ChairmanHal Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1295021439' post='2575125'] I am of the opinion that we do not in fact need less diplomatic talks etc. We need less successful diplomatic talks. People are too concerned about their PR or their image, so they enter diplomatic talks trying to come out smelling like fresh roses. We need less people willing to compromise and more people willing to be abrasive and to engage in a bit of old fashioned mudslinging. This [i]diplomacy[/i] you speak of nowadays is far too tame. [/quote] I agree. Also, least MK & Co. feel too singled out, I saw this sort of thing happening in the latter stages of 2008 and early 2009 when NPO would show up to a backroom IRC negotiation for the purpose of providing "arbitration". Their technique however involved acting more like a defense attorney (and a nasty one at that), all but implying that those that felt wronged were the problem. I saw it for what it was however--an effort to keep control of world events least they not go in NPO's favor. I also saw it as a sign of weakness. Those that held the bayonet for so long suddenly brow beating allies out of a potential conflict? No, they were [i]afraid[/i] things had/would turn against them. Maybe those that are showing up to arbitrate these backroom talks are motivated by a genuine desire for peace, perhaps not. Perhaps those associated with MK merely have the best interests of the world at heart and are not motivated strictly by self-interest. To me, it's the same either way, because the results are the same. [img]http://www.haagendazs.com/img_db/pro/pro_vai_101.jpg[/img] Happy e-lawyers and lots of vanilla. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1295026347' post='2575207'] Weren't you the one that was arguing that NEW shouldn't resolve their raids on DF diplomatically and be more violent to avoid stagnation? Now you seem to be arguing the opposite and that everyone needs to play nice and war is bad except as a last resort if diplomacy fails... Johnny Apocalypse before the NEW war (http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=95901), "I want leaders worldwide to start doing dirty deeds and pissing all the wrong people off. I want to see the propaganda. I want to destroy and to be destroyed." If you don't like what they did to MFO, Umbrella could have activated their ODP and you could be fighting a war right now. FAN essentially acted here how you were saying more alliances should act in order to avoid stagnation, but this was only a one sided war because NOIR was being useless. FAN couldn't of predicted whether NOIR would be used, but they managed to pull off a swift victory regardless. [/quote] I am speaking in this manner because MFO use to be my home and they are old friends of mine. Don't you think it would be tasteless for me to suddenly come out and start cheering FAN for bashing on my former home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Chill I Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote name='Bill Wallace' timestamp='1295021068' post='2575124'] What? My point was that the peanut gallery seems willing to mindlessly hail certain individuals/alliances for any and all actions they take even if they are deemed excessive by many alliances while chastising others who do far less in reaction to similar offenses. Personally I don't have a problem with what FAN did and I think this would be a better place if their brand of diplomacy was considered standard practice by all alliances. As for the VE rogue/ghost attacking a nation from MCXA, I'm not sure what that's all about, but MCXA is free to respond however they think is best. [/quote] Everyone is [b]always[/b] free to respond however they want. The difference is between those who can and those who cannot. MCXA cannot attack VE because of that rogue because even though its a theoretically correct reaction they would end up being curbstomped. FAN can attack MFO over something that could have been resolved in 5 min because unlike VE, MFO is small and has no one to defend them. So instead of setting double standards arbitrated by "might makes right" the honest thing would be to loosen up and reduce treaties and eliminate crazy reparations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1295026849' post='2575214'] I am speaking in this manner because MFO use to be my home and they are old friends of mine. Don't you think it would be tasteless for me to suddenly come out and start cheering FAN for bashing on my former home. [/quote] I can understand you caring about a former home, but that doesn't mean FAN was wrong. I'm glad MFO got peace quickly as well, since I like them from my limited interactions I've had. If this was an alliance you didn't have an emotional attachment to you probably would be agreeing with me on FAN being correct in their actions, but considering its been resolved now with barely any reps this might boost activity in MFO and cause them to improve themselves to be more prepared in the future. FAN was reacting to a spy attack from a member of theirs, but this war doesn't seem to be anything personal against MFO and a logical response to deter future spy attacks from happening unless someone is prepared to war FAN. Edited January 14, 2011 by Methrage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1295027264' post='2575219'] I can understand you caring about a former home, but that doesn't mean FAN was wrong. I'm glad MFO got peace quickly as well, since I like them from my limited interactions I've had. If this was an alliance you didn't have an emotional attachment to you probably would be agreeing with me on FAN being correct in their actions, but considering its been resolved now with barely any reps this might boost activity in MFO and cause them to improve themselves to be more prepared in the future. FAN was reacting to a spy attack from a member of theirs, but this war doesn't seem to be anything personal against MFO and a logical response to deter future spy attacks from happening unless someone is prepared to war FAN. [/quote] I wouldn't care quite so much if they did it to another alliance with which I have no connection to. I don't consider it correct, but neither do I consider it incorrect. MFO is my former home, and I do not appreciate how certain members of FAN are trying to paint them. Perhaps the phrase "not in my back yard" is somewhat fitting. Edited January 14, 2011 by Johnny Apocalypse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Wallace Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='King Chill I' timestamp='1295026960' post='2575216'] Everyone is [b]always[/b] free to respond however they want. The difference is between those who can and those who cannot. MCXA cannot attack VE because of that rogue because even though its a theoretically correct reaction they would end up being curbstomped.[/quote] Responding also means through diplomatic channels and I didn't mean to insinuate that war was the only choice they have. EDIT: I'd also like to add that the Impero doctrine goes both ways. If a VE nation goes rogue, they have to pay reps 3x the damage caused and if they refuse, they open themselves up to ZI. Edited January 14, 2011 by Bill Wallace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1295027787' post='2575223'] I wouldn't care quite so much if they did it to another alliance with which I have no connection to. I don't consider it correct, but neither do I consider it incorrect. MFO is my former home, and I do not appreciate how certain members of FAN are trying to paint them. Perhaps the phrase "not in my back yard" is somewhat fitting. [/quote] When I was on the receiving end of spy attacks I made an announcement that anyone caught doing it would be declared on and nuked regardless of who it was and the spy attacks stopped without me needing to resort to it since he never did it again in order to avoid inevitable war if caught. I have the same policy as FAN does here and fully agree with their reasoning on such a policy being necessary for deterring people from trying it, which is why I think they are correct. Someone can possibly spy 10 times without getting caught before they finally are or it can seem like one person if many are trying it once or twice before stopping attacks before getting caught. When one finally is caught you have no way of knowing if he is fully responsible for the others, but if you give the wrong response you get a bunch more attacks with undetected senders who figure its worth the risk to do 1 or 2 attacks. As FAN has said in the thread earlier, for them not to attack and complain diplomatically instead would of been cowardly or at least seen as cowardly for many. Edited January 14, 2011 by Methrage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 It looks like you should have at least checked whether the nation was a rogue and if so just rolled him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 I honestly wonder what FAN would have done if it was a bigger and better connected alliance that spied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenacres Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1295031689' post='2575258'] I honestly wonder what FAN would have done if it was a bigger and better connected alliance that spied. [/quote] Probably the exact same thing any other alliance would have done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirWilliam Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1295031689' post='2575258'] I honestly wonder what FAN would have done if it was a bigger and better connected alliance that spied. [/quote] The same thing they would've done if they didn't have paperless allies to back them up: Nothing (or at least not alliance war right off the bat). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevanovia Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote name='Aeternos Astramora' timestamp='1294984553' post='2574762'] So FAN didn't bother with diplomacy at all. (Remember, in a 13 person alliance, you don't have people checking screens all day to catch these things right away.) [/quote] When an attack is launched on your homeland, you don't just sit there waiting to talk to their diplomats. You take action. They are protecting their sovereignty, MFO must pay for their crimes. ("What if it was a random member launching the attack and it wasn't condoned by their gov?" you may ask. It matters not, alliances should be held responsible for what members they allow in the alliance.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maleatu Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) [quote]It matters not, alliances should be held responsible for what members they allow in the alliance.[/quote] Given the fiasco with TKoI recently, I find this to be incredibly subjective to those who are responsible and those affected. Edited January 14, 2011 by Maleatu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote name='nippy' timestamp='1295001223' post='2574966'] You'll have to excuse me, I know you're prone to get angry whenever GOONS is mentioned, but use your damn head. What you're saying right now is that hypocrisy is okay, depending on who is on the receiving end. That's in direct contradiction with your previous posts in this thread, thereby making you a hypocrite in your own right. Perhaps you shouldn't allow yourself to be force-fed "information" and do a bit of research before spewing your anti-GOONS rhetoric. I'll give you a cookie if you could find the last three 'bad raids' GOONS members conducted. I'll give you a box of cookies if you could find the last three that weren't handled diplomatically and didn't leave the opposite party satisfied with the reparations. Meanwhile, you yourself are in the process of going nuclear rogue on us, thereby removing any weight your words might have had in regards to 'right' and 'wrong'. [/quote] It's not hypocrisy when the situations are different. I'm sure you'll recall how many times Nueva Vida had to settle things diplomatically with GOONS because of botched raids on either our members or protectorates, to the point where we finally agreed that we had enough of "talking things out" when you guys weren't catching on. Fortunately for you, no more incidents occurred since that consensus, but are you saying it would have been hypocritical to attack someone physical after previously using diplomatic means? That's merely the point I'm making; MFO has absolutely no track record of wrongfully attacking someone, so to show them some leniency is not hypocrisy. You guys on the other hand encourage tech raiding to the point that you have a significant number of botched raids, and even the audacity to label an entire alliance as "rogues" if they choose to attack you as a result of one of your members' raids. In fact, if I were to parallel the incident where one of your members tech raided a member of a small alliance (I forget their name, maybe you can remember?) that ended up responding to the tech raid by declaring war on GOONS, then FAN would be that "smaller" alliance which you all declared a bunch of rogues and had placed on sanctions. Who's the hypocrite now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevanovia Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1295031689' post='2575258'] I honestly wonder what FAN would have done if it was a bigger and better connected alliance that spied. [/quote] Probably the same way they handled this situation, this is FAN we're talking about after-all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1295031689' post='2575258'] I honestly wonder what FAN would have done if it was a bigger and better connected alliance that spied. [/quote] I wonder what the reaction would have been if it was another alliance who declared war over a spy attack. Edited January 14, 2011 by kulomascovia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
He Who Has No Name Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1295024788' post='2575176'] Actually, in this case; it is paranoia. [/quote] You're either woefully uninformed or deliberately ignoring FAN's history if you call an armed response to any unprovoked attack on us "paranoia". People have been trying to kill us for nearly our entire existence, and they have publicly SAID as much; these halls are filled with those records, and some of the parties responsible for those atrocities against us who are walking about still occasionally try to stir the mud in hopes of attracting cronies for another try. We'd be insane if we [i]didn't[/i] promptly and forcefully defend ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batallion Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote name='Kevanovia' timestamp='1295032446' post='2575267'] When an attack is launched on your homeland, you don't just sit there waiting to talk to their diplomats. You take action. They are protecting their sovereignty, MFO must pay for their crimes. ("What if it was a random member launching the attack and it wasn't condoned by their gov?" you may ask. It matters not, alliances should be held responsible for what members they allow in the alliance.) [/quote] Wow... Really Kev?... Just, wow... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vespassianus Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 FAN felt someone attacked them so they attacked back. If you that they weren't right just attack FAN, don't cry. No need for !@#$%^&* diplomacy to miss every chance for a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Izuzu Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote name='Jocko Homo' timestamp='1295023118' post='2575146'] ...If a 1000+ day member of your alliance goes around and attacks people then you damn well better make sure everybody knows that it is unauthorized. At the very least his war slots need to be filled up by YOU...[/quote] This Homo speaks truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote name='Vespassianus' timestamp='1295038171' post='2575320'] FAN felt someone attacked them so they attacked back. If you that they weren't right just attack FAN, don't cry. No need for !@#$%^&* diplomacy to miss every chance for a war. [/quote] Do you have a newsletter? Can i subscribe to it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petrovich4 Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 We reacted appropriately for the message we wanted to send. Diplomacy comes in many forms. FAN is (re)teaching BoB a new form of communication when dealing with us. Every spy sent underground to the enemies' TOYS R US store, every bomber and fighter escort zooming overheard to open the roofs of gun toy factories, and every FAN soldier and tank blitzing the enemies' toy stores and factories supply depots are 'talking'. Unfortunately for a few, you don't understand what they are saying with their bullets and rifles. So let us use words again: [b]'Don't infringe'[/b] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaR Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 I find the chatter about how MFO is lucky this wasn't worse or that it wouldn't have happened had it been another alliance amusing. Even in this instance, FAN is lucky to be alive. In general I'm all for aggressive diplomacy, but with such an aggressive defense including some thirty war declarations affecting a great deal more than the original perpetrator, it can no longer be classified as an aggressive action. Luckily I like FAN and am pretty busy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleda Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1295031689' post='2575258'] I honestly wonder what FAN would have done if it was a bigger and better connected alliance that spied. [/quote] With the offender having 1000+ days in th AA , and no apologies from the offending alliance ....I'd have to say the blitz would be bigger ....and better connected ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmmehhh Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote name='JoshuaR' timestamp='1295042725' post='2575373'] I find the chatter about how MFO is lucky this wasn't worse or that it wouldn't have happened had it been another alliance amusing. Even in this instance, FAN is lucky to be alive. In general I'm all for aggressive diplomacy, but with such an aggressive defense including some thirty war declarations affecting a great deal more than the original perpetrator, it can no longer be classified as an aggressive action. Luckily I like FAN and am pretty busy. [/quote]FAN is lucky to be alive? How on earth were you planning to kill them? FAN has 3000 nukes and some solid friends too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.