A Note of Dissatisfaction

[Lezrahi]

I, for one, support this. It is good to see nations and alliances fulfilling their contractual obligations.

Though the logic of such will likely be lost among the majority, due to them buying less into logic and more into "that's how it has always been", you have my applause. I tip my hat.

[Bob]

[quote name='Lezrahi' date='18 February 2010 - 03:42 AM' timestamp='1266482568' post='2189401']
I, for one, support this. It is good to see nations and alliances fulfilling their contractual obligations.

Though the logic of such will likely be lost among the majority, due to them buying less into logic and more into "that's how it has always been", you have my applause. I tip my hat.
[/quote]
I don't think many are arguing against it. Its more the starting of new deals during the war.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[renegade4box]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='18 February 2010 - 02:23 AM' timestamp='1266477820' post='2189176']
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?
[/quote]

That's why out of 400 messages only about 5 people responded to the negative. The message says that we understand old tech deals happened and to not renew them, but that war aid will not be tolerated. What more do you want? Had this been UJW, VietFAN, GW3, noCB, etc, those nations would have been attacked without even a warning. It's standard protocol that aid to nations at war = no no. If you really want. I can copy the dozens of messages offering people tech deals with neutral alliances in order to sustain their growth. People are simply trying to find evil out of the fact that they are on the opposite side of MK and everything we do is wrong.

Edited February 18, 2010 by renegade4box

[Zeta Defender]

[quote name='der_ko' date='17 February 2010 - 10:59 PM' timestamp='1266476348' post='2189144']
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.
[/quote]
Isn't white peace a acceptable offer since its about even damage wise to both sides total. Also why drag out a war for blood reps, since that is about the reason why this war has yet to end.

[lebubu]

Haha, I'm loving the hilariously transparent attempts to portray us as the new monsters.

[King Death II]

Right so you are aiding the enemy and now you are crying that you are being shot at?

[ooc]Learn about WWI, America sent aid/supplies to UK and Germany shot down their ships.[ooc]

It happens in war, deal with it in 2 ways:
1. Stop the tech deals like any sensible alliance
2. Declare war on CnG and send as much aid as you want to TOP.

[TypoNinja]

So its a contractual obligation now instead of war aid?

The motive behind the funds is meaningless, the fact remains you are lending material aid to a nation/alliance engaged in war, either accept the logical consequences of that, or suspend the deals for the duration, like the rest of us do.

I sell donations for tech, I have months of tech backed up but am i shocked that it stops rolling in when we go to war? nope.

The OP simply strikes me a spoiled, sheltered, brat who's used to hiding behind Big Brother, and just received a wake up call into reality.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 02:20 AM' timestamp='1266477615' post='2189172']
TOP is sending out quite a bit of money. You ought to check their aid screens.
[/quote]
Just because they ARE sending out money doesn't mean that I wouldn't rather see their tech drop before I see a nation receive 3 million dollars.

[neneko]

TIFDTT doesn't consider it war aid if there is a contractual obligation to send the aid?

Well now we feel mighty silly over here at cng for freezing the reps repayments from npo. Although seeing the moral crusade against god for not doing that I can see that you're pretty torn on this particular question.

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='18 February 2010 - 12:40 AM' timestamp='1266471639' post='2188991']
Absolute !@#$%^&*, and completely ridiculous. Actually understand the situation before calling someone a hypocrite. If you really think MK would be complaining about NPO doing tech deals with VE while we were at war with both of them, then you good sir, know nothing about MK. We would probably have made several snide comments about how "LOL THATS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU EAT NUKES MOTHER$%&@ER".

Nothing about crying about that would be understandable, it would be just plain stupid.

You complain about me pointing out the obvious in a blunt way. Good for you. If MK can defend the people who we are doing tech deals with in order to help ourselves and put ourselves into a better position to fight TOP. War isn't fair, and MK has taken advantage of that when we went to war with NPO in NoCB. Nothing has changed.

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]
I know of only one particular thing pertaining to your alliance members and their [b]recent[/b] actions on these halls (Most who do not represent MK); you cry about the majority of things, or if someone else does, I hear cries about their cries. Someone disagrees, you cry. Someone has a different opinion, someone will cry. Someone makes a post about their nuclear feat, a member of your respective alliance makes a post about how he sucks, then others flock and CRY about how nuclear arsenal is the only reasoning he is winning the war. Anything and everything is cried about, ridiculed, and made of mockery's play. But, in fair terms, I guess many are these days.

Don't make it sound as if your alliance, especially given its history, is any different from all the other alliances out there, even those which are now gone from CN. MK is no different, and in particular, I can remember a certain NoWedge situation in which he used the tool of "Might makes Right" to extort tech from your alliance. I also remember your leaders contacting me about it when I was the political leader of Gremlins when we were in Continuum, and you know what else I remember? I remember myself, and the Gremlins, making a HUGE deal about it which, with a few plans from a few certain people, ended in Nowedge's removal, thankfully.

So yes, when I see MK members telling me "Might makes right," I tend to look at THEM and laugh. I will give you only one thing in your post; I don't know much of MK, and you probably *do* know more because I am not in your alliance, but one thing I *DO* know is your alliance was completely against "might vs right," and if I know this, shouldn't you? If a mere outsider knows this, shouldn't their own member, who knows more than said outsider, know?

As stated, when Valhalla suggested the same idea, "Might makes right," yes, MK was extremely pissed about it. And you know what? They had EVERY right because it was unjust. Good to see MK apparently turning into exactly what it was built to eliminate.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Ejayrazz

[Gn0xious Jr]

When C&G attacked, I told all pending tech traders that I needed to drop the deals. All of them had just received my 3m initial payment, and I told them to keep the 3m as a gift. In my opinion, it is better to spend the 12-15m on donations than put non-treatied alliances in potential danger during war times.

[SpacingOutMan]

I hope you all realize this matter has been effectively resolved in back channels... just sayin'.

[TBRaiders]

Ejay, I agree with everything in your last post except this part:

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='18 February 2010 - 08:13 AM' timestamp='1266502402' post='2189620']
Good to see MK apparently turning into exactly what it was built to eliminate.
[/quote]

C'mon bro, you are taking the posts from one member to label the entire alliance? Might never makes right, it just makes someone a bully. Maybe TOP and IRON aren't bullies anymore, but I've always thought they were. WUT, Continuum, and now attacking my alliance and allies. I've seen their spin in every single thread, but their DoW reeks of their might makes them right and those are the exact kind of people I love to send my nukes at.

Back to the topic at hand. We requested nations sending tech to our enemies to cease and desist. 95% of the folks we've communicated with have resolved any issues in back channels.

We can dance around the reality all day, but the truth is if non-participants continue to send aid to our enemies who are trying to kill us and are doing damage to us daily, there is a very good likelyhood we will take steps to remove their ability to send aid. [b]For those complaining about us interfering in business transactions, I will tell you to quit interfering in our war. [/b] You are enabling the enemy if you are sending any kind of aid offer. This has been stated multiple times and I can't comprehend anyone who doesn't understand this basic principle.

I do think the same holds true for us as well and anyone at war. Why put tech sellers at risk? I also didn't agree with NPO paying reps to nations at war, or GPA paying reps to nations at war, or GPA having to pay reps in a defensive war, and I can keep going on and on about decisions other people have made that I had no control over.

What I initally read from Penlugue Solaris is him saying TOP can take the same steps we are and contact our tech sellers and send the same message. He was just being honest when he said TOP can't do much about them if they choose to not stop because they are over-extended and most of TOP won't ever be down into tech supplier range. That isn't might make right, that's just practical truth.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Vilien' date='17 February 2010 - 08:34 PM' timestamp='1266460471' post='2188634']
Tech deals get suspended during war time. Deal with it.
[/quote]

either by putting up with it or choosing to go against "common practice" and see what happens.

Making a case on OWF may very well be a part of the plan I don't know this, pointing it out.

[Leonardothered]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' date='17 February 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1266444004' post='2188053']
Then you have a liar on your hands. Only a monitoring of the aid sent back and forth would prove it.

Even if nations were just sending aid, those that attacked them because of it would still be the aggressors.
[/quote]

So you're saying we should waste our valuable time and resources searching through trade logs, when we ALREADY know they're sending aid illegally, not just tech.

It's just bad looking all around. You can't go ferrying supplies over to the enemy just because all the while you keep repeating "We're neutral, we're neutral, we're neutral!"

If it is "just tech" then it really shouldn't be a big deal to lay off until this blows over. It's no longer bullying when we've already come to war. If you're going to push, you need to prepare to get knocked on your $@!.

[deth2munkies]

Love ya,Franklin, but the overwhelming response in this thread so far has been right, Tech Deals have, in the past, always been put on hold during times of war. It's a formality that has been accepted as common law to avoid aiding nations at war.

[Bob]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='18 February 2010 - 09:13 AM' timestamp='1266502402' post='2189620']
I know of only one particular thing pertaining to your alliance members and their [b]recent[/b] actions on these halls (Most who do not represent MK); you cry about the majority of things, or if someone else does, I hear cries about their cries. Someone disagrees, you cry. Someone has a different opinion, someone will cry. Someone makes a post about their nuclear feat, a member of your respective alliance makes a post about how he sucks, then others flock and CRY about how nuclear arsenal is the only reasoning he is winning the war. Anything and everything is cried about, ridiculed, and made of mockery's play. But, in fair terms, I guess many are these days.[/quote]
So, basically you have taken this as a chance to insult MK, got it.
[quote]
Don't make it sound as if your alliance, especially given its history, is any different from all the other alliances out there, even those which are now gone from CN. MK is no different, and in particular, I can remember a certain NoWedge situation in which he used the tool of "Might makes Right" to extort tech from your alliance. I also remember your leaders contacting me about it when I was the political leader of Gremlins when we were in Continuum, and you know what else I remember? I remember myself, and the Gremlins, making a HUGE deal about it which, with a few plans from a few certain people, ended in Nowedge's removal, thankfully. [/quote]
Again, nothing to do with anything I posted.
[quote]
So yes, when I see MK members telling me "Might makes right," I tend to look at THEM and laugh. I will give you only one thing in your post; I don't know much of MK, and you probably *do* know more because I am not in your alliance, but one thing I *DO* know is your alliance was completely against "might vs right," and if I know this, shouldn't you? If a mere outsider knows this, shouldn't their own member, who knows more than said outsider, know?[/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]
As stated, when Valhalla suggested the same idea, "Might makes right," yes, MK was extremely pissed about it. And you know what? They had EVERY right because it was unjust. Good to see MK apparently turning into exactly what it was built to eliminate.
[/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).

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.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='18 February 2010 - 06:53 PM' timestamp='1266519228' post='2189974']
words
[/quote]


Can you please stop? Ejay is making sense right now and I don't like it. [img]http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/earthbound/images/d/d1/Negative_man.jpg[/img]

@ Ejay, Ill get to your posts later but this is the first one I read. Im probably going to tell you that the outcries over what has been a standard in wars past are rather silly and that the OP is nothing but a diva with serious attention issues.

[Bob]

[quote name='tamerlane' date='18 February 2010 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1266522784' post='2190058']
Can you please stop? Ejay is making sense right now and I don't like it. [img]http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/earthbound/images/d/d1/Negative_man.jpg[/img]

@ Ejay, Ill get to your posts later but this is the first one I read. Im probably going to tell you that the outcries over what has been a standard in wars past are rather silly and that the OP is nothing but a diva with serious attention issues.
[/quote]
Errr..what? There is no outcry over this. Most people agree with what we have done, those that don't want to change the standard. $%&@, I'm the one who talked with VoC to come to the conclusion of the issue.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[Mathias]

To all of you screaming "might makes right," that's not the issue. It's decency makes right. You don't aid someone who is at war if you want to stay neutral. This isn't some hegemony concoction being continued by the very people that set out to destroy them, it's simply how international politics works. Even if I were on a losing side of a war, badly losing even, I still wouldn't like a neutral party sending aid to my opponents. In fact, I'd probably be more upset. The difference is that the party with the upper hand (or even if it's even) has the ability to enforce this common practice. It's might [i]preserves[/i] right; because it's VoC (or any supposedly neutral party sending aid to a nation/alliance at war) who is in the wrong here.

Besides, wouldn't it be better for TOP to receive their tech [i]after[/i] the war?

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='18 February 2010 - 02:13 PM' timestamp='1266502402' post='2189620']

As stated, when Valhalla suggested the same idea, "Might makes right," yes, MK was extremely pissed about it. And you know what? They had EVERY right because it was unjust. Good to see MK apparently turning into exactly what it was built to eliminate.
[/quote]
I have a feeling this post was more for effect than actual impression. Other than the hypocrisy and obvious ignorance of a few of our members, Id sure like to see what made you come to that conclusion. That is if, in fact, you really think that we are "turning" into what we hated.

[Bob]

[quote name='tamerlane' date='18 February 2010 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1266523435' post='2190081']
I have a feeling this post was more for effect than actual impression. Other than the hypocrisy and obvious ignorance of a few of our members, Id sure like to see what made you come to that conclusion. That is if, in fact, you really think that we are "turning" into what we hated.
[/quote]
Yes, clearly I'm ignorant. I'm not refusing to let him turn my post into something that it wasn't. OHwait...

Edited February 18, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='18 February 2010 - 07:59 PM' timestamp='1266523144' post='2190070']
Errr..what? There is no outcry over this. Most people agree with what we have done, those that don't want to change the standard. $%&@, I'm the one who talked with VoC to come to the conclusion of the issue.
[/quote]

Might makes right is not the reason we established this policy. There is a precedent that has been honored for many wars that establishes that alliances that wish to remain neutral respect the wishes of combatants and not aid either side. If they want to risk it, that is their business. We are even giving them a warning if a mistake is made. No one should be surprised at the outcome if their choice to aid the enemy (this counts for both sides) ends in problems for them because they didn't heed the warning. Its not wrong, most alliances here have honored this policy in wars past. IF they are changing their minds now, it is for purely political reasons which is both sad and disappointing.

[Bob]

[quote name='tamerlane' date='18 February 2010 - 03:09 PM' timestamp='1266523740' post='2190088']
Might makes right is not the reason we established this policy. There is a precedent that has been honored for many wars that establishes that alliances that wish to remain neutral respect the wishes of combatants and not aid either side. If they want to risk it, that is their business. We are even giving them a warning if a mistake is made. No one should be surprised at the outcome if their choice to aid the enemy (this counts for both sides) ends in problems for them because they didn't heed the warning. Its not wrong, most alliances here have honored this policy in wars past. IF they are changing their minds now, it is for purely political reasons which is both sad and disappointing.
[/quote]
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.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='18 February 2010 - 08:10 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.
[/quote]


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.

Edited February 18, 2010 by tamerlane