Castles Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 (edited) Personally I wish that the ideals of business would be more important that the ideals of war (both are the same right, well used to be) I don't see a problem with a nuetral tech dealer, has MK been denied tech offers? Considering the length of time a 1x1 tech deal takes, it would be in East India's (and their share holders) worst interest to delay profit making during such a fubared confused war. Lets admit it, its pretty silly no matter what side your on. In the mean time alliances like East India have to suffer decreased incomes while the wanna be jar heads think their cool when they hit the NUKE button. edit: stutterring problem Edited February 17, 2010 by Castles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Offler' date='17 February 2010 - 04:29 PM' timestamp='1266445785' post='2188134'] Do y'all whine about everything? Last I checked we're outnumbered like 2 to 1. [/quote] So just because you're outnumbered C&G should let you get a little bit more even with them, is that really the logic you're trying to perpetuate here? [quote name='astronaut jones' date='17 February 2010 - 04:30 PM' timestamp='1266445829' post='2188137'] If you have not publicly denounced GOD for their behaviour, then you have no place here to demand one alliance honour their tech deals just because they receiving alliance is at war with you. I'm certain NpO and NSO don't happen to like the fact that an allianceon your side of the conflict is accepting aid, but they're dealing with it. Man the $%&@ up and deal with it. [edit:] all I see from MK right now is "waaaaah! waaaaaah! only our allies are allowed to do this! waaaaaaaaaah!" [/quote] So just because MK hasn't denounced an alliance that they aren't allied to, they're not entitled to demand an alliance cease supplying their enemies with tech, that will be used to cause them and their (MK's) allies more damage? Did you even think before posting that? Edit: misspelling corrected Edited February 17, 2010 by Yawoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='astronaut jones' date='17 February 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1266445829' post='2188137'] I'm certain NpO and NSO don't happen to like the fact that an allianceon your side of the conflict is accepting aid, but they're dealing with it. Man the $%&@ up and deal with it. [/quote] Yeah I hardly saw anyone whining anywhere in those 23 pages. Strong argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='neneko' date='17 February 2010 - 06:29 PM' timestamp='1266445761' post='2188133'] When the third party is aiding our enemy the third party is no longer neutral.[/quote] Perhaps then, you should declare on all the alliances not in a conflict who are tech dealing with your enemies, and be ready for all of your tech dealing partners to be declared upon by your enemies. Chop chop, people, we've got a planet to destroy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franklin Posted February 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='17 February 2010 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1266445883' post='2188141'] GOD = C&G? Reasonable request from C&G here, there should be no uncompleted deals that were started before the war remaining, therefore EIC has no reason to be sending further aid to TOP & co. unless they've started deals during the war. [/quote] By the Way it's VOC (V-O-C) Like the Dutch East India Company it even says so on the flag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Kzoppistan' date='17 February 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1266446000' post='2188145'] It also makes sense to remember that the standards you use on others may some day be used on you. If you want to give others carte blanche to interfere with your economic interests, keep on with this stance.[/quote] I won't start tech deals as my alliance is being destroyed. Finishing existing tech deals is fine, as we gave them lots of time to do so. This was basically a cease and desist message, not a DoW. [quote] You cited two things in your earlier post that you wouldn't do to win this war? Why not? If it makes sense to do so and it will help you win? [/quote] Personal morality in regards to spying. Sanctions just because it can hurt you just as much. [quote name='Castles' date='17 February 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1266446039' post='2188146'] Personally I wish that the ideals of business would be more important that the ideals of war (both are the same right, well used to be) I don't see a problem a problem with a nuetral tech dealer, has MK been denied tech offers? Considering the length of time a 1x1 tech deal takes, it would be in East India's (and their share holders) worst interest to delay profit making during such a fubared confused war. Lets admit it, its pretty silly no matter what side your on. In the mean time alliances like East India have to suffer decreased incomes while the wanna be jar heads think their cool when they hit the NUKE button. [/quote] Again, how have they not been given sufficient time to finish this? I stated earlier a timeline, which no one has seen fit to show is untrue. Also, they are starting new deals according to Scorbolt. Should we allow them to do that? Of course not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stetson76 Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1266445903' post='2188142'] And we have given them time to honor their deals. We just don't want them starting new ones. I explained the timeframe earlier on in this thread. [/quote] Except you didn't give them time to complete their deals. That message was dated the 15th and that's assuming it was the earliest one. I like how you picked up that talking point and ran with it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 Considering the war has been raging for over 20 days, I fail to see how any techdeal agreements you had could not have been completed by now. Aiding my enemy would be the same to me as a usual DoW, so I think C&G have been very lenient so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Franklin' date='17 February 2010 - 05:37 PM' timestamp='1266446226' post='2188153'] By the Way it's VOC (V-O-C) Like the Dutch East India Company it even says so on the flag. [/quote] Franklin, I'd like to discuss this with you friend. I'm sure I can explain what's up. (IRC channel?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Kzoppistan' date='17 February 2010 - 11:33 PM' timestamp='1266446000' post='2188145'] It also makes sense to remember that the standards you use on others may some day be used on you. [/quote] I don't think this is a argument you want to use here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Stetson' date='17 February 2010 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1266446295' post='2188156'] Except you didn't give them time to complete their deals. That message was dated the 15th and that's assuming it was the earliest one. I like how you picked up that talking point and ran with it though. [/quote] Again, cease and desist. Note how we haven't attacked. Two days after that message (today) all deals should be concluded. Starting new deals, as has been stated has occured, will not be tolerated. I apologize to VoC personally that it was sent out on the 15th. It should have been worded as a cease and desist future deals, in my personal opinion. However, as no attacks have occured on VoC, we have told them our stance. If they choose to violate this with deals that were started during this war, it is on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franklin Posted February 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 02:38 PM' timestamp='1266446315' post='2188158'] Franklin, I'd like to discuss this with you friend. I'm sure I can explain what's up. (IRC channel?) [/quote] #voc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='neneko' date='17 February 2010 - 06:40 PM' timestamp='1266446413' post='2188160'] I don't think this is a argument you want to use here. [/quote] Of course you don't. Hey, it's your show now, sweets, I just stopped in for a cameo appearance. And with that, good day. I hope you all get this sorted out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Franklin' date='17 February 2010 - 10:37 PM' timestamp='1266446226' post='2188153'] By the Way it's VOC (V-O-C) Like the Dutch East India Company it even says so on the flag. [/quote] Please forgive my ignorance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiCkO Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 Good Show Franklin! also CnG, I'm happy to announce I have sent 150 tech to TOP over the course of this war, I expect an angry message by tomorrow at the latest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franklin Posted February 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 situation taken care of with MK officials now, feel free to continue talking about allegorical references to metaphysical states of lofty ideals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Franklin' date='17 February 2010 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1266446582' post='2188166'] #voc [/quote] Glad to talk to you Franklin. As always, you are a reasonable man. [quote name='Franklin' date='17 February 2010 - 05:54 PM' timestamp='1266447244' post='2188181'] situation taken care of with MK officials now, feel free to continue talking about allegorical references to metaphysical states of lofty ideals. [/quote] Edited February 17, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franklin Posted February 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 02:54 PM' timestamp='1266447251' post='2188182'] Glad to talk to you Franklin. As always, you are a reasonable man. [/quote] I try my best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 10:18 PM' timestamp='1266445114' post='2188104'] When a state of warfare between us and another alliance exists, we will use almost any means necessary to win (sanctions and spying being obvious exceptions). You don't expect equality in a war. [/quote] "Any means necessary" tends to generate bad karma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Letum' date='17 February 2010 - 05:59 PM' timestamp='1266447546' post='2188193'] "Any means necessary" tends to generate bad karma. [/quote] Note the almost. I'm sure I would think of more exceptions if I needed to, but most would apply to surrender terms (no viceroys, etc..). Edited February 17, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jyrinx Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='neneko' date='17 February 2010 - 05:29 PM' timestamp='1266445761' post='2188133'] When the third party is aiding our enemy the third party is no longer neutral. Interesting footnote here is that it's 20 days since TOP started the war tomorrow. Any tech deals that was not started during the war should have sent their last batch of tech by then. [/quote] Well, that assumes that the seller is perfectly efficient and sends the aid exactly on time. It's not unusual for sellers to be 2-3 days late. Anyway, while I understand East India Company's point of view, aiding an alliance at war has usually been considered to be a valid CB against you. Whether you agree with it or not that's what the precedent has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castles Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 03:37 PM' timestamp='1266446239' post='2188154'] Again, how have they not been given sufficient time to finish this? I stated earlier a timeline, which no one has seen fit to show is untrue. Also, they are starting new deals according to Scorbolt. Should we allow them to do that? Of course not. [/quote] Should you allow them? How benevolent of you. East India is free to make their own choices, as it appears they wish to stay nuetral and not upset the crying. Which is best for them, but I'm quite sure that if MK decided to declare on them over this matter they would lose even more face. Not only that, I'm sure that now with this bully stance MK future tech deal requests will have less of a priority than other not so pretentious alliances. At least that would be how i approached it. Why deal tech with a alliance that if war breaks out will just insist on disruptting the operating budget? They've stated that they'll continue to deal tech with non involved parties. Limiting market share is defeating but why deal tech to the war mongers? Again just my opinion. But you skipped over the first question, was MK denied tech deals? Why should all of CN come to a stand still just because a few of the obsessed decide to muck up the playground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 11:01 PM' timestamp='1266447682' post='2188195'] Note the almost. I'm sure I would think of more exceptions if I needed to, but most would apply to surrender terms (no viceroys, etc..). [/quote] Somebody who feels wronged is not going to let their grudge go by you pointing out what you [b]aren't[/b] doing to them.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Jyrinx' date='17 February 2010 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1266447713' post='2188197'] Well, that assumes that the seller is perfectly efficient and sends the aid exactly on time. It's not unusual for sellers to be 2-3 days late. Anyway, while I understand East India Company's point of view, aiding an alliance at war has usually been considered to be a valid CB against you. Whether you agree with it or not that's what the precedent has been. [/quote] We have the ability to think, and give leeway, make exceptions, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believland Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 05:18 PM' timestamp='1266445114' post='2188104'] When a state of warfare between us and another alliance exists, we will use almost any means necessary to win (sanctions and spying being obvious exceptions). You don't expect equality in a war. [/quote] If you knew what "sanction" met, you would have realized that you have just contradicted yourself. Congrats. Also, VOC is as honorable as they come. Try not to bully them, CnG. Like we've seen in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts