A Note of Dissatisfaction

[Mathias]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='18 February 2010 - 03:10 PM' timestamp='1266523849' post='2190093']
The whole thing is a case of us using our might to enforce our policy. It doesn't matter if it is right or wrong, its still "might making right". I may be interpreting the phrase in a different way, of course, but we are using our military/political might to enforce this policy.
[/quote]

You're interpreting it wrong Bob.

[Bob]

[quote name='tamerlane' date='18 February 2010 - 03:14 PM' timestamp='1266524090' post='2190098']
Even the opposing side could, technically, engage people aiding us. Its not might makes right, its an issue of priorities. Right now, TOP may not care to waste nations on aiders. Im sure if they had the resources, their position would be different.
[/quote]
...yeah..that's their lack of might giving us the right to do it.

Oh well~ I am interpreting the phrase in a different, much less negative way then you guys appear to be, and thus the difference of opinion on what our actions are.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[Mathias]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='18 February 2010 - 03:17 PM' timestamp='1266524245' post='2190104']
...yeah..that's their lack of might giving us the right to do it.

Oh well~ I am interpreting the phrase in a different, much less negative way then you guys appear to be, and thus the difference of opinion on what our actions are.
[/quote]

You're interpreting it as might makes you able, which is of course true. Might makes right means that no matter what you do, it is morally and ethically sound simply because you are powerful enough to do it.

[Bob]

[quote name='Mathias' date='18 February 2010 - 03:19 PM' timestamp='1266524384' post='2190106']
You're interpreting it as might makes you able, which is of course true. Might makes right means that no matter what you do, it is morally and ethically sound simply because you are powerful enough to do it.
[/quote]
Which is exactly what my post Ejay quoted stated, or was meant to.

lolol

[Floyd]

meh, typing while inhibited is bad for business...

Anyway the situation seems to have been resolved.

Good luck to all parties etc. etc. well except to TOP

Edited February 18, 2010 by Floyd

[Penkala]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' date='17 February 2010 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1266443102' post='2188014']
A well written response to bullying. Good luck, East India Company.
[/quote]

This isn't bullying... at all. EIC is helping TOP damage C&G. That needs to stop. They can resume tech deals after the war.

[Callofktulu]

[quote name='renegade4box' date='18 February 2010 - 02:15 AM' timestamp='1266477319' post='2189165']
FYI, I sent these messages. And they aren't even bad messages. The second message was a response to direct questions of "we already started new tech deals recently, do you really want us to default on the deals, what happens if we keep sending them aid" to which I responded "Yes, default or wait until they end their wars, the other response is retaliatory". It wasn't a real thread, rather a direct response to question. Every dealer who responded with "but this will hinder my growth" was offered my services in setting up tech deals with alliances still neutral to the war.
[/quote]
We quoted you precisely and in its entirety. I would appreciate the same in return instead of your misrepresentation. My actual message to you below:

[quote]Subject: RE: Aid transactions

Message: Hello. It has come to my attention that you have been sending messages to many of our members in the VOC alliance over their tech deals.

I would first like to note that we have not joined this war. That our tech deals were pre-existing to this war and nothing more than that: Tech Deals, not war aid. Would MK have our members default on their tech deals?[/quote]

I have nothing more to add since this issue has been dealt with.

[President Sitruk]

how is this even being discussed? aiding someone's enemy during wartime is considered an act of war. plain and simple. always has on planet bob and always will. aid during wartime is used to help an entinty do more damage towards it's opponent. aid during peacetime is used for building. so essentially the East India Co. is complaining about not being able to assist it's business partners in doing damage to it's opponent. i can understand why it's opponent is upset. at least NPO came out with it and even offered terms.

[Haflinger]

The reason it's still being discussed is because Mushroom Kingdom seems to be of the opinion that selling tech to nations at war is only an act of war if it's to the losing side.

TOP isn't likely to engage nations selling tech to MK because they don't have nations in range of tech sellers. However that is not true of all alliances at war with MK.

[Jinnai]

I have always held that tech deals, so long as they are standard-rate, are not aid. Furthermore, any agreements, even non-standard, that were made before the war I would not force an alliance to stop doing. If our positions were reversed in the war, I would not demand C&G stop such deals so long as they were legitimate.

IRL there is a distinction between outright aid and business transactions. Even during the Cold War, countries on both sides were able to distinguish a business transaction from outright aid.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Jinnai

[neneko]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='19 February 2010 - 02:32 AM' timestamp='1266543151' post='2190830']
The reason it's still being discussed is because Mushroom Kingdom seems to be of the opinion that selling tech to nations at war is only an act of war if it's to the losing side.

TOP isn't likely to engage nations selling tech to MK because they don't have nations in range of tech sellers. However that is not true of all alliances at war with MK.
[/quote]
Where exactly did we state that? I missed the part where we went to top and said they can't do tech deals. We're telling neutral parties they can't aid the people we're at war with if they wish to stay neutral. TIFDTT is free to keep buying tech as long as they find suppliers.

Your memory is pretty short regarding how these alliances acted when they were in charge. The cb against GPA comes to mind here.


[quote name='Jinnai' date='19 February 2010 - 02:35 AM' timestamp='1266543330' post='2190840']
I have always held that tech deals, so long as they are standard-rate, are not aid. Furthermore, any agreements, even non-standard, that were made before the war I would not force an alliance to stop doing. If our positions were reversed in the war, I would not demand C&G stop such deals so long as they were legitimate.

IRL there is a distinction between outright aid and business transactions. Even during the Cold War, countries on both sides were able to distinguish a business transaction from outright aid.
[/quote]
Your alliance on the other hand have not always held that tech deals are no aid during war time. TOP to some degree by giving their support but in a more direct way IRON have never accepted people tech dealing with their enemies. So no if our positions were reversed in this war I very much doubt you people would allow us to do any tech deals since you have never allowed anyone else in the past.

You personally might support our right to conduct tech deals in that situation (even if I doubt even that) but looking at your alliances history TOP would not so it wouldn't really matter in the end.

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='18 February 2010 - 01:53 PM' timestamp='1266519228' post='2189974']
So, basically you have taken this as a chance to insult MK, got it.
[/quote]
Oh please, I am the last one to go around these halls randomly insulting people or alliances. Sorry you feel it is an insult, but I am sure I am not the only one holding this opinion, and furthermore, I also stated many have been acting this way as well; so no, it's not directly isolating MK as the sole entity acting in this manner. However, I will admit I shouldn't have said "Sad to see MK changing," but as stated, how come tech deals are going on, that is, if so?
[quote]
Again, nothing to do with anything I posted.
[/quote]
Everything to do with it.
[quote]
So, MK is against surrender terms? They are "might making right" if you choose to view it that way, and we have participated in those several times throughout our history. You act as if the term always is terrible, when really it is an acceptable aspect of the Cyberverse and really everything, except when it goes too far. It is the abuse of said might that I had a problem with, not them having the power to do what they want. This thread is an example of an acceptable occurence within the Cyberverse that yes, happens as a result of "might makes right".
[/quote]
What are you talking about? Surrender terms wasn't mentioned once, where did you derive that from? I was referencing how you state you know MK more than I do, which I wont argue, but what I found ironic was MK never represented might vs. right yet you are advocating it as if MK was, and what I stated was MK doesn't..and since you know more than I about MK, shouldn't you know this as well? That was my intentions, I apologize if some where along the lines I confused you.
[quote]
So, MK tried to do tech deals while at war with Valhalla with neutral parties, Valhalla stopped them and we got pissed? Oh, I didn't think that happened. You are attempting to reason that everything that people do because they have power is wrong. In that case, Archon attempting to stop wars and succeeding would be might making right, would it not be? He is taking the power he has as a leader in the community, and using it to help end a war. I don't think you would be complaining about that, as long as he didn't overstep his bounds (see the Kronos-STA incident as an example of an alliance taking their "might makes right" too far).
[/quote]
You're scenario is a major fallacy. Peaceful intentions is one thing, saying "Neutral parties dealing tech during war is BAD," then you are willingly accepting it on your side is hypocritical. There is no running into unclimbable stone walls, naked, unless you wish to get no where. Furthermore, my major point was though might makes right for a few, MK never agreed with the term. Never. Never. Never.
[quote]
Everyone isn't equal. I don't have anywhere nearby as much power as Archon, nor do you. Is this "fair"? Maybe not from some perspectives (I'm perfectly fine with it <3 Archon). I think we are arguing from two different viewpoints, even though we both wish to see the same things based off our last conversation. I do not condone the misuse of power, however I do condone power being used in a way that I personally find agreeable. Everyone has different standards of what we find to be "personally" agreeable. I would rather not see us use our might to enforce ideals that I feel would set back CN. However, I do know that the only way ideals change in CN is by the usage of force. Is that might making right, and changing the community standard? Many seemed happy during Karma when Might was used to "change community standards" (I didn't fight in Karma for that but w.e) and set back the NPO.

tl;dr might makes right is an ideal that exists in everything, I may be interpreting the phrase differently than you.
[/quote]
Everyone is equal, and that is your first flaw. Yes, we have leaders for organizational purposes, but ultimately, yes we are equal. We are born equal, whether your mates look at you as a friend or a mere tool, or stat, is different, but true equality does exist; just maybe not in your realm. Though this is incredibly off-topic, we'll never agree as we are in different environments, so to each his own. Though I agree with different perspectives, force is never needed. You state everyone has different perspectives, but explain you need to force your own on others to adopt; that is not for you to decide, no one should be forced to adopt any sort of ideals. That, in itself, is using might for your own personal gain. It is no one's obligation to ever use their might on anyone to enforce their own ideals. This is getting completely off-topic, but the point still lingers:

Don't threaten them for dealing tech when you're accepting it during war from other neutral parties. I agree, neutrals dealing tech during wartime is redundant, but so is saying it's okay for you to do merely because you *can*

Edited February 19, 2010 by Ejayrazz

[steodonn]

If your sending aid to an active combatant then you are part of this war. It has always been like this and it would change anytime soon. Tech deals always get suspended by neutral parties and if they don't they cant complain about being attacked. Everyone is free to tech deal in war but the vast majority of CN will consider you part of the war. So join in or stop tech deals

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='19 February 2010 - 01:32 AM' timestamp='1266543151' post='2190830']
The reason it's still being discussed is because Mushroom Kingdom seems to be of the opinion that selling tech to nations at war is only an act of war if it's to the losing side.

TOP isn't likely to engage nations selling tech to MK because they don't have nations in range of tech sellers. However that is not true of all alliances at war with MK.
[/quote]


Because thats precisely what we said, right Haflinger?

Please feel free to quote me archon stating that the reason we are doing this is because we are winning.

Edited February 19, 2010 by tamerlane

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Jinnai' date='19 February 2010 - 01:35 AM' timestamp='1266543330' post='2190840']
I have always held that tech deals, so long as they are standard-rate, are not aid. Furthermore, any agreements, even non-standard, that were made before the war I would not force an alliance to stop doing. If our positions were reversed in the war, I would not demand C&G stop such deals so long as they were legitimate.

IRL there is a distinction between outright aid and business transactions. Even during the Cold War, countries on both sides were able to distinguish a business transaction from outright aid.
[/quote]


First of all, I have no idea what Cold War you are talking about.

Secondly, TOP is receiving aid that will assist its war effort. Stop trying to split hairs here, its plain and simple: Tech helps nations in combat and increases nuke damage. Each package of tech received means more damage to one of our nations. There is nothing else that needs to be said here. I am sorry that you are foolish enough to think that your neutral tech partners should be obligated to risk war for you.

Edited February 19, 2010 by tamerlane

[Haflinger]

[quote name='neneko' date='18 February 2010 - 08:57 PM' timestamp='1266544656' post='2190897']
Your memory is pretty short regarding how these alliances acted when they were in charge. The cb against GPA comes to mind here.
[/quote]
No, my memory is pretty long on this topic. There's a few different aspects to the CB against GPA; I actually wish that war had been fought explictly over the LSF incident, because that was a good reason to hit them.

Or, to put things in a very clear way. There has never been a treaty between TOP and Invicta. We did organize two mass tech deals with them a long time ago; frankly the experience was unpleasant. There are a fair number of ex-Invictans inside TOP; like most ex-Invictans, they left on good terms and we still have some affection for them.

But that's it.

[quote name='neneko' date='18 February 2010 - 08:57 PM' timestamp='1266544656' post='2190897']
Your alliance on the other hand have not always held that tech deals are no aid during war time.
[/quote]
Actually, Invicta's traditionally suspended tech deals during wartime. My objection in this thread is to MK's apparent willingness to expose its microalliance tech sellers to the hazards of global alliance war, which they will not be prepared for.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='19 February 2010 - 02:58 AM' timestamp='1266548285' post='2191073']



Actually, Invicta's traditionally suspended tech deals during wartime. My objection in this thread is to MK's apparent willingness to expose its microalliance tech sellers to the hazards of global alliance war, which they will not be prepared for.
[/quote]
I believe that is a decision that our "microalliance tech sellers" can make on their own. If someone wants to do something about it, let them. They can deal with the consequences of their actions. Lord knows we have enough people in range to deal with any attacks on our tech selling allies

[steodonn]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='19 February 2010 - 02:58 AM' timestamp='1266548285' post='2191073']
No, my memory is pretty long on this topic. There's a few different aspects to the CB against GPA; I actually wish that war had been fought explictly over the LSF incident, because that was a good reason to hit them.

Or, to put things in a very clear way. There has never been a treaty between TOP and Invicta. We did organize two mass tech deals with them a long time ago; frankly the experience was unpleasant. There are a fair number of ex-Invictans inside TOP; like most ex-Invictans, they left on good terms and we still have some affection for them.

But that's it.


Actually, Invicta's traditionally suspended tech deals during wartime. My objection in this thread is to MK's apparent willingness to expose its microalliance tech sellers to the hazards of global alliance war, which they will not be prepared for.
[/quote]

I am sure TOP would give MKs sellers fair warning and its their choice if they take that warning or ignore it. TOP would be justified in attacking them as MK would be justified in attack EIC

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1266548285' post='2191073']
Actually, Invicta's traditionally suspended tech deals during wartime. My objection in this thread is to MK's apparent willingness to expose its microalliance tech sellers to the hazards of global alliance war, which they will not be prepared for.
[/quote]

The difference here is one of intent, MK's tech dealers are willing to risk being assocated with the war, so continue dealing, TOP's sellers on the other hand want to be left alone.

If both VE and WF are at war, and WF nations want to sell me tech, we really don't give a !@#$, we are both already fighting. It doesn't matter if its an act of war if your already part of the conflict..

If you want to be left out of the war then you stop tech dealing.

You can't have it both ways, which is what the OP wants. But won't get.

[UnitedNations]

While I disagree with your premise, I respect you for having the balls to stand up for it.

[Franklin]

[quote name='Penkala' date='18 February 2010 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1266528191' post='2190219']
This isn't bullying... at all. EIC is helping TOP damage C&G. That needs to stop. They can resume tech deals after the war.
[/quote]

[quote name='steodonn' date='18 February 2010 - 07:09 PM' timestamp='1266548964' post='2191109']
I am sure TOP would give MKs sellers fair warning and its their choice if they take that warning or ignore it. TOP would be justified in attacking them as MK would be justified in attack EIC
[/quote]


Oh for God's sake this is the third time I've had to say this.

it is the VOC not EIC. (V-O-C) based on old Dutch spelling for the Dutch East India Company. The banner at the top of the message has it in our emblem, I have it in my signature, it also is in our flag at the end of the message

Edited February 19, 2010 by Franklin

[renegade4box]

[quote name='Franklin' date='19 February 2010 - 10:48 AM' timestamp='1266594500' post='2192064']
Oh for God's sake this is the third time I've had to say this.

it is the VOC not EIC. (V-O-C) based on old Dutch spelling for the Dutch East India Company. The banner at the top of the message has it in our emblem, I have it in my signature, it also is in our flag at the end of the message
[/quote]

Who the hell is VOC and why do they matter for a thread by the EIC (East Indian Company)?

[mitchh]

[quote name='renegade4box' date='19 February 2010 - 10:14 AM' timestamp='1266596042' post='2192084']
Who the hell is VOC and why do they matter for a thread by the EIC (East Indian Company)?
[/quote]
I can't tell if you are genuinely confused, but for your sake and others:

Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie, or VOC. In English, it translates to Dutch East India Company. It's official title, and how it is referred to is the former.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Franklin' date='19 February 2010 - 09:48 AM' timestamp='1266594500' post='2192064']
Oh for God's sake this is the third time I've had to say this.

it is the VOC not EIC. (V-O-C) based on old Dutch spelling for the Dutch East India Company. The banner at the top of the message has it in our emblem, I have it in my signature, it also is in our flag at the end of the message
[/quote]

This pretty much has to be intentional.

The thread is titled "A Note of Dissatisfaction From the East India Company"

Next to your names here in the forum, your alliance is listed as "East India Company"

28 nations, including [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=24287"]yours[/url], have the alliance "East India Company" in-game.

Then you complain about people calling it the EIC. You've intentionally set it up to be confusing, and then you get all huffy about it. it makes you look like you are just wanting something to !@#$%* and whine about.

As to the original point - yes, aiding nations who are at war involves you in the war. The nations you are aiding use that aid to fight the war. If you don't want to be involved, then don't aid them. If you are willing to be involved, then you can continue to aid them, while recognizing that there may be consequences.

[Jinnai]

[quote name='Baldr' date='19 February 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1266624145' post='2192663']
This pretty much has to be intentional.

The thread is titled "A Note of Dissatisfaction From the East India Company"

Next to your names here in the forum, your alliance is listed as "East India Company"

28 nations, including [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=24287"]yours[/url], have the alliance "East India Company" in-game.

Then you complain about people calling it the EIC. You've intentionally set it up to be confusing, and then you get all huffy about it. it makes you look like you are just wanting something to !@#$%* and whine about.[/quote]VOC is their official abbreviation, whether you agree with it or not, it is how they want themselves represented when you abbreviate their name. Ignorance of the issue is one thing, but now that you know there's no reason for you to continue abbreviating them as EIC except for some petty form of stubbornness for having an abbreviation you don't agree with.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Jinnai