Dark Fist DoW 2.0

[neneko]

You know it's about the principle. They claimed they were doing it for friends

They have friends NEW is at war with.

and honor

What's honorable is clearly subjective as shown by this thread.

and for being on the other side

They are on the other side.

[Starcraftmazter]

Ahh.. you said it. Yes. We prefer to have two alliances DoWing us rather than those without any valid treaty to jump in. If the story happens to be IPA DoW NEW first for its optional aggression pact with GR and then DF DoW NEW in support of IPA's Aggression, we won't have to troll each other to begin with.

Wow.....

And your logic behind this is?

Even the "dishonorable" side did everything by the book.

Attacking an alliance during peace talks is doing it by the book?

This is the first I heard of someone using the optional aggression part of someone else's treaty to get into a war. I think everyone knows damn well if anyone on the other side had done this the tune would be a whole lot different.

Nope. And we didn't use the optional aggression part of any treaty either. Others in this war have though.

[magicninja]

They have friends NEW is at war with.

What's honorable is clearly subjective as shown by this thread.

They are on the other side.

You totally missed the real part of the post.

Bottom line is they could've done things right. They chose to look like cheap bandwagoners. Why? Who knows? It was a stupid move. I don;t mind playing without treaties. They should've just stuck by their story that they were just bandwagoning because their "friends" were getting their teeth kicked in. No need to bring out the reach of all reaches to try to justify their motive. That was just special. C'mon do honestly condone their behavior? Or are you just sticking up for them for cheap thrills?

[Starcraftmazter]

Bottom line is they could've done things right. They chose to look like cheap bandwagoners. Why? Who knows? It was a stupid move. I don;t mind playing without treaties. They should've just stuck by their story that they were just bandwagoning because their "friends" were getting their teeth kicked in. No need to bring out the reach of all reaches to try to justify their motive. That was just special. C'mon do honestly condone their behavior? Or are you just sticking up for them for cheap thrills?

Not sure what you're referring to, but I am largely unconcerned about aspects of this war not directly related to DF.

[magicninja]

Wow.....

And your logic behind this is?

Attacking an alliance during peace talks is doing it by the book?

Nope. And we didn't use the optional aggression part of any treaty either. Others in this war have though.

It's pretty standard logic. IPA declares on NEW because of their oA with GR. You declare because of your oA with IPA.....seems pretty straight forward.

If the plan was to attack unless they got word not to. The whole Moo's crappy internet scenario etc.

IPA's optional aggression with GR > Our Mutual Aggression with IPA.

I'm pretty sure it was stated at least once b4 in this thread.>>> Says Foxodi He used that to justify you being in the war. Using IPA's optional aggression with GR as a means.....Is he lying or are you?

[neneko]

You totally missed the real part of the post.

Bottom line is they could've done things right. They chose to look like cheap bandwagoners. Why? Who knows? It was a stupid move. I don;t mind playing without treaties. They should've just stuck by their story that they were just bandwagoning because their "friends" were getting their teeth kicked in. No need to bring out the reach of all reaches to try to justify their motive. That was just special. C'mon do honestly condone their behavior? Or are you just sticking up for them for cheap thrills?

My point was that they had all the reason in the world to declare on NEW. If they hadn't been involved in the war already and didn't have treaties with the karma side then I'd agree with you. The fact is that they were already in the war though so there's no way you can call this move opportunistic.

Also if you want to be vogon then go yell at IDC on your side. They had no treaty with NPO. So much for the hedgemony side doing it by the book.

edit:

You totally missed the real part of the post.

Bottom line is they could've done things right.

Yes! That is my point too! They could have done it right so all we're discussing is that they didn't hand in the correct paperwork.

Edited May 9, 2009 by neneko

[magicninja]

Not sure what you're referring to, but I am largely unconcerned about aspects of this war not directly related to DF.

C'mon don't play stupid now. You're making yourself look bad SCM.

[Daikos]

You totally missed the real part of the post.

Bottom line is they could've done things right. They chose to look like cheap bandwagoners. Why? Who knows? It was a stupid move. I don;t mind playing without treaties. They should've just stuck by their story that they were just bandwagoning because their "friends" were getting their teeth kicked in. No need to bring out the reach of all reaches to try to justify their motive. That was just special. C'mon do honestly condone their behavior? Or are you just sticking up for them for cheap thrills?

Do you think before you begin typing? If you don't, it's a habit you should pick up. If you do then my mind hath been boggled.

[magicninja]

My point was that they had all the reason in the world to declare on NEW. If they hadn't been involved in the war already and didn't have treaties with the karma side then I'd agree with you. The fact is that they were already in the war though so there's no way you can call this move opportunistic.

Also if you want to be vogon then go yell at IDC on your side. They had no treaty with NPO. So much for the hedgemony side doing it by the book.

Well then IDC is full of !@#$ too. I don't pick on someone because of what "side" they're on man.

Look for as far back as I've been going to war the only honorable and decent way to enter against someone is through a treaty. It was never about sides and all that. There was never any "Hey let me borrow your treaty since we don't have one." going on.

[suryanto tan]

OOC: I assume that you finished your university assignment already. If not, please kindly ignore this post.

We are not looking to destroy anyone, as I have already said many times, we will exit this war along with the rest of the alliances fighting you at the same time. Our main goal is simply to draw fire away from CCC/CD, as your nations are much more powerful than many of theirs. Tl;dr - pick on someone your own size.

Seeing that we declared on CCC, and that Greenland Republic came to CCC defense, and Carpe Diem and The Dark Evolution came to Greenland Republic assistance, if we later surrender to CCC, we hope for a peace with GR, CD, and TDE as well.

You know, we cannot surrender to you yet. You had not accomplished that much yet to collect the reward you are looking for. I can see here and there in this thread, a couple of time, your claim about how NATO surrendered to you (and you are being nice at giving them white peace). And it will be unfair to our member if we let you announce to the world that we surrender to you on a what, five days war?.

Beside, you have said here that your entrance is on your own accord (I am not sure, since I heard difference), not asked by anyone. Thus this should be treated as different war. It is not part of the same war we were fighting with the rest of the opponents.

Had you not enter the war, perhaps today we would have had peace in this front.

Excuse me? What?

First of all, since when is it standard for governments to approach their enemy governments at the onset of war and tell them exactly how it will end? It is not.

Forgive me for not write it clearly. What I mean is, after the controversial war declaration, you did not have the courtesy to contact us in private. You are not obliged to, but it will be a nice gesture if you contact us and explain your controversial entrance to the war.

When I later approach you, your response was curt.

Second of all, you contacted me seeking clearly private information which was completely irrelevant to how our war with you ends. If you actually wanted to know this - then why not ask?

I think you misunderstood what I mean by "later settlement". It is not about how the war end. But it is about how we treat each other after the war end. It is not grudge, it is [OOC: game play].

Which question I asked is clearly private? You accuse me seeking private information. Wait , let me post my question. I did not post your response, so you should be ok.

01[14:04] <TAN[NEW]> I was curious , have you talked this through with alliances currently in war with us before you DoW on us?

01[14:04] <TAN[NEW]> I do not mean to question your right to enter this war..

01[14:04] <TAN[NEW]> just want to know your level of involvement..

01[14:06] <TAN[NEW]> that is good to hear..

01[14:06] <TAN[NEW]> so did you consult with other alliances currently in war with us before hand?

01[14:09] <TAN[NEW]> well.. seems like you do not want to discuss more about this..

01[14:09] <TAN[NEW]> is there anyway you going to provide more details?

01[14:09] <TAN[NEW]> You do not have to.. but will be greatly appreciated

01[14:09] <TAN[NEW]> just because we are in war, does not mean we have to hate each other..

01[14:10] <TAN[NEW]> cheer..

01[14:11] <TAN[NEW]> who you consult with before issuing the DoW?

01[14:11] <TAN[NEW]> TDE, CCC, CD, or GR ?

01[14:20] <TAN[NEW]> hello..?

01[14:21] <TAN[NEW]> Anyway, feel free to talk with us whenever you feel like to..

01[14:21] <TAN[NEW]> good luck and have fun..

01[14:26] <TAN[NEW]> i understand.. and who is the karma military commanders?

01[14:27] <TAN[NEW]> i mean who is the karma military commanders whom you discuss with

01[14:28] <TAN[NEW]> If you do not mind to inform us..of course..

01[14:29] <TAN[NEW]> I see...

01[14:29] <TAN[NEW]> I can see that you are reluctant to share..

01[14:31] <TAN[NEW]> It is just, if I can talk to the person that asked you to DoW on us, we might be able to know the intentions and motives behind this

01[14:31] <TAN[NEW]> you probably know that we are considered by a lot of Karma alliances as friendly alliance...

01[14:32] <TAN[NEW]> You should be able to see that by now..

01[14:32] <TAN[NEW]> if I know who you talked to, I will be able to talk to him to find out more about this particular declaration and address it properly...

And we never had a winning arrogant attitude. Sounds to me like you're just making stuff up now. We always have a fun and positive attitude when it comes to war - and I'm very sorry if your alliance isn't like that.

Then, I can only assume that your curt response is merely your style of addressing people questions, not the winning arrogant attitude.

[magicninja]

Do you think before you begin typing? If you don't, it's a habit you should pick up. If you do then my mind hath been boggled.

Just put the word "you" between the words "do" and "honestly" that should unboggle your mind. Sorry you couldn't figure it out for yourself.

[Firestorm]

If you really had the intention of defending NPO, those treaties never would have been canceled. Everybody knows what happened, I think it's time that you stopped living in denial.

Honestly, I don't blame them for canceling their treaty with the NPO. I would have had I been in their shoes, and further, I would have let them fry and laughed about it later.

I joined the CSN during the NoVision VS. One Vision war. The CSN broke its treaty with GATO but still entered the war during the cancellation period.

We were hailed as honourable men at that time.

Now, by no means am I smearing the accomplishments of the CSN by comparing my beloved alliance to TPF. However, I am pointing out that the TPF can probably be called a big bag of ball huggers for a slew of reasons other than canceling their treaty with the NPO.

[Haflinger]

Attacking an alliance during peace talks is doing it by the book?

Actually, that happened on both sides.

[magicninja]

Yes! That is my point too! They could have done it right so all we're discussing is that they didn't hand in the correct paperwork.

No, they should have done it right. Any honorable alliance would have. There is no could have.

[neneko]

No, they should have done it right. Any honorable alliance would have. There is no could have.

So yet again. The horribly dishonorable part is that they didn't fill in the correct paperwork before declaring war.

It's clear to me now that karma should assemble the vogon fleet and build a hyper-spatial express route over them.

[magicninja]

So yet again. The horribly dishonorable part is that they didn't fill in the correct paperwork before declaring war.

It's clear to me now that karma should assemble the vogon fleet and build a hyper-spatial express route over them.

So you try to legitimize their move by minimizing the impact treaties have during war? Nobody cares about treaties anymore? I think Umbrella should stand by this stance and drop out of The Citadel and drop any treaties and just fight whoever they want. I'd love to see you do it. You do that and show me that Umbrella really stands by the "treaties don't mean anything" view and I will never post in the OWF again.

[terveis]

I hope that someday Cn will be completely without treaties. You dont need a piece of paper to tell you what friends you can, and cannot help.

[magicninja]

I hope that someday Cn will be completely without treaties. You dont need a piece of paper to tell you what friends you can, and cannot help.

Oh I mostly agree on that part. It's just not the way it's been done for years. Had the tables been turned you damn well know they would be denouncing a move like this.

[gantanX]

I hope that someday Cn will be completely without treaties. You dont need a piece of paper to tell you what friends you can, and cannot help.

That would be Stupid , how you define friends without treaties?

[fahlenfor]

Wow.....

And your logic behind this is?

The logic is that your logic fail.

If you could bring IPA, bring them along. We'll welcome them with open hands.

[flyangel]

I hope that someday Cn will be completely without treaties. You dont need a piece of paper to tell you what friends you can, and cannot help.

next times why dont we write it in toilet tissue and just send it ... no need to online in the internet

edit grammer >.<

Edited May 9, 2009 by flyangel

[magicninja]

The logic is that your logic fail.

If you could bring IPA, bring them along. We'll welcome them with open hands.

Actually, it would've been IPA bringing them along. Which is why the whole oA of our allie's oA just doesn't cut it. Unless of course we all agree that treaties are meaningless. Then hey I'm all for it. Would make things real interesting around war time. That's just not how it is though. Not if you have any integrity.

Edited May 9, 2009 by magicninja

[Starcraftmazter]

It's pretty standard logic. IPA declares on NEW because of their oA with GR. You declare because of your oA with IPA.....seems pretty straight forward.

If the plan was to attack unless they got word not to. The whole Moo's crappy internet scenario etc.

IPA's optional aggression with GR > Our Mutual Aggression with IPA.

I'm pretty sure it was stated at least once b4 in this thread.>>> Says Foxodi He used that to justify you being in the war. Using IPA's optional aggression with GR as a means.....Is he lying or are you?

I honestly don't understand what you're asking or what your point is.

In regards to the treaties, we mentioned that there is a legal way for us in, but we are not fans of BS and elaywering, so we didn't see it necessary to take that approach. If you or NEW or anyone else don't like that because of an entirely arbitrary reason which has no consequence on anything, then that's your problem, and we don't care.

[magicninja]

I honestly don't understand what you're asking or what your point is.

In regards to the treaties, we mentioned that there is a legal way for us in, but we are not fans of BS and elaywering, so we didn't see it necessary to take that approach. If you or NEW or anyone else don't like that because of an entirely arbitrary reason which has no consequence on anything, then that's your problem, and we don't care.

Not fans of BS? (Still dunno if I like that Smiley)

That's all this is SCM. What's worse is with every post you claim ignorance of your own ineptitude. Then you go on to say that you don't care like you'll always be in Karma's back pocket. I know for a fact there are plenty on that side that really hate what you did here. You may have even had private discussions about how bad you look here. If you think these actions won't have diplomatic consequences in the future you need to re-think your approach man.

[Starcraftmazter]

Look for as far back as I've been going to war the only honorable and decent way to enter against someone is through a treaty. It was never about sides and all that. There was never any "Hey let me borrow your treaty since we don't have one." going on.

So when NPO attacked GPA, if an alliance helped them without a treaty because NPO were being warmongering aggressors, you would actually label that as dishonourable?

Seeing that we declared on CCC, and that Greenland Republic came to CCC defense, and Carpe Diem and The Dark Evolution came to Greenland Republic assistance, if we later surrender to CCC, we hope for a peace with GR, CD, and TDE as well.

That's not the way it works. Although I can't claim to know the future, the most likely scenario is that you will surrender to everyone (CCC, GR, CD, TDE AND DF) at the same time, simultaneously.

You know, we cannot surrender to you yet. You had not accomplished that much yet to collect the reward you are looking for. I can see here and there in this thread, a couple of time, your claim about how NATO surrendered to you (and you are being nice at giving them white peace). And it will be unfair to our member if we let you announce to the world that we surrender to you on a what, five days war?.

I never asked you to surrender - when you decide to surrender is completely up to you, and we don't care. We will grant you peace at any time you wish, providing the rest of the alliances at war with you do so as well. Any surrender you make, will not be specifically to us, but to the combined forces of all the alliances fighting you. Again, while I can't claim to know this 100%, there is a 99% chance that this is the way it will work.

Beside, you have said here that your entrance is on your own accord (I am not sure, since I heard difference), not asked by anyone. Thus this should be treated as different war. It is not part of the same war we were fighting with the rest of the opponents.

I can see you are new to CN warfare/politics - but that's not how it works, sorry. The only exception is if an alliance or group of alliances enters the war separately to everything else in a very particular fashion. This is kind of hard to describe, it's best to give an example - like NSO. This has to do with the intentions of the alliance rather than the way in which they enter.

Had you not enter the war, perhaps today we would have had peace in this front.

This is completely up to you.

Forgive me for not write it clearly. What I mean is, after the controversial war declaration, you did not have the courtesy to contact us in private. You are not obliged to, but it will be a nice gesture if you contact us and explain your controversial entrance to the war.

I disagree, as we plainly described it in the original post, and countless times afterwards in this thread. Again, there is no secret motive behind this war - it's very simple. Why you cannot comprehend this, I will never know.

I think you misunderstood what I mean by "later settlement". It is not about how the war end. But it is about how we treat each other after the war end. It is not grudge, it is [OOC: game play].

Which question I asked is clearly private? You accuse me seeking private information. Wait , let me post my question. I did not post your response, so you should be ok.

I'm not going to comment on a private conversation in public. As I have already told you, if you want to follow up a private conversation, you should do so in public. Thanks for disrespecting my wishes for you to do so again.

No, they should have done it right. Any honorable alliance would have. There is no could have.

Well that's your opinion, and it's different to ours.

Oh I mostly agree on that part. It's just not the way it's been done for years. Had the tables been turned you damn well know they would be denouncing a move like this.

I wouldn't. I also don't care for the staus quo of things. Never have. I only do what I believe is right - to hell with everything else. If that's not your style, that's okey. But if you're going to insult us over ours, quite frankly, you can't expect us to care.

The logic is that your logic fail.