A Note of Dissatisfaction

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 09:40 PM' timestamp='1266471639' post='2188991']
Exactly. Might makes right has a negative connotation, but it is applicable, and not a negative thing in a situation like this. Just sucks to be on the losing side.
[/quote]

Can I expect to see you guys attacking nations for trading with TOP?

[Bob]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='18 February 2010 - 12:45 AM' timestamp='1266471925' post='2188999']
Can I expect to see you guys attacking nations for trading with TOP?
[/quote]
Right now? No. In the future, if they ignore cease and desist and are clearly supplying TOP? Yup. We will handle cases on an individual basis~

Edited February 18, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1266472092' post='2189003']
Right now? No. In the future, if they ignore cease and desist and are clearly supplying TOP? Yup. We will handle cases on an individual basis~
[/quote]

That is just bullying. You, or anyone else for that matter, has no right interfering with the economic dealings of a nation. Attacking a neutral nation for trading with your enemy is simply bullying. Furthermore, from a pragmatic standpoint, aren't the resources lost to attacking a new nation and potentially making new enemies higher than those lost through your enemies gaining a meager 50 tech?

EDIT: Does this mean you will also sanction nations for trading with TOP?

Edited February 18, 2010 by kulomascovia

[Bob]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='18 February 2010 - 12:53 AM' timestamp='1266472417' post='2189009']
That is just bullying. You, or anyone else for that matter, has no right interfering with the economic dealings of a nation. Attacking a neutral nation for trading with your enemy is simply bullying. Furthermore, from a pragmatic standpoint, aren't the resources lost to attacking a new nation and potentially making new enemies higher than those lost through your enemies gaining a meager 50 tech?

EDIT: Does this mean you will also sanction nations for trading with TOP?
[/quote]
I AM BULLYING TELL THE WORLD

No, because sanctioning nations would hurt my side as well. Silly~

In terms of them gaining a "meager 50 tech" what happens if they start doing widespread tech deals? 600 tech every 30 days. Hmmmm, that's not going to do any damage at all. You nip it in the bud, so it cannot become a bigger issue later on. You don't aid war materials, and if you do you expect retaliation. That's an accepted part of the Cyberverse.

[Batallion]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='18 February 2010 - 03:32 AM' timestamp='1266463945' post='2188737']
They had good reasoning.



LOL. The hypocritical rhetoric in this is absolutely stunning. If NPO said this x amount of years ago, MK would have been crying -- which, would be understandable. But now you got the power so the tides have changed, eh?
[/quote]

But Ejay, aren't you helping them maintain their power by supporting them in this war? Or would you switch sides as soon as Polar's surrendered?

[Stetson76]

[quote name='tamerlane' date='17 February 2010 - 09:12 PM' timestamp='1266462727' post='2188702']
Take credit for what?
What the hell are you talking about? What was nice of us is to give nations warning and let them off for doing tech deals during a time of war. We could've done the ol' TPF thing and just demand they pay us reps for their transaction.
[/quote]

If you were paying attention to the thread you'd see that a number of MKer's have been trying to take credit for allowing NPO to suspend their rep payments to them as opposed to GOD's decision to keep receiving their reps. That was all well and smug until Archon came in and said that MK has already received all of it's tech from NPO. So, you can't get your nice guy points for allowing to them to stop doing something that's they're not doing.

It is indeed a tangential issue to the OP, so I'll just say again, this should have been discussed with TOP rather than having a conference and coming to terms with the enemy of the OP's protector.

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 09:56 PM' timestamp='1266472585' post='2189016']
I AM BULLYING TELL THE WORLD

No, because sanctioning nations would hurt my side as well. Silly~

In terms of them gaining a "meager 50 tech" what happens if they start doing widespread tech deals? 600 tech every 30 days. Hmmmm, that's not going to do any damage at all. You nip it in the bud, so it cannot become a bigger issue later on. You don't aid war materials, and if you do you expect retaliation. That's an accepted part of the Cyberverse.
[/quote]

First of all, just because it is accepted, does not mean it should not be questioned?

Second, I believe nations are losing 1k or more tech in this war and it's not even 30 days yet. And your side has overwhelming advantage. So in comparison, even the 600 tech they might potentially gain will not turn the tide of the war.

EDIT: And yes, you are bullying neutral parties.

Edited February 18, 2010 by kulomascovia

[Bob]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='18 February 2010 - 01:02 AM' timestamp='1266472958' post='2189025']
First of all, just because it is accepted, does not mean it should not be questioned?

Second, I believe nations are losing 1k or more tech in this war and it's not even 30 days yet. And your side has overwhelming advantage. So in comparison, even the 600 tech they might potentially gain will not turn the tide of the war.

EDIT: And yes, you are bullying neutral parties.
[/quote]
600 x 100 = 60,000 every 30 days. So yeah, its a lot. They lose a good amount, but 60k tech does a good amount of damage.

No, it just means I get to laugh at you.

In terms of bullying, if you choose to define protecting our alliance from more damage as bullying, then you can do such. By the way, isn't it ridiculous that TOP is asking nations to risk their infrastructure so they can get more tech?

Edited February 18, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 10:06 PM' timestamp='1266473191' post='2189032']
600 x 100 = 60,000 every 30 days. So yeah, its a lot. They lose a good amount, but 60k tech does a good amount of damage.

No, it just means I get to laugh at you.

In terms of bullying, if you choose to define protecting our alliance from more damage as bullying, then you can do such. By the way, isn't it ridiculous that TOP is asking nations to risk their infrastructure so they can get more tech?
[/quote]

You are threatening neutral parties with war for a purpose that solely benefits your alliance. I think that is bullying. And it is rather disappointing to see you justify might makes right when it applies to your situation. And it is still a negative mentality; you benefit, the rest of the cyberverse loses.

EDIT: Forgot the last bit.

It is. TOP shouldn't have to potentially place their protectorate in danger. However, you shouldn't have to be that danger in the first place.

Edited February 18, 2010 by kulomascovia

[Bob]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='18 February 2010 - 01:11 AM' timestamp='1266473475' post='2189041']
You are threatening neutral parties with war for a purpose that solely benefits your alliance. I think that is bullying. And it is rather disappointing to see you justify might makes right when it applies to your situation. And it is still a negative mentality; you benefit, the rest of the cyberverse loses.
[/quote]
Err..I apologize that we don't want people destroying our alliance? Would you sell tech to a nation at war with you, or be happy with those that did? No, of course not.

The rest of the cyberverse loses? No, TOP loses. Tech sellers are low in numbers, so they can find more buyers easily if they search for them.

I have nothing against Might makes right, except when it is taken too far. Surrender terms are an example of might making right, but I'm good with them existing. Have you been commenting on every white peace announcement (with conditions) that the alliance cannot re-enter that might makes right was used?

Edited February 18, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 10:12 PM' timestamp='1266473565' post='2189044']
Err..I apologize that we don't want people destroying our alliance? Would you sell tech to a nation at war with you, or be happy with those that did? No, of course not.

The rest of the cyberverse loses? No, TOP loses. Tech sellers are low in numbers, so they can find more buyers easily if they search for them.

I have nothing against Might makes right, except when it is taken too far. Surrender terms are an example of might making right, but I'm good with them existing. Have you been commenting on every white peace announcement (with conditions) that the alliance cannot re-enter that might makes right was used?
[/quote]

I wouldn't sell tech to a nation at war with me and I wouldn't be happy with those that did. However, I wouldn't interfere with their business just so I can benefit.

Yes, the rest of the cyberverse loses. You are limiting the number of tech buyers. Alliances like TOP especially are rabid tech consumers. Also, you place alliances such as the East India Company in a quagmire; they can't deal with their protector but they would look like jerks if they sold tech to their enemies. The only choice they have is to find neutral tech buyers.

EDIT:

To the alliance justifying its actions with might makes right, its actions are never "too far". How can you expect me to trust your judgment?

Edited February 18, 2010 by kulomascovia

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='18 February 2010 - 03:09 AM' timestamp='1266444599' post='2188088']
And it's the sovereign right of TIFDTT to do something about it!
[/quote]

Glad to see honesty!

[Bob]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='18 February 2010 - 01:18 AM' timestamp='1266473934' post='2189053']
I wouldn't sell tech to a nation at war with me and I wouldn't be happy with those that did. However, I wouldn't interfere with their business just so I can benefit.

Yes, the rest of the cyberverse loses. You are limiting the number of tech buyers. Alliances like TOP especially are rabid tech consumers. Also, you place alliances such as the East India Company in a quagmire; they can't deal with their protector but they would look like jerks if they sold tech to their enemies. The only choice they have is to find neutral tech buyers.
[/quote]
So, you would be unhappy but be passive. Got it.

In terms of TOP being rabid tech consumers, there are a lot of alliances that need tech sellers. Have been for a long time.

In terms of placing them in a quagmire, I don't see the issue. Don't trade with the parties at war, and find neutral buyers. Problem solved.

[quote]To the alliance justifying its actions with might makes right, its actions are never "too far". How can you expect me to trust your judgment? [/quote]
Cyberverse morality. This is an accepted practice. If your alliance wants to change it, have fun with that. No one has issues with stopping tech deals from what I can tell besides you, it is just the existing ones from prewar people had issues with VoC not being allowed to finish.

Shahahsaha, you fail at sarcasm. ending something in "!" typically means that its sarcasm.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1266474132' post='2189063']
So, you would be unhappy but be passive. Got it.

In terms of TOP being rabid tech consumers, there are a lot of alliances that need tech sellers. Have been for a long time.

In terms of placing them in a quagmire, I don't see the issue. Don't trade with the parties at war, and find neutral buyers. Problem solved.
[/quote]

Well, too bad a lot of those alliances (especially high ns ones) are at war right now. If neutral nations are not to commit an act of war, they shall refrain from dealing with any alliance at war. You've just shrunk the tech market considerably to neutral nations.

Here's a suggestion, if you are going to disrupt the financial dealings of an uninvolved nation, why don't you at least find that nation neutral buyers? If it is as easy as you say it is, this compensation will erase most of the negative repercussion of your actions.

[quote]
Cyberverse morality. This is an accepted practice, if your alliance can change it, have fun with that. I think its pretty much an accepted principle in general.
[/quote]

Again, how can I trust the judgment of the cyberverse to dictate what is right? Also, cyberverse morality changes depending on the political atmosphere. What makes this unstable system of morality acceptable?

[Bob]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='18 February 2010 - 01:31 AM' timestamp='1266474682' post='2189079']
Well, too bad a lot of those alliances (especially high ns ones) are at war right now. If neutral nations are not to commit an act of war, they shall refrain from dealing with any alliance at war. You've just shrunk the tech market considerably to neutral nations.

Here's a suggestion, if you are going to disrupt the financial dealings of an uninvolved nation, why don't you at least find that nation neutral buyers? If it is as easy as you say it is, this compensation will erase most of the negative repercussion of your actions. [/quote]
I'm a jerk~

You could also argue that TOP starting this war has hurt them because they have less tech buyers, and that CnG continuing the war has hurt them because tech buyers will become tech sellers.

[quote]
Again, how can I trust the judgment of the cyberverse to dictate what is right? Also, cyberverse morality changes depending on the political atmosphere. What makes this unstable system of morality acceptable?
[/quote]
You can't. Currently, it is pretty good. That can change. I personally consider certain lines to be enough, and that's my personal "morality". Viceroys would fall under my own personal morality, for example. I don't believe in them, nor does the Cyberverse right now. I guess my reply would have to be: Its not. But its what we have.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 10:34 PM' timestamp='1266474881' post='2189088']
I'm a jerk~

You could also argue that TOP starting this war has hurt them because they have less tech buyers, and that CnG continuing the war has hurt them because tech buyers will become tech sellers.
[/quote]

An easy solution to all of this would be to just end this war but everyone seems to be opposed to that horrendous idea.

Yeah, I suppose you could argue that and I do agree. However, you cannot control what TOP does but you can control your own actions. You can, for one, end this war or not interfere with the financial dealings of neutral nations. If you're so opposed to that idea, then offer tech deals from neutral parties as compensation.

[quote]
You can't. Currently, it is pretty good. That can change. I personally consider certain lines to be enough, and that's my personal "morality". Viceroys would fall under my own personal morality, for example. I don't believe in them, nor does the Cyberverse right now. I guess my reply would have to be: Its not. But its what we have.
[/quote]

It's pretty good? To whom is it pretty good? To you or to the cyberverse as a whole? Is there a broad consensus on that?

I personally don't like using the justification of "cyberverse morality". What's accepted or not accepted by others shouldn't influence your philosophy. Public opinion is not the only source of morality.

Edited February 18, 2010 by kulomascovia

[ChairmanHal]

I remember attacking an OBR nation back during VietFAN who had the audacity to send aid to a FAN nation. This situation is different.

The tech has been paid for previously. If these were new transactions or gifts of tech, cash or both it would be another matter. For those suggesting that VoC should hold the tech until after the war, it is likely that C&G's demands for peace will include a prohibition on outside aid to TOP, which would mean that TOP would not see its tech for many months.

I also find it ironic that GOD (part of SF and therefore a C&G ally) can demand its reps (completing a transaction in a sense) from NPO during war time it is considered something somewhat distasteful but perfectly acceptable, but when VoC wants to do the right thing and finish its tech deliveries without TOP demanding it, they are threatened with aggressive action.

Don't talk to me about those alliances currently at war with GOD having a right to threaten NPO over it--you're just being silly.

Edited February 18, 2010 by ChairmanHal

[Bob]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='18 February 2010 - 01:42 AM' timestamp='1266475338' post='2189105']
An easy solution to all of this would be to just end this war but everyone seems to be opposed to that horrendous idea.

Yeah, I suppose you could argue that and I do agree. However, you cannot control what TOP does but you can control your own actions. You can, for one, end this war or not interfere with the financial dealings of neutral nations. If you're so opposed to that idea, then offer tech deals from neutral parties as compensation.
[/quote]
I'd like it to be over, but that's because I managed to burn my warchest to shreds quite fast :3

[quote]
It's pretty good? To whom is it pretty good? To you or to the cyberverse as a whole? Is there a broad consensus on that?

I personally don't like using the justification of "cyberverse morality". What's accepted or not accepted by others shouldn't influence your philosophy. Public opinion is not the only source of morality.
[/quote]
Personally, of course.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='18 February 2010 - 11:42 AM' timestamp='1266475338' post='2189105']
An easy solution to all of this would be to just end this war but everyone seems to be opposed to that horrendous idea.
[/quote]
Incorrect, only one side.

[der_ko]

[quote name='shahenshah' date='18 February 2010 - 07:54 AM' timestamp='1266476068' post='2189134']
Incorrect, only one side.
[/quote]
We have no interest in eternal war. If you want peace submit an acceptable offer to compensate us for your opportunistic attack upon the C&G union.

[renegade4box]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='18 February 2010 - 01:45 AM' timestamp='1266475500' post='2189114']
I remember attacking an OBR nation back during VietFAN who had the audacity to send aid to a FAN nation. This situation is different.

The tech has been paid for previously. If these were new transactions or gifts of tech, cash or both it would be another matter. For those suggesting that VoC should hold the tech until after the war, it is likely that C&G's demands for peace will include a prohibition on outside aid to TOP, which would mean that TOP would not see its tech for many months.

I also find it ironic that GOD (part of SF and therefore a C&G ally) can demand its reps (completing a transaction in a sense) from NPO during war time it is considered something somewhat distasteful but perfectly acceptable, but when VoC wants to do the right thing and finish its tech deliveries without TOP demanding it, they are threatened with aggressive action.

Don't talk to me about those alliances currently at war with GOD having a right to threaten NPO over it--you're just being silly.
[/quote]

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.

90% of the nations who responded to messages said "oh sorry, I didn't realize a war was happening, I will stop immediately and inform my buyers that their tech will be send when they end their wars". This was one of about 5 bad responses.

And also, we aren't GOD. I'm 100% sure that MK would let any alliance that wished to remain neutral delay their tech deals. As it stands, we have the upper hand as far as small nations go, and we can protect our tech dealers, therefore, we can let them enter the conflict with protection in exchange for their growth. TOP can't afford that same protection, and that is part of how we will win the war. Aid packages have been considered, since the beginning of CN, to be a no-no during war. Nothing has changed here.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='17 February 2010 - 05:02 PM' timestamp='1266444157' post='2188061']
NoCB was fought over the fact that a tech deal was done with someone on a ZI list. Which alliance is it that loves bragging about engineering that whole war again?
[/quote]
GGA and Valhalla attacked using that as a CB. TOP and the other Citadel+ alliances that attacked NpO did so with a different rationale.

That said, traditionally Invicta has followed the reasoning used by C&G in this case. Nice to see C&G coming around to our point of view.

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' date='17 February 2010 - 05:02 PM' timestamp='1266444167' post='2188062']
Thats not how that works at all. Most TOP nations dont need money, they need more tech so they can do more damage with this little gizmo called the WRC. Maybe you've heard of it.
[/quote]
TOP is sending out quite a bit of money. You ought to check their aid screens.

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1266444585' post='2188087']
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]
You really want to open up this can of worms?

Most of your sellers are a lot smaller than your nations.

[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.
[/quote]
The NPO is aiding GOD, who are at war with your MDP partners NpO. You should attack them now.

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='renegade4box' date='17 February 2010 - 11:15 PM' 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.

90% of the nations who responded to messages said "oh sorry, I didn't realize a war was happening, I will stop immediately and inform my buyers that their tech will be send when they end their wars". This was one of about 5 bad responses.

And also, we aren't GOD. I'm 100% sure that MK would let any alliance that wished to remain neutral delay their tech deals. As it stands, we have the upper hand as far as small nations go, and we can protect our tech dealers, therefore, we can let them enter the conflict with protection in exchange for their growth. TOP can't afford that same protection, and that is part of how we will win the war. Aid packages have been considered, since the beginning of CN, to be a no-no during war. Nothing has changed here.
[/quote]

Actually, these are pretty threatening messages.They're rather rude as well. It's no wonder why many of the nations stopped their deals immedietely. I would expect that asking a nation to lose its financial business for your own selfish interest would be a rather apologetic affair. With the way you've phrased these questions, one would think that all nations are obligated to follow your policy. Perhaps you should reword them?

[Franklin]

[quote name='F15pilotX' date='17 February 2010 - 09:40 PM' timestamp='1266471635' post='2188990']
The parts of the tech deals being continued now are being continued while a war is going on - whether or not the actual intent is to help TOP, they undeniably do. As far as I know, aiding an enemy has long been a cb around these parts; correct me if I'm wrong though. Donations deals would fall into the same category.


C&G may or may not decide to play nice, but as far as decisions go, EIC should have known in advance this was a poor choice, and done what most people in their places do.

As for C&G doing tech deals, as others have said in the thread, in cases like that might makes right, simple as that. This isn't hypocrisy, this is just one side having the advantage of being better able to protect its interests due to the situation.


This isn't a matter of opinion, really, it's just simple logic.
[/quote]

Again, it's VOC (V-O-C) as in the old Dutch spelling for the Dutch East India Company, it even says so on our flag....

[Bob]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 02:20 AM' timestamp='1266477615' post='2189172']

You really want to open up this can of worms?

Most of your sellers are a lot smaller than your nations.
[/quote]
Not my nation