Dark Fist DoW 2.0

[mhawk]

I never insinuated that you did abandon your allies, however I was questioning the treaties you hold with allies that have proven that they cannot be trusted to honor their MDPs.

Seems to me we defend NPO from attack less than a day after they were attacked, please stop trying to insult people with petty generalizations that try to grasp an alternate history. NPO was attacked, we defended.

[lcdt94]

Seems to me we defend NPO from attack less than a day after they were attacked, please stop trying to insult people with petty generalizations that try to grasp an alternate history. NPO was attacked, we defended.

I suppose your treaty cancellation was just some kind of hysterical joke then? The fact of the matter is that you defended NPO only to save face after the Coward Coalition became the laughing stock of Cybernations. You can attempt to put whatever spin you would like on it, but these are facts, and this is what happened.

[mhawk]

I suppose your treaty cancellation was just some kind of hysterical joke then? The fact of the matter is that you defended NPO only to save face after the Coward Coalition became the laughing stock of Cybernations. You can attempt to put whatever spin you would like on it, but these are facts, and this is what happened.

I was committed fully to defending NPO before any cancellations were made and posted up my intent before that happened. Your claim of "save face" is mere conjecture on your part, while my statement of we defended and are defending our treaty partner is the only demonstrable fact in this argument.

Don't try to portray your opinion as fact and discard reality as some sort of false conclusion based on your guess work premise.

Edited May 6, 2009 by mhawk

[Alterego]

I suppose your treaty cancellation was just some kind of hysterical joke then? The fact of the matter is that you defended NPO only to save face after the Coward Coalition became the laughing stock of Cybernations. You can attempt to put whatever spin you would like on it, but these are facts, and this is what happened.

This is not about NPO as much as Karma love pulling them out of a hat whenever they have a problem.

[lcdt94]

I was committed fully to defending NPO before any cancellations were made and posted up my intent before that happened. Your claim of "save face" is mere conjecture on your part, while my statement of we defended and are defending our treaty partner is the only demonstrable fact in this argument.

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.

[Starcraftmazter]

That wont fly anymore. You said this was planned since NATO were taken care of

Planned by us...not Karma. I thought it was pretty obvious, since I am representing my alliance here, not Karma.

other karma alliances would have been told. It was planned and carried out as Karma.

You can't possibly be serious. Are you even an alliance leader? Do you realise how stupid what you are saying sounds? Do you actually think that every alliance tells every other alliance in Karma every time they do something? Or even a subset of alliances? If you believe this, then my only conclusion is that you have no idea what you are talking about.

You even say so here:

I'm not at all sure how that implies that Karma planned to uhh...what is it that you're implying Karma did again?

Whoah, we're fighting against the same alliance SCM. Guess that warrants q-ops in our channel for you

I agree

Yes, I am aware of that. However, your reason for going to war with NEW is "they're on the other side", not because of your treaty obligations. As you said, many alliances went to war to honor their treaties. So how can you classify them as "the other side"?

It's pretty simple. They are against alliances we consider friends, some of which are part of the same war coalition as us, hence they are on the other side. Them honouring their treaties is very honourable. I would consider us going in, knowing we would be hit hard, even though we had no obligations to defend any alliance at war with NEW, even though we could have chosen a much easier front, no less honourable. I hope that you can see our logic here.

Are they fighting for Karma or simply for their allies? You cannot use your perception of who is on what side to declare war, especially in wars like this one.

Isn't everyone in this for their friends? Except NPO, they just thought they'd bully the small guy, like a boss.

If you are so concerned for your allies, then why not use a valid treaty to declare war? From what I have read, you already have one.

We don't have any aggression pact with any of the alliances nor a defensive pact with CCC - which are the only treaties which could "legally" put us into the war. But I am not a fan of elawyering - I think it's a lot more important to do what you believe is right.

I don't think this DoW is honorable because it implies that you guys are going to war to defend a "side" and not an ally.

I consider everyone on our side an ally - at least for the duration of the war.

This, to me, seems like an opportunistic DoW. It seemed as if your primary concern was defending your "side" and not helping your allies. In fact, it mentions nothing about allies. Plus, NEW already has 4 or so alliances attacking it. Declaring war on an overburdened alliances doesn't seem very honorable.

You sir simply do not understand the facts. First of all, NEW is a very top-heavy alliance, optimised for nuclear warfare, yet the same cannot be said for all the alliances at war with them - especially CCC, who they declared war on originally. Furthermore, 3/4 alliances at war with NEW are engaged on other fronts, against bigger adverseries which are higher prioritised. You are assuming all these 4 alliances are fighting it out with NEW, but in fact, from what I just told you, it leaves them with limited resources to deploy on their NEW front, and furthermore, these resources would probably be of better use on their main front.

With that, NEW is hardly "overburdened". There were plenty of defensive slots in their top 30 nations which we are and will be occupying - many of their nations have not been counter-attacked at all, and have declared war on smaller nations. So until you see the deployment and stats for NEW and their enemy alliances, I suggest you don't talk about military matters which you know nothing about.

Finally, this seems to be setting a precedent by saying that alliances can declare war without, as you say, a "piece of paper". In that case, what's stopping larger alliances from attacking smaller ones in this war? Just as DF has, they could have easily said "they're on the other side, other alliances need help, we're just defending our friends a treaty isn't necessary...etc" and raid a small alliance. However inconvenient it may seem to you, that "piece of paper" does keep order.

It keeps up order in times of peace - not war. In times of peace, one cannot just declare war on another, like for example NPO did to OV, to start this entire war. That is a prime example of a larger alliance taking on a smaller one. I don't know how you can possibly refer to us as a similar case however, as we are by no measure bigger than NEW - they have almost three times our nations, almost twice our NS and almost twice our nukes. They are a formidable opponent. We are not declaring war on some smaller alliance to raid them like NPO and other alliances on your side have in the past. Like NPO did to NADC in the past. This is a time of war, where treaties are used loosely and presented as an excuse to truly bandwagon. As I said, we had similar options, we could have chosen much easier wars, but instead we chose to take on a much more powerful enemy, because this is where help is required, and we will provide it. And I don't know how you can possibly compare our attack to a raid either.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Starcraftmazter

[Starcraftmazter]

Unfortunately the forums didn't let me make a post this big.

SCM, when you reply, can you please NOT to assume that people you talked to are members of Nusantara?

Please tell me where I did this...

Do not be surprised if you get trolled by members of Karma as well, (you might, you might not), but some alliances that we hold in high respect, like Gramlins, did publicly state that bandwagon is frown upon. Mostly Harmless Alliance also, I believe, live with that principle. That is why they said they will defend NPO against bandwagoner despite of their stance in this war.

I dare them or anyone else to imply that we are bandwagonning, for I shall argue with anyone thinking so until the end of time, assuming those people wishing to argue are logical, and hence can be convinced of a particular viewpoint...

So you admit you know its wrong, you are just doing it because others have done it in the past. Who's next after your ZI war against NEW is ver?

Stop putting words into our mouths, and stop making ridiculous assumptions, and maybe then, we can have a civilized debate.

Well, if you consider an alliance to be your friend, then why not form an MDP with them?

There are over 200 alliances on Bob, it is simply impossible to treaty everyone. We at DF prefer to keep treaties to a minimum in general. In addition there are other factors to determining treaties. Just because we are not treated to someone doesn't meant we aren't friends.

I do agree that larger alliances have declared war on smaller alliances without treaties but that wasn't the case I was referring to. In a war like this (where there are clear established sides) a large alliance could decide to declare war on a small alliance on the basis of "helping friends" or "defending sides" if one could declare war without treaties. How do we know they're being sincere? How can we stop them even if they're not? They do have a legitimate reason, according to DF"s DoW.

You are blurring the lines between war and peace in regards to DoWs, when they are in fact very different. Our reason is a specific war-time war-related reason. This war obviously would not occur in peace time. If you are asking why doesn't a large alliance like NADC declare war on a small alliance like DF - during this war, with a similar reason - I really don't care. Let them, if they want.

So we're playing without treaties now?

What a load of !@#$. You all know it too. This is pathetic. Who on Karma's side let this happen? You guys should keep the little idiot alliances in check. They're going all loose cannon on you guys. Even the losing side didn't resort to this petty crap.

You guys should be ashamed.

"Instead of bandwaggoning against an alliance which is getting badly beat down using a treaty, you guys declared war on an alliance, against which your friends need help, wow that's pretty coo- oh wait, no treaty ? HURRRRR F!@#%ING BANDWAGGONERS, DIE HURR HURRRR *frowthing at the mouth*."

At 4 or 5 v 1 NEW have little chance in this fight, no offense to NEW. Dont expect people to believe you were talking about your own ZI.

The nations we are declaring war on had 0 or 1 defensive war....before us. You two should check NEW's deployments before making ridiculous assumptions, "oh look their enemies have 6x more nations, this must mean 6v1 odds, nevermind the fact that they too have OTHER FRONTS TO FIGHT ON". /me facepalms

The only thing we did, was even the odds, mainly for CCC/CD nations getting attacked by NEW - who have better military wonders and in many cases are nuclear where their enemies are not. And what do you expect anyway? An even war??? Are you serious? Where were you in the NoCB War? In the Unjust war? When NADC was attacked? What about GPA? What about FAN? What about GATO and allies? Get real - no war is ever even, plus this war has had the best odds even since GW3, even 1:1 at one point with 4k nations on each side. Then just a couple of days later your side started surrendering because they value their infra more than their friends and/or because they were unprepared for war. Well I'm not sorry it's the reverse for us.

As for the ZI war thing, here is your DoW on NATO. I see no mention of ZI

What exactly are you suggesting? That we won't have NEW peace until they are all ZIed? Seriously?

Edited May 6, 2009 by Starcraftmazter

[mhawk]

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.

Lets break that down.

First you presume that treaty cancellation equates to cut and run. Our treaty clearly states there is a defensible timeframe between cancellation and being void.

Second, you claim everybody knows what happened, yet I know for sure you have no idea what happened regarding our decision process at the time. Everybody does not know, that is a terrible generalization.

Third you insinuate based on two presumptions that are invalid that I am living in denial, when in fact due to my positioning and rank I would be one of the few individuals that could possibly be in a position to factually speak on events. Your conclusion is false, but rest assured, your koolaid is strong.

[suryanto tan]

Planned by us...not Karma. I thought it was pretty obvious, since I am representing my alliance here, not Karma.

I'm not at all sure how that implies that Karma planned to uhh...what is it that you're implying Karma did again?

Why you told me the opposite in our private conversation?

[Rhodesonya]

bluh, you know the thread is pointless when SCM starts doing wall-of-text.

/o Dark Fist!

HI NEW!!

You guys have already given me QUITE the warm welcome. Blisteringly hot, some might even say. I look forward to much more of the same

[mhawk]

Why you told me the opposite in our private conversation?

I actually would be highly amused if karma alliances fighting you due to treaty offered you white peace and NEW vs DF occurred since he states this is not a karma action.

[lcdt94]

Lets break that down.

First you presume that treaty cancellation equates to cut and run. Our treaty clearly states there is a defensible timeframe between cancellation and being void.

Second, you claim everybody knows what happened, yet I know for sure you have no idea what happened regarding our decision process at the time. Everybody does not know, that is a terrible generalization.

Third you insinuate based on two presumptions that are invalid that I am living in denial, when in fact due to my positioning and rank I would be one of the few individuals that could possibly be in a position to factually speak on events. Your conclusion is false, but rest assured, your koolaid is strong.

We have jointly announced that effectively immediately, we have cancelled our MADP treaties with the New Pacific Order. Reasons for these cancellations were conveyed via private channels.

I am absolutely shocked that you of all people are ignorant to the actions of your alliance. It appears that I know much more about what actually happened than you do. I do believe every word of your post has just been proven to be invalid. Ladies and gentlemen, that is what we call killing two birds with one stone.

[mhawk]

I am absolutely shocked that you of all people are ignorant to the actions of your alliance. It appears that I know much more about what actually happened than you do. I do believe every word of your post has just been proven to be invalid. Ladies and gentlemen, that is what we call killing two birds with one stone.

You once again failed to connect cancellation with the presumption of voiding the treaty cancellation period as well as overriding treaties and my statements before the cancellation. No where in that quote do you disprove anything I stated.

[gantanX]

I actually would be highly amused if karma alliances fighting you due to treaty offered you white peace and NEW vs DF occurred since he states this is not a karma action.

i REALLY..REALLY would like to see that

[lcdt94]

You once again failed to connect cancellation with the presumption of voiding the treaty cancellation period as well as overriding treaties and my statements before the cancellation. No where in that quote do you disprove anything I stated.

The term effective immediately comes to mind.

[Starcraftmazter]

Why you told me the opposite in our private conversation?

Either you misinterpreted or you are lying. Either way, please stop trying to sway public opinion in your favour with misinformation.

[yoyoabc]

The nations we are declaring war on had 0 or 1 defensive war....before us. You two should check NEW's deployments before making ridiculous assumptions, "oh look their enemies have 6x more nations, this must mean 6v1 odds, nevermind the fact that they too have OTHER FRONTS TO FIGHT ON". /me facepalms

The only thing we did, was even the odds, mainly for CCC/CD nations getting attacked by NEW - who have better military wonders and in many cases are nuclear where their enemies are not. And what do you expect anyway? An even war??? Are you serious? Where were you in the NoCB War? In the Unjust war? When NADC was attacked? What about GPA? What about FAN? What about GATO and allies? Get real - no war is ever even, plus this war has had the best odds even since GW3, even 1:1 at one point with 4k nations on each side. Then just a couple of days later your side started surrendering because they value their infra more than their friends and/or because they were unprepared for war. Well I'm not sorry it's the reverse for us.

What exactly are you suggesting? That we won't have NEW peace until they are all ZIed? Seriously?

this is not true...

i had 1 defensive slot by GR and 1 defensive slot by CCC

and nation of DF jumped in the moment and another followed after realising the defensive slot by GR has expired and deleted. this doesnt happen to me alone. SCM, before you start posting how heroic you are to die for your friends, to engage in the losing war or whatever it is, please do your homework well and for goodness sake, stop being so defensive towards your actions. you're disgracing yourself, your alliance and "your side".

[mhawk]

The term effective immediately comes to mind.

You can't just say "effective immediately" to void signed word. Rather that would seem to indicate the treaties entered cancellation period immediately.

[Alterego]

Planned by us...not Karma. I thought it was pretty obvious, since I am representing my alliance here, not Karma.

You are fighting against NEW for Karma not your alliance, voila

I consider everyone on our side an ally - at least for the duration of the war.

We got word that some alliances fighting NEW could use some backup, and so we're going to provide it. DF is not an alliance which needs a piece of paper as an excuse to do what's right and help out some friends. In b4 e-laywers.

See, fighting for Karma, not your alliance.

You can't possibly be serious. Are you even an alliance leader? Do you realise how stupid what you are saying sounds? Do you actually think that every alliance tells every other alliance in Karma every time they do something? Or even a subset of alliances? If you believe this, then my only conclusion is that you have no idea what you are talking about.

You are fighting this war for Karma as you said above. You said your friends needed help and you came to their aid. You didnt just wake up, pick an alliance and attack them. This was planned as you say, since you finished with NATO.

It's pretty simple. They are against alliances we consider friends, some of which are part of the same war coalition as us, hence they are on the other side. Them honouring their treaties is very honourable. I would consider us going in, knowing we would be hit hard, even though we had no obligations to defend any alliance at war with NEW, even though we could have chosen a much easier front, no less honourable. I hope that you can see our logic here.

You are not honourable because you take damage in a war without a CB or treaty.

Isn't everyone in this for their friends? Except NPO, they just thought they'd bully the small guy, like a boss.

No as far as I recall treaties were activated at every level bringing more and more people into the war. People didnt just start attacking random alliances without a treaty or CB.

Planned by us...not Karma. I thought it was pretty obvious, since I am representing my alliance here, not Karma.

Pick one story please.

We got word that some alliances fighting NEW could use some backup, and so we're going to provide it. DF is not an alliance which needs a piece of paper as an excuse to do what's right and help out some friends. In b4 e-laywers.

So who gave you the order?

Edited May 6, 2009 by Alterego

[yoyoabc]

Either you misinterpreted or you are lying. Either way, please stop trying to sway public opinion in your favour with misinformation.

in that case, post the log and let us decide...

:popcorn:

[suryanto tan]

QUOTE (kulomascovia @ May 6 2009, 03:26 PM)

It seems to me that DF is just trying to benefit from this war. This DoW is simply ridiculous. If you're going to bandwagon, then at least use a treaty. I'm not saying that it's not right to defend your friends, it's just not right to attack other alliances without a legitimate reason. I don't belive "They're on the other side" is a good enough reason.

Think about what you are saying, because it's pretty stupid.

We could have just as easily attacked NPO or IRON using valid treaties. Instead we chose to attack you, since there are less nations which have offensive wars with your alliance, and nations you are at war with would appreciate help.

We will get much more damaged fighting with NEW no doubt, due to these reasons that you are not being attacked anywhere near as hard as IRON and NPO (among many others). What the hell do we possibly have to benefit from this war? And how is it any less honourable than any other?

Please tell me where I did this...

Up there. You are welcome.

Also, SCM, I really confused about your position in this war. You said here that your DoW on us is on your own accord, but in the private conversation you tell me exactly the opposite. Due to your request, I cannot release the log.

Either you misinterpreted or you are lying. Either way, please stop trying to sway public opinion in your favour with misinformation.

Edit: You accuse me lying? That is something I won't do. The people that know me can vouch for my character. With your permission, I will release the log.

Edited May 6, 2009 by suryanto tan

[yoyoabc]

edit: sorry. OOC remark.

post recalled

Edited May 6, 2009 by yoyoabc

[Starcraftmazter]

this is not true...

The nations we are declaring war on had 0 or 1 defensive war....before us.

i had 1 defensive slot by GR and 1 defensive slot by CCC

Am I missing something?

and nation of DF jumped in the moment and another followed after realising the defensive slot by GR has expired and deleted. this doesnt happen to me alone. SCM

Our dows are not related to GR dows.

before you start posting how heroic you are to die for your friends

I don't believe I ever made claims of heroism, as for ZI for my friends, of course. I don't see how this is incorrect.

to engage in the losing war or whatever it is, please do your homework well and for goodness sake, stop being so defensive towards your actions. you're disgracing yourself, your alliance and "your side".

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were allowed to attack our actions and we could only take it up the butt. Sorry, let me bend over for you. All better now?

You are fighting against NEW for Karma not your alliance, voila

We are fighting;

- For the overall Karma war effort

- To help friends against NEW

See, fighting for Karma, not your alliance.

What do you mean not my alliance? I don't understand. Should I be fighting for my alliance? Well I am fighting for my alliance, I am under the AA "Dark Fist", doesn't this mean I am fighting for my alliance? What is the significance of this anyway?

You are fighting this war for Karma as you said above. You said your friends needed help and you came to their aid. You didnt just wake up, pick an alliance and attack them. This was planned as you say, since you finished with NATO.

Yes, and none of this implies that I informed all or any Karma alliances about this DoW as you so claimed. In fact, only the 4 alliances fighting with NEW were informed.

>>You are not honourable because you take damage in a war without a CB or treaty.

No, we are honourable because we take damage in a war we chose to fight to help our friends without any obligation to do so.

>>No as far as I recall treaties were activated at every level bringing more and more people into the war. People didnt just start attacking random alliances without a treaty or CB.

So you're saying people sign treaties with alliances who aren't their friends? I don't understand your point here.

>>Pick one story please.

Make sense please.

>>So who gave you the order?

I receive orders from nobody. It's called collaboration.

[lcdt94]

You can't just say "effective immediately" to void signed word. Rather that would seem to indicate the treaties entered cancellation period immediately.

There was absolutely no mention of any cancellation clause. Considering that the cancellation of the treaty itself was the only relevant subject mentioned beforehand, it would be the only logical thing that "effective immediately" refers to. Regarding the events that preceded the war. it is clear that the Coward Coalition has no respect for the sanctity of a treaty, so it would be safe to assume that violating a cancellation clause would be the least of their worries. You can continue your futile attempts to salvage what little "honor" the CC has left, but I'm certain that once this war is over the reluctance of alliances to become politically involved with you will speak volumes about how the community views your dishonorable decisions that preceded this war.

[Starcraftmazter]

OOC: Due to CN forums sucking, I may have to use >> style quotation /OOC.

in that case, post the log and let us decide...

:popcorn:

I got queried by a member with NEW who asked me questions. I answered those questions with the most friendly of intentions, to the best extent of my knowledge and to the best extent of what I am allowed to say which isn't secret information. However I said everything privately, and I trusted him to keep it private. If he wants to claim things which aren't true based on that conversation and point the finer at me saying, "lololo he doens't wana release convo", then that's his problem.

Up there. You are welcome.

Indeed, sorry - now that I am familiar with who the trolls are, I will not confuse their AAs.

Also, SCM, I really confused about your position in this war. You said here that your DoW on us is on your own accord, but in the private conversation you tell me exactly the opposite. Due to your request, I cannot release the log.

I repeat myself,

"I got queried by a member with NEW who asked me questions. I answered those questions with the most friendly of intentions, to the best extent of my knowledge and to the best extent of what I am allowed to say which isn't secret information. However I said everything privately, and I trusted him to keep it private. If he wants to claim things which aren't true based on that conversation and point the finer at me saying, "lololo he doens't wana release convo", then that's his problem."

If you want to clarify something that was said in a query - feel free to do it by query. If you want to pursue it here, it just makes you look like a jerk IMO. I do not give permission to release anything I said by query in good spirit, for your information, but as I said, feel free to clarify what I said if you don't fully understand, as I realise there is a bit of a language barrier between us and your alliance.