrown in for luck.

As for your whining about your precious pixels ...

Way to not address anything I said. I, at least, addressed your assumptions.

I don't know if you noticed but all that post did was sum up your methodology in thread. The post itself is a perfect example of what an ad hominem, oh wait, I'm supposed to italicize ad hominem, argument is. Thank you for providing the apparently ignorant and inferior CN community with an example along with your definition.

Fark did say that, yes, but Y only means defence. It doesn't obliteration. There were also other circumstances regarding X. My point is that you've eliminated all circumstance from X and defined Y in its most extreme interpretation. I never tried to claim Z, just that Y doesn't have to be taken in its most extreme interpretation.

Y could have also involved Fark responding proportionally, like reversing the war slightly in your side's favour, but still keeping it fun. That, however, involves risk and doesn't assure Fark coming out on top so it makes sense like why that wasn't considered. Y could have also consisted of mediating, or even having Fark fluff its feathers, yes, you're a peac ock.

My main issue with Fark here is that it doesn't seem to recognize there were several different paths that could have been taken. If you're going to say you're a diplomatic alliance that is simply defending an ally, then you should act diplomatically. Then again, I'm completely against any diplomacy in TE and believe that it should be in a perpetual state of random war.

...

again with the balanced war...war is never balanced. "Learn it, accept it and lets have fun. "

anyways good luck with the war, going on vacation =P

@George: For all of what you say, I have to wonder if you would be saying the exact same things if you weren't winning fairly well against ADULT when we joined and if we were not doing fairly well against you now. I don't know whether you would, but I am definitely skeptical about what you say. You say and act as though we have butted into a 1v1 that was completely fair and honorable, but clearly ADULT didn't think that. Your argument is unilateral (as it should be), the problem is that you seem to be making the assumption that your view is the truth. Obviously both sides (SWAT and ADULT) did not feel the same way. You feel that the battle was completely fair, but I don't think we would have been asked to join in if ADULT felt the same way, at very least, I'm fairly sure that they could have asked us not to join in.

As for your argument about us now reminding you on the treaty: It was not our responsibility to remind you of that. It is up to you to either know all of the variables (the variables which you claim we have ignored) or to pay for the consequences for not knowing. Ignorance is not a valid excuse here.

War can never be balanced, no, but it can come close to it. I never alluded to the war being completely fair, but prior to the war it was pretty close. We overestimated their activity, but at the time looked like the best candidate to attack. Sure, if you're going to look at in on day two, the war was even less balanced due to our effective update strike and ADULT apparently doesn't like to fight back. Neither of my targets attacked back with ground troops for some odd reason and they definitely could have if they attacked together. In fact, both of the targets I attacked had more infra than I had and one of them had 1k more NS prior to attacking. I'm also not sure ADULT asked you to join in because they thought the war was horribly unbalanced, but because they'd rather not have war and just build their nations up.

I also never said it was your responsibility to remind us of the treaty you held, I'm just saying you shouldn't be going around acting like it was signed yesterday and the first thing on everyone's mind.

Edited April 7, 2009 by George the Great

[CelenAzrael]

War can never be balanced, no, but it can come close to it. I never alluded to the war being completely fair, but prior to the war it was pretty close. We overestimated their activity, but at the time looked like the best candidate to attack. Sure, if you're going to look at in on day two, the war was even less balanced due to our effective update strike and ADULT apparently doesn't like to fight back. Neither of my targets attacked back with ground troops for some odd reason and they definitely could have if they attacked together. In fact, both of the targets I attacked had more infra than I had and one of them had 1k more NS prior to attacking. I'm also not sure ADULT asked you to join in because they thought the war was horribly unbalanced, but because they'd rather not have war and just build their nations up.

I also never said it was your responsibility to remind us of the treaty you held, I'm just saying you shouldn't be going around acting like it was signed yesterday and the first thing on everyone's mind.

It seems that what you are saying is that we should have just basically sent in commandos rather than the army. No offense, but why? The first problem with this is that it assumes that a fair fight was the first thing on our mind. I'm pretty sure that we would have rather honour a treaty outright than possibly not be able to make any difference. It is really difficult figuring out exactly what precisely will match SWAT especially TE's difficulties with ghosts. Yes, we can be reasonably sure that sending 100 people at you will render you defeated, but if we message 100 people how many can we count on responding, how many will actually do something useful, and if we want it completely balanced, how many people should we send? Honestly, there are too many variables to do that and it makes a lot more sense (at least on my end) to simply send the hordes after you.

As for the treaty: it was there. It should have been one of the first things on your mind when you attacked in the first place and the sheer fact that you ignored it either signifies laziness or ignorance on the behalf of the person who ought to have checked. I would suggest getting angry at the person who should have checked first rather than the people continually pointing it out: yes, we might be a bit excessive, but we had at least a reason to be so.

[Derka Derek]

I'm sorry next time we'll only use cruise missiles so people don't have their feelings hurt.

What? I know you're not talking about me.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

What kind of "proportionate response" were you expecting? You trashed ADULT and are now getting trashed. Seems equitable to me.

[Wilhelm the Demented]

What kind of "proportionate response" were you expecting? You trashed ADULT and are now getting trashed. Seems equitable to me.

To be fair, we thought ADULT was gonna be harder to hit...

I guess we'll attack someone twice our size next round - that seems more fun.

[Zpetsnaz]

We should have attacked FARK from the beginning, maybe someone else could have taken them down.

Edited April 8, 2009 by Zpetsnaz

[roomagoo]

So here's my two cents from reading this wall o' text, and keep in mind I don't give a damn about pixels and that I've been on vacation since the start of this thing and didn't even know it was coming due to missing a few forum posts which I've later updated myself on.

SWAT - We attacked ADULT in what we thought would be a 'fair fight' in a world where nothing is fair. We forgot that FARK had an agreement with them. FARK is now beating us in to the ground. We wish they could have taken a different road and will keep posting about this as if it's the end of the world, and we're calling for the whole TE world to attack the big mean FARKers who curb stomped us. We are also going to point out the 'obvious' assumption that FARK only goes in to wars that they know they'll win while ignoring track records where the only times people have started joining with FARK in wars was once they had proven that they can win as the little guys. SWAT also claimed that the treaty was for defense. This is correct. What would be a better defense that simply annihilating the aggressor?

That being said, FARK likes war. We're reasonably decent at it, though I will make no delusions of grandeur.

FARK - Yes, we attacked you. ADULT obviously didn't want to fight by their lack of opposition. There's no such thing as a fair fight. Yes, we could have done things differently, but we didn't. We hit you because you hit friends. They asked for our help, we provided it. We beat the people who attacked them into the ground. So what if all they wanted was to grow their nations? Is that a bad thing? Are there defined rules for this game beyond, don't let things from previous rounds and SE carry over? If there are, please show them to me. We provided defense for those we had an agreement with, we'd have done the exact same thing if we were going to be on the losing end. FARK is here for war, this is why we're involved in so many engagements, and this is why we see this kind of thing every time we fight, and why people will gloat in the times that they come out on top over us.

In conclusion, it's a game, they're just pixels. We're very sorry we hurt your feelings, and yes we could have done things differently, but we didn't. You say we're going to pay next round. Good. I encourage war, especially with FARKers standing by me. When war comes, we may or may not have allies fighting with us, but we'll stand strong and fight whoever it is who brought the war to us, and we won't be complaining every step of the way about how we wish the enemy wouldn't have hurt us as badly. And yes, I know that we will do this, because I've been there when its happened, especially when we were a brand new alliance, many of you probably were not around for that.

This is my one and only post in this thread. For the TL; DR -

FARK hit SWAT in defense of ADULT (enough capped alliance names there?). We're sorry to SWAT for not being happy about getting curb stomped, but they should have taken all variables into account. Better luck next round.

[KingDingaLing]

So here's my two cents from reading this wall o' text, and keep in mind I don't give a damn about pixels and that I've been on vacation since the start of this thing and didn't even know it was coming due to missing a few forum posts which I've later updated myself on.

SWAT - We attacked ADULT in what we thought would be a 'fair fight' in a world where nothing is fair. We forgot that FARK had an agreement with them. FARK is now beating us in to the ground. We wish they could have taken a different road and will keep posting about this as if it's the end of the world, and we're calling for the whole TE world to attack the big mean FARKers who curb stomped us. We are also going to point out the 'obvious' assumption that FARK only goes in to wars that they know they'll win while ignoring track records where the only times people have started joining with FARK in wars was once they had proven that they can win as the little guys. SWAT also claimed that the treaty was for defense. This is correct. What would be a better defense that simply annihilating the aggressor?

That being said, FARK likes war. We're reasonably decent at it, though I will make no delusions of grandeur.

FARK - Yes, we attacked you. ADULT obviously didn't want to fight by their lack of opposition. There's no such thing as a fair fight. Yes, we could have done things differently, but we didn't. We hit you because you hit friends. They asked for our help, we provided it. We beat the people who attacked them into the ground. So what if all they wanted was to grow their nations? Is that a bad thing? Are there defined rules for this game beyond, don't let things from previous rounds and SE carry over? If there are, please show them to me. We provided defense for those we had an agreement with, we'd have done the exact same thing if we were going to be on the losing end. FARK is here for war, this is why we're involved in so many engagements, and this is why we see this kind of thing every time we fight, and why people will gloat in the times that they come out on top over us.

In conclusion, it's a game, they're just pixels. We're very sorry we hurt your feelings, and yes we could have done things differently, but we didn't. You say we're going to pay next round. Good. I encourage war, especially with FARKers standing by me. When war comes, we may or may not have allies fighting with us, but we'll stand strong and fight whoever it is who brought the war to us, and we won't be complaining every step of the way about how we wish the enemy wouldn't have hurt us as badly. And yes, I know that we will do this, because I've been there when its happened, especially when we were a brand new alliance, many of you probably were not around for that.

This is my one and only post in this thread. For the TL; DR -

FARK hit SWAT in defense of ADULT (enough capped alliance names there?). We're sorry to SWAT for not being happy about getting curb stomped, but they should have taken all variables into account. Better luck next round.

Few days late on this bud. No longer relevant. Please drive through