A Note of Dissatisfaction

[Bob]

[quote name='Castles' date='17 February 2010 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1266447785' post='2188202']
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.[/quote]
The warmongers are TOP, who aggressively attacked CnG. I apologize for that. In terms of MK losing face for declaring over this matter, of course. If they continue and start new deals, then now we may end up with a problem. However, we have discussed this with VoC, and a reasonable agreement was reached.

But you skipped over the first question, was MK denied tech deals? [/quote]
I am supposed to know the answer to this? I'm not in the economic aspect of MK, but if I was a neutral party, I would probably not do tech deals with MK. Just setting yourself up for problems.
[quote]
Why should all of CN come to a stand still just because a few of the obsessed decide to muck up the playground?
[/quote]
Someone is a bit..xfd.

[quote name='Letum' date='17 February 2010 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1266447840' post='2188206']
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..
[/quote]
Err..alrighty. If TOP wishes to feel wronged that they are not being allowed to conduct tech deals during the war, which has been an accepted part of the Cyberverse for a while, then they can feel wronged. Personally, I'm quite glad that we were nice enough to let their tech dealers finish out their deals. Its a good change for the Cyberverse. By we, I don't just mean CnG. I mean the Cyberverse as a whole.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[greatnikita]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1266444585' post='2188087']

This is an act of war, and if CnG chooses to, we can persecute.

In terms of MK doing tech deals, yup. Stop us. War isn't fair. War has never been fair. The advantage to the larger side is that we can afford to conduct tech deals as we have the coverage to protect our sellers, while TOP does not.
[/quote]


Oh the hypocrisy...ain't it amusing




On a more general note, I do agree though that new tech deals should not be started during wartime, if only for tech sellers safety. And as has been pointed out, old ones were supposed to end today at the latest.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Great Nikita

[Bob]

[quote name='Believland' date='17 February 2010 - 06:07 PM' timestamp='1266448062' post='2188215']
If you knew what "sanction" met, you would have realized that you have just contradicted yourself. Congrats.[/quote]
[ooc: referring to the ingame action[/ooc]
[quote]
Also, VOC is as honorable as they come. Try not to bully them, CnG. Like we've seen in the past.
[/quote]
As posted by Franklin, a resolution was found, and both parties are fine with it, so..yup.

[lonewolfe2015]

Seems they gave you fair warning, which is more than alliances used to do in the past. I seem to remember a 200,000 aid transaction which nearly had my entire alliance attacked once...

Point is: During war neutral alliances stay NEUTRAL. Neutral means no form of aiding, waring or asylum with anyone outside of the alliance or unless other neutral parties. Failure to comply with that is breaking your own neutrality. You might as well be calling it aid to an ally because TOP nations do not need the money, the tech is the only thing of use to most of them. And any good tech buyer would tell their sellers to wait until after the war to not only save the tech to not be destroyed but to preserve the sovereignty and the safety of their sellers.

I remember sending aid during a war once as an oblivious tech seller, the buyer was kind enough to inform me they were in a war and aiding them would be an act of war myself.

Take this as a lesson to yourself and your alliance.

Edited February 17, 2010 by lonewolfe2015

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='SiCkO' date='17 February 2010 - 05:52 PM' timestamp='1266447164' post='2188177']
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
[/quote]
Why bother? Sparta's doing a good enough job destroying your alliance as is.

[PhysicsJunky]

Seeing as this war is approaching the point any single seller deals, give or take a couple days of natural delay, are wearing off it's really hard to read a thread of this nature by a TOP protectorate as anything more than a soapbox against MK.

Standing precedent has been this sort of transaction by parties well aware of the conflict has been an act of war. A diplomatic cease and desist is not some sort of over the line reaction whether you agree with it or not.

[Letum]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1266448143' post='2188218']
Err..alrighty. If TOP wishes to feel wronged that they are not being allowed to conduct tech deals during the war, which has been an accepted part of the Cyberverse for a while, then they can feel wronged. Personally, I'm quite glad that we were nice enough to let their tech dealers finish out their deals. Its a good change for the Cyberverse. By we, I don't just mean CnG. I mean the Cyberverse as a whole.
[/quote]

My advice had nothing to do with TOP's feelings. As you should be aware due to recent announcements, the New Pacific Order agrees with the convention of treating precious aid to a combatant as something to be frowned upon.

Instead, I'm merely trying to pass to you a part of the lesson we have learnt not too long ago. You cannot "expect equality in war" as you so rightly claim, but you should be wary of taking advantage of said inequality to improve your relative position, for it will have consequences. You aren't exactly imposing viceroys, but don't think that is the only thing that generates ill will in this world. There is no magical line to separate what is acceptable, and what is not - it will all depend on subjective opinions, and they will be disinclined to give your acts a positive interpretation.

[Bob]

[quote name='Letum' date='17 February 2010 - 06:17 PM' timestamp='1266448665' post='2188238']
My advice had nothing to do with TOP's feelings. As you should be aware due to recent announcements, the New Pacific Order agrees with the convention of treating precious aid to a combatant as something to be frowned upon.

Instead, I'm merely trying to pass to you a part of the lesson we have learnt not too long ago. You cannot "expect equality in war" as you so rightly claim, but you should be wary of taking advantage of said inequality to improve your relative position, for it will have consequences. You aren't exactly imposing viceroys, but don't think that is the only thing that generates ill will in this world. There is no magical line to separate what is acceptable, and what is not - it will all depend on subjective opinions, and they will be disinclined to give your acts a positive interpretation.
[/quote]
I apologize for my coments then. I accept what you are stating, but I depend on the ability of people to be reasonable far too much. Those that hold that position cannot be inclined to change. Anything that you do will be viewed as an affront, and I think NPO is used to that kind of treatment.

[Believland]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1266448277' post='2188225']
[ooc: referring to the ingame action[/ooc]

As posted by Franklin, a resolution was found, and both parties are fine with it, so..yup.
[/quote]
So you won't use sanctioning by use of senators, but you will sanction by other uses. Also, I came in such a rage, due to the fact that Regnum... erm OTS loves VOC. So this thread has ran it's purpose, if you'd like to continue this Bob, please feel free to PM me. Sorry for derailing this thread, Mods.

[Choader]

I don't see any hypocrisy. TOP is still as free as ever to put pressure on C&G's tech dealers.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Choader' date='17 February 2010 - 05:44 PM' timestamp='1266450284' post='2188290']
I don't see any hypocrisy. TOP is still as free as ever to put pressure on C&G's tech dealers.
[/quote]
No need. Alliance's #1 - #7 need as much help as they can get.

[King MyLife]

[quote]This is an act of war, and if CnG chooses to, we can persecute.

In terms of MK doing tech deals, yup. Stop us. War isn't fair. War has never been fair. The advantage to the larger side is that we can afford to conduct tech deals as we have the coverage to protect our sellers, while TOP does not.
[/quote]


hypocrisy at it finest...I swear i don't know where this world has come to...

[SiCkO]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='17 February 2010 - 03:12 PM' timestamp='1266448339' post='2188227']
Why bother? Sparta's doing a good enough job destroying your alliance as is.
[/quote]

The stats prove otherwise

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Franklin' date='17 February 2010 - 04:54 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]

Wow, I would have thought that TOP would be the people you needed to negotiate with seeing as they are the ones you had the deal with.

I'm sure they would have agreed to suspension of the deals if you'd have approached them as opposed to dealing with their enemy. Just for future reference.

[Archon]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='17 February 2010 - 04:57 PM' timestamp='1266443847' post='2188045']
How can MK support GOD and threaten these people at the same time? If GOD can continue to demand reps of NPO and consider it to not be an act of war how are these people who are honoring a contract that took place prior to the war any different?
[/quote]

Not trying to single you out, but any ill-informed imbeciles who attempt to claim that MK supports GOD's decision are off their rockers. MK was already done receiving payments, but we told them we'd suspend it back in January when the WWE was proving to be an issue.

[White Chocolate]

This statement is meant completely neutrally, I know nothing about the above situation one way or the other. It is my personal opinion based only on what was stated in the original post.

If an alliance's primary purpose (i.e. it's actual "mission") is to be a safe haven for nations that want to tech deal and live in peace while tech dealing with whomever AND it's not involved in the current conflict on either side AND it has regular tech deals with alliances on both sides, (or would if they asked) then I personally do not have a problem with it. In fact, if this is the case then I'd argue that the war is interfering with that (hypothetical) alliances business - not the other way around.

[der_ko]

THIS JUST IN! Mushroom Kingdom is not Global Order of Darkness.

Edited February 18, 2010 by der_ko

[Kandria]

What I'm amused over, is where people seem to think it's not fair one side calls something an act of war that the other doesn't.

Isn't the fact they are at war, HINT in the slightest that they don't agree already?

What I see here:
One side is making it very clear, they consider aid to nations at war, as a war move. This has been part of planet bob far back as I can remember.
They are clear that if it doesn't stop, then there will be repercussions, fair enough they've made themselves clear and even offered alternatives (see if you can freeze it until after the war and so on)
Leaving quite a few options on the table. (Such as stop aid, or keep aiding and maybe war, and so on).

The other side whines but, heeeeyy, you're getting tech/aid. That's being a hypocrite!

No, it's not.
Why? Because they never said "hey you stop we stop", they said "aid to our enemies is a war act on us".
Why not treat it the same, NOTHING is stopping you from going to THEIR benefactors with the same threat other then fear or war? having to back that threat?

To my being a hypocrite would be going "you need to stop aid, but you can't attempt to do the same or war!"
It's something that happens every war, at some point aid comes in sometimes under the guise of tech deals and alliances rawr at each other over it.

Running deals with anyone in a war, or aiding them just for the heck of it, has always always ALWAYS been treated as backing someone at war. Many alliances make it part of tech deal contracts that in case of war the deal is iced until it's over. Other don't mind risking it, since the market soars when wars happen.

How you deal if how you deal, how you respond to threats, is how you wish to deal as well.
If you take offense that they are getting deals, then you have a right as well to make the same request of their aiders.
HOWEVER, don't make a threat you can't back, because you at some point Will be called on it and the moment you threaten war over aid, and don't back it when the aid keeps flowing, well, then no on will ever respect a request or threat from you again.

[Aurion]

And in [i]this[/i] thread, people desperately try to paint MK as the next Evil Overlords because an alliance they aren't even allied to (Hi!) made a policy decision they don't agree with.

I suppose that's pretty much the exact same as the last fifteen threads or so, only with a different item being used to try and condemn MK.

[Jyrinx]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1266447872' post='2188208']
We have the ability to think, and give leeway, make exceptions, etc.
[/quote]

I'm confused by this as I never suggested otherwise. Maybe you meant to quote another poster and did me by mistake?

[Duke William I]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='17 February 2010 - 04:09 PM' timestamp='1266444599' post='2188088']
And it's the sovereign right of TIFDTT to do something about it!
[/quote]
That phrase, where have i heard that phrase?

[Bob]

[quote name='Jyrinx' date='17 February 2010 - 07:50 PM' timestamp='1266454213' post='2188416']
I'm confused by this as I never suggested otherwise. Maybe you meant to quote another poster and did me by mistake?
[/quote]
Oh I wasn't saying differently, I was stating in response to sellers being late that we will be lenient, and discuss it with VoC if it occurs.

[RePePe]

Now I don't agree with this particular viewpoint but still:

If this were the other way around and you were owed 3 million in a tech deal, the circumstances would change would they not? Many of you would never accept business contracts being broken for a war, whether the war lasts 2 days or 2 months, especially when the side completing the deal is not in the war. Your bias is obvious and your motives clear. Now I know many of you would do the genuine thing, but still others would not.

And if you claim that none of you would subscribe to this mentality, you are liars.

Edited February 18, 2010 by RePePe

[Bob]

[quote name='RePePe' date='17 February 2010 - 08:08 PM' timestamp='1266455327' post='2188455']
Now I don't agree with this particular viewpoint but still:

If this were the other way around and you were owed 3 million in a tech deal, the circumstances would change would they not? Many of you would never accept business contracts being broken for a war, whether the war lasts 2 days or 2 months, especially when the side completing the deal is not in the war. Your bias is obvious and your motives clear.

And if you claim that none of you would subscribe to this mentality, you are liars.
[/quote]
We already stated that there has been time given for deals to be finished, and that we will be lenient on the timeline of that.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[Mixoux]

[quote name='Aurion' date='17 February 2010 - 07:40 PM' timestamp='1266453605' post='2188394']
And in [i]this[/i] thread, people desperately try to paint MK as the next Evil Overlords because an alliance they aren't even allied to (Hi!) made a policy decision they don't agree with.

I suppose that's pretty much the exact same as the last fifteen threads or so, only with a different item being used to try and condemn MK.
[/quote]

I heard some unknown alliance out there did something pretty unforgivable; clearly TOP supports this and are now hypocrites.