A Statement from Doomhouse

[Earogema]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1300668004' post='2671603']
Their payment does not grant us the luxury of ignoring the past and its parallels with the present.

Step 1) Suffer a terrible defeat as all those you've wronged rise up in response to another one of your assaults.
Step 2) Go radio silent to avoid a hostile public sphere.
Step 3) Rebuild yourself and your network of allies.
Step 4) Phase back into the public sphere and pursue those who defeated you.
Step 5) Drive enemies from the world or convert them to vassals.
Step 6) Eat babies.

It requires willful blindness or sheer ignorance of history in order to miss the blatant repeat of past tactics. Pacifica is not wrong to attempt a return to power by the road that was so useful to them in the past, but it would be wrong of us who value the post-Karma war to allow it to occur. If an enemy appears unchanged in attitude, policy, and association, then they remain a threat and must be dealt with.

The next three responses to this post will be illogical "lolparanoia".
[/quote]
Except you had no proof them pursuing anything (NPO wasn't even part of the WCE logs because we knew they would most likely be a liability since the likes of MK would want to target them). In addition, the "network of allies" they once held was significantly reduced, both to less quantity and quality of alliances. They didn't have the political capital to pursue anybody either. The fact that you are still somehow raging an offensive war on them with literally no CB and that it's [i]actually working[/i] is proof of that.

It is paranioa.

Besides, even if somehow NPO was coming for you, if you were somehow going to lose a war against one of the most hated alliances of Planet Bob after having a very destructive war and terms that have been the worst that the Planet has ever seen, then you probably deserved to lose.

This situation isn't the same as prior ones. This situation involves the alliance that held the dominant position on the Planet for 3 years. You can draw parallels, but you won't get the same results.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Earogema

[mmansfield68]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300677231' post='2671828']

I love how people claim to speak for everyone else. Considering your ally is involved, it's kind of funny. Wonder how it's been rationalized when it's clear they entered because they wanted to.
[/quote]
I am one, yet many.

I too have stood where you now stand.

[flak attack]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1300673871' post='2671757']doing that would totally destroy any credibility they have left and have some allies questioning themselves whether they want to stay treatied to those nuts.
[/quote]
Yes, it would. Rational actor theory and all that. Refusing to grant NPO peace after making the deal would ruin us, and quite frankly, I wouldn't count that as a win. I'm not going to throw away a victory just like that.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1300674104' post='2671765']
Yes, I did miss that. Sorry. I still stand by my point that had NPO ever admitted that they were sorry for those actions, MK would state it was insincere or some other !@#$%^&*.
[/quote]
It depends on the circumstances. If NPO did it at a time when the action (or their alliance) wasn't in the center of the public eye and did it in an obviously sincere way (getting their emperor to post it himself would be a good start). It's little secret that I dislike NATO (and I don't think I ever have liked them), yet I forgave them for their participation in the war because I felt that they genuinely believed they were wrong about what they did.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1300677587' post='2671834']
Will become less if the AA gets more destroyed.
[/quote]
Probably not likely, since 64Digits has had only 2 nations out of peace this entire war.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300677231' post='2671828']
Valhalla wasn't going to enter because of CSN countering you. It would have been because of the reps issue. You're full of crap if you think Valhalla was going to enter if you had just been offered white peace. You're not informed at all when you actually postulate that there was a legit chance of Duckroll helping NpO.[/quote]

You are right, though I never mentioned the reason for it. So no, I am not full of crap and you may have wanted to ask me what my line of thought was instead of assuming.


[quote]TheTrail isn't a member of the IRON council. Your pathetic ranting with the "you will get yours" crap has been entertaining, though. Always a blowhard.[/quote]

Right, though I would assume that TheTrail would know more of what was going on in IRON than you. My "pathetic" ranting...hahahahahaha. Also, blowhard. awesome, I have reduced you to ad hominems since you can't apparently come up with any actual arguments.


[quote]Oh no. Better start crying. You've been threatening this since the start and still no one gives a !@#$. Keep up the tough guy act.[/quote]

With all of the threatening done by the League/AEGIS and then UjP, how long was it until NPO got theirs? Oh that is right, years. I am patient. You will get yours and it appears, if you look through this thread, there are many who do give a !@#$. Keep up with the blinders though.

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1300679302' post='2671864']
It depends on the circumstances. If NPO did it at a time when the action (or their alliance) wasn't in the center of the public eye and did it in an obviously sincere way (getting their emperor to post it himself would be a good start). It's little secret that I dislike NATO (and I don't think I ever have liked them), yet I forgave them for their participation in the war because I felt that they genuinely believed they were wrong about what they did.
[/quote]

Okay, I can accept this. Thank you for your honesty.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Dochartaigh

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1300679302' post='2671864']
Probably not likely, since 64Digits has had only 2 nations out of peace this entire war.
[/quote]
This is a blatant lie. We currently have only 2 nations in war mode, but 4 have fought. Of the two who have not yet fought, one is in hippie due to orders, one because he is not nearly active enough at the moment to fight properly, and I don't feel he should waste what he has when it won't do any damage to Doomhouse.

The other two have made great sacrifices to this effort and are merely reloading.

Edit: Oh, and this doesn't count the people we've lost to inactivity either.

Edited March 21, 2011 by HeroofTime55

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1300677587' post='2671834']
Naw, just 80m.

Will become less if the AA gets more destroyed.
[/quote]
No it won't. You've already stated that a raw inability to pay will result in an equivalent of forced tech deals.

[Sir Humphrey]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1300674808' post='2671780']
Saying NPO would not enter is an insult to your intelligence for trying to sell us that, it's an insult to our intelligence for expecting us to believe it and it's an insult to NPO's intelligence for considering letting their allies burn.

Stop while you can please.
[/quote]
Actually, this can easily be resolved by Doomhouse showing what evidence it had of a clear intention by NPO to enter (ordinarily a prerequisite for preemptive strikes), rather than relying on supposition and assumption. Given your side made the assertion, it is up to you to back it up, and I have yet to see such evidence.

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300673943' post='2671761']How is it not preempting to attack an alliance whose MDP has been attacked?[/quote]
I know we have been over this before, but none of NPO's MDP partners had been attacked. You assumed that NPO's MDP partners would enter because [i]their[/i] MDP partners had been attacked, but even that was not a foregone conclusion.

Edit: The very fact that NPO was attacked by alliances with long-standing grudges against it ironically demonstrates why NPO may have intended to avoid entering altogether.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Sir Humphrey

[flak attack]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1300681821' post='2671891']
Actually, this can easily be resolved by Doomhouse showing what evidence it had of a clear intention by NPO to enter (ordinarily a prerequisite for preemptive strikes), rather than relying on supposition and assumption. Given your side made the assertion, it is up to you to back it up, and I have yet to see such evidence.
[/quote]
*sigh*

We've done that like 5 times now.

[Sir Humphrey]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1300682130' post='2671897']
*sigh*

We've done that like 5 times now.
[/quote]
So your side keeps saying, but I have yet to see any evidence of a clear intention by NPO to enter. Roq has referred to logs in which NPO's allies discussed entering, but that is hardly evidence of a clear intention by those allies to enter, let alone evidence of a clear intention by NPO to enter.

Edit: And my interest is genuine. I want to know whether this was based on anything more than an assessment of how the treaty chain was likely to play out, i.e. [i]if[/i] NPO's MDP treaty partners decided to enter, then they are likely to be countered, and then NPO is likely to enter in their defence - this is not consistent with a common understanding of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war"]preemptive war[/url], but may be acceptable to this community. If so, I would be interested in the historical precedents.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Sir Humphrey

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1300682130' post='2671897']
*sigh*

We've done that like 5 times now.
[/quote]
Lets stop kidding ourselves.

If this was about the VE-Polar war, we wouldn't still be at war. The ridiculous demands you make betray that lie. The Polar front has long since been closed, and it is readily apparent that this is a war of hatred and paranoia, you want to put down the "big bad NPO" while you still have a chance.

Which is, frankly, why we can't trust you enough to 'buy' peace from you. You're not going to stop being paranoid, you won't stop being hateful, you're just going to attack us again at the next available opportunity.

Edited March 21, 2011 by HeroofTime55

[Monster]

Could it be that it was part of the Polar-VE thing but we don't feel it'd make sense for them to walk away with those nations having been in pm the entire time?

[Sardonic]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300680112' post='2671873']
No it won't. You've already stated that a raw inability to pay will result in an equivalent of forced tech deals.
[/quote]
You're still able currently, if that changes, so will the terms.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1300675101' post='2671787']
if by my side you mean the likes of HoT, MVP and what not.... seriously. Or if you mean NPO/et al... yeah my side is not that side. DT is allied to NV, NoR, Symphony, Valhalla, GR, FHU, and Blackhorse. That is my side. 2 of those alliances are currently fighting on the side of DH. So, if my "side" brings it up more often, then your sentence is quite contradictory.[/quote]
Your side of this general debate and arguments over doomhouse and MK.

[quote]It doesn't contradict your statement. I was countering the fact that you claimed I was basing your actions off of NPO's past actions. So I stated that I did not but it was easy to use NPO as a reference, much like people like using other past events as a way to reference something that occurs today. [/quote]
Why use it as a reference, then? So what if NPO did it in the past? Few have claimed that everything NPO ever did was bad, so simply saying that NPO did it doesn't make it bad.

[quote]Fine, you did not mean it that way but guess what? You still mirrored something they did. Thus, I was able to use that past event to show that the rest of the !@#$%^&* announcement about justice and !@#$ like that is simply one huge lie[/quote]
Where did anyone say anything about "justice" for NPO not wanting enemies to hide in peace mode to avoid war.

[quote]Actually, if you have read my other posts based on the stats and how NPO would be totally destroyed after this one month of war. So no, I am not claiming it is wrong only because of NPO having done it in the past. So, i have attacked it based on its own immorality and proven it to be immoral. [/quote]
OK, stick to that instead of the NPO in the past comparisons.

[quote]So if it is tactical, then how come for NPO it is no longer tactical? Because you don't get to destroy their heavily outnumbered and outgunned upper tier? honestly, the only real argument i have to that is boo-friggin-hoo. Don't start a war if you are only going to cry about your opponent using a [b]valid[/b] tactic that you even agree is valid.[/quote]
Hiding nations in peace mode to avoid war entirely is not a tactical move. It is a broad strategic move to avoid war entirely. Tactical use of peace mode is going into peace mode to get out of nuclear anarchy so you can declare wars and/or collect, recharge nukes, stagger opponents when you come out, control declarations, (OOC avoid fighting if you are going ot be gone IRL), etc. It is doing it for a military purpose, to enhance your ability to fight, not to avoid fighting entirely. I have no problem with using peace mode for that purpose.

However I don't agree with using peace mode to avoid fighting entirely. I don't agree that it is a valid "tactic." It is a cowardly strategy and should not be acceptable. It's no better than those who look for any excuse to avoid fighting when your MDP partner is attacked. It's a version of infra > friends. (OOC: if it's allowed to happen, it will be a very serious blow to the game in general. War drives this game, and if everyone avoids war via peace mode whenever they are going to lose, it will kill wars. It's up to we as players to make the game one conducive towards fun and it does the exact opposite.) If an alliance doesn't want to fight wars, it should become neutral. You don't get to join the system of wars and treaties and then refuse to play when it doesn't go your way.

[quote]Aiight, I did forget about NoCB's reps. Though, NPO has paid that much out already. The reason Legion's reps are so high are !@#$@#$ retarded and honestly, it is getting to the point, I am willing to become a hypocrite myself when DH gets hit by their own Karma. I honestly hope if this is the so-called justness of this new world, I hope that MK, Umbrella, and GOONS are utterly destroyed to the point that it would take years for ya'll to be even capable of returning to a tenth of ya'lls size now. Your justness is not wanted, needed, or actually just at all. It is the opposite and can only be considered despotic, tyrannical, and oppressive.[/quote]
Legion's reps are acceptable for the reasons stated above about use of peace mode. I wouldn't give them peace at all in their current state. If they actually fight, they shouldn't get reps IMO.

[quote]Wait, I thought that we were just supposed to discuss things on the merit of its actions today. Not based on the past? Double standards much? How about you stop bringing up the past in order to make your actions today look like they are not nearly as bad as they are. [/quote]
I was responding to your comment comparing terms to the past. If you want to do that terms should be looked at in their entirety, not just the reparations aspect of it.

[quote]Wait, read your quote above this... seriously, can you not help but exhibit double standards in your own posts? You want me to weigh the terms of today based on terms of the past, but only if I argue those terms on their own contemporary merits.... that is simply the stupidest thing I have heard. [/quote]
I don't want you to weigh the terms of today based on terms of the past, anything where I compared them was responding to your comparison.

[quote]Ya'll have stated part of the reason you hit NPO was due to Sir Paul's tabloid and him being a meanie to you guys. Another reason was because NPO did not try and become buddy buddy with you guys but stuck with alliances they actually considered to be true friends and allies. So from what I can tell, because they did not grovel for your forgiveness and because they allowed one of their members to insult you in a tabloid, this became part of the reason you attacked NPO. So DH at least in part attacked an alliance because said alliance insulted them and did not grovel at their feet.

Sure, more people are vocal now than before but it is apparent that if those same people get to far out of line, they may damn well be aggressively attacked by DH.[/quote]
You don't see us going after other alliances for individual posters (like BAPS for Alterego, for example). Sir Paul's tabloid was and is presented as an official NPO publication, and it went far beyond simple criticism but to a clearly coordinated propaganda campaign.

[Ardus]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1300685575' post='2671935']
You're still able currently, if that changes, so will the terms.
[/quote]
You know good and well that forcing efficient reconstruction on an opponent is immoral.

[Emperor Whimsical]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1300685876' post='2671942']
You know good and well that forcing efficient reconstruction on an opponent is immoral.
[/quote]

No silly goose, that's disbanding alliances. I would know. :3

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300685004' post='2671925']
Could it be that it was part of the Polar-VE thing but we don't feel it'd make sense for them to walk away with those nations having been in pm the entire time?
[/quote]No, it couldn't be, because you wouldn't give two $%&@s if you were only here to "defend" VE. But you care about hurting NPO, not just tying them up to help VE.

[Penguin]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1300685876' post='2671942']
You know good and well that forcing efficient reconstruction on an opponent is immoral.
[/quote]
Mandatory aid falls? Now that's a surrender term!

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1300685869' post='2671941']
Your side of this general debate and arguments over doomhouse and MK.[/quote]

I can give you this to a point. I have sided with MK over issues such as when TOP/co pre-empted them.

[quote]Why use it as a reference, then? So what if NPO did it in the past? Few have claimed that everything NPO ever did was bad, so simply saying that NPO did it doesn't make it bad.[/quote]

I don't claim that if NPO did it, it was bad. It was ya'll who hit NPO because of NPO's past. Figuring on how similar NPO's past is compared to what you are doing now, would be the reason for the referencing. Maybe if you hit NPO over something other than their past, then there would be no need to point out the similarities.

[quote]Where did anyone say anything about "justice" for NPO not wanting enemies to hide in peace mode to avoid war.[/quote]

The OP claimed some sort of new just world would be created. One cannot believe that a just new world will be created using unjust methods.

[quote]OK, stick to that instead of the NPO in the past comparisons.[/quote]

Fine, then you stick to what NPO did post-Karma and don't mention anything pre-Karma. Then attempt to justify your actions including this OP.

[quote]Hiding nations in peace mode to avoid war entirely is not a tactical move. It is a broad strategic move to avoid war entirely. Tactical use of peace mode is going into peace mode to get out of nuclear anarchy so you can declare wars and/or collect, recharge nukes, stagger opponents when you come out, control declarations, (OOC avoid fighting if you are going ot be gone IRL), etc. It is doing it for a military purpose, to enhance your ability to fight, not to avoid fighting entirely. I have no problem with using peace mode for that purpose.[/quote]

Sure it is a valid tactical method. I have mentioned numerous times the sheer disadvantage NPO has in the upper tiers. Why should they allow them to be destroyed? Tactically (talking beyond this war) that makes absolutely no sense as a destroyed upper tier would take a long time to rebuild and would leave NPO weak and even more so at the mercy of the likes of DH.

There are more than your own accepted methods of warfare.

[quote]However I don't agree with using peace mode to avoid fighting entirely. I don't agree that it is a valid "tactic." It is a cowardly strategy and should not be acceptable. It's no better than those who look for any excuse to avoid fighting when your MDP partner is attacked. It's a version of infra > friends. (OOC: if it's allowed to happen, it will be a very serious blow to the game in general. War drives this game, and if everyone avoids war via peace mode whenever they are going to lose, it will kill wars. It's up to we as players to make the game one conducive towards fun and it does the exact opposite.) If an alliance doesn't want to fight wars, it should become neutral. You don't get to join the system of wars and treaties and then refuse to play when it doesn't go your way.[/quote]

wonderful. You don't agree. If war drives this game, then why are you guys ensuring NPO cannot war for a long ass time? Seems counter-productive does it not? Also, who is refusing to play? It appears that NPO/allies have destroyed over 4 million of MK's NS. that hardly seems like refusing to play. It appears you are more pissed they are refusing to play [i]your way[/i] than refusing to play.

If you destroy NPO and their allies, you are ensuring that they are incapable of warring (which supposedly drives this game according to you) for over a year unless they simply want to be curbstomped again. Unless that is what you are going for of course? Are you going for an assurance of future curbstomps so that you can relieve the boredom of your members? How can you honestly state that you think war drives the game, while ensuring you (DH) destroy a large chunk of alliances capability to war?

[quote]Legion's reps are acceptable for the reasons stated above about use of peace mode. I wouldn't give them peace at all in their current state. If they actually fight, they shouldn't get reps IMO.[/quote]

Just because you state they are acceptable, does not in fact make them acceptable. Why should they fight and be destroyed for a long ass time? Again, you are being contradictory. How can you honestly believe war drives this game, while you are stating that annihilating alliances ability to war?

[quote]I was responding to your comment comparing terms to the past. If you want to do that terms should be looked at in their entirety, not just the reparations aspect of it.

I don't want you to weigh the terms of today based on terms of the past, anything where I compared them was responding to your comparison.[/quote]

Alright, fine.

[quote]You don't see us going after other alliances for individual posters (like BAPS for Alterego, for example). Sir Paul's tabloid was and is presented as an official NPO publication, and it went far beyond simple criticism but to a clearly coordinated propaganda campaign.
[/quote]

Where did any NPO gov ever sign anything for the tabloid? I mean seriously, I continue to see MK claim that Archon, as the Voice of Karma, never spoke for MK if he used the VoK title, and yet, without an actual official sanction for the tabloid, it somehow represents NPO. If that is true, then Archon, regardless of whatever title he used, always represented MK.

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1300685876' post='2671942']
You know good and well that forcing efficient reconstruction on an opponent is immoral.
[/quote]

Well according to Penkala it most assuredly is, which is why when DT used tech deals with SSSW18 instead of reparations, it allowed CSN to demand 40k tech from DT.

so that is at least one other person who believes that that is an immoral term.

[Monster]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300687610' post='2671962']
No, it couldn't be, because you wouldn't give two $%&@s if you were only here to "defend" VE. But you care about hurting NPO, not just tying them up to help VE.
[/quote]

It could be because we wanted to help VE and don't want NPO to come out in good condition? I mean, NPO is not a peripheral alliance.

[Kyaris]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300687610' post='2671962']
No, it couldn't be, because you wouldn't give two $%&@s if you were only here to "defend" VE. But you care about hurting NPO, not just tying them up to help VE.
[/quote]

What exactly is your connection to NPO anyway, HoT? You don't have a treaty afaik, and they really don't care about you. Why all the support?

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300687944' post='2671969']
It could be because we wanted to help VE and don't want NPO to come out in good condition? I mean, NPO is not a peripheral alliance.
[/quote]
Nope. VE-Polaris was simply an opening you saw for you to finally roll NPO, something you have been trying to do for the past year, ever since Pacifica came out of their Karma terms. They paid up, and when the money stopped flowing, your sole mission was to drag them into a new war.

Yet another reason you can't be trusted. There's no reason to expect this war will quench your thirst for Pacifican blood if the last one didn't.

[Kyaris]

[quote name='Kilkenny' timestamp='1300673558' post='2671746']
You seriously can't now be trying to argue that your war against NPO is defensive??? and that those who are defending them are aggressors because you are defending??

this make what the 7th or 8th reason/excuse for the war??? Someone should publish a program so everyone can keep up!!
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure this is the stated reason in the DoW. A pre-emptive strategic attack to prevent NPO's re-rise to Hegemony, which is a direct threat to us, plus as a deterrent to keep the VE-NpO front from becoming complicated further by NPOs manipulations by giving them something else to worry about. I won't pretend to know if I'm interpreting it correctly, but as I understand it NPO, left alone, was a huge threat to our operational security, so we're out here taking care of it right now.

[Kilkenny]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1300685869' post='2671941']

Hiding nations in peace mode to avoid war entirely is not a tactical move. It is a broad strategic move to avoid war entirely. Tactical use of peace mode is going into peace mode to get out of nuclear anarchy so you can declare wars and/or collect, recharge nukes, stagger opponents when you come out, control declarations, (OOC avoid fighting if you are going ot be gone IRL), etc. It is doing it for a military purpose, to enhance your ability to fight, not to avoid fighting entirely. I have no problem with using peace mode for that purpose.

However I don't agree with using peace mode to avoid fighting entirely. I don't agree that it is a valid "tactic." It is a cowardly strategy and should not be acceptable. It's no better than those who look for any excuse to avoid fighting when your MDP partner is attacked. It's a version of infra > friends. (OOC: if it's allowed to happen, it will be a very serious blow to the game in general. War drives this game, and if everyone avoids war via peace mode whenever they are going to lose, it will kill wars. It's up to we as players to make the game one conducive towards fun and it does the exact opposite.) If an alliance doesn't want to fight wars, it should become neutral. You don't get to join the system of wars and treaties and then refuse to play when it doesn't go your way.
[/quote]

So anyone, no matter what alliance they are in, who remains in Peace Mode for an extended amount of time is a coward and such conduct is not acceptable??

[Penguin]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300687944' post='2671969']
It could be because we wanted to help VE and don't want NPO to come out in good condition? I mean, NPO is not a peripheral alliance.
[/quote]
I should probably be asking this to VE, but maybe they already answered and I missed it (and someone can point me to it ). Does VE want the NPO front to conclude in the manner presented by the opening post?

Edited March 21, 2011 by Penguin

[Sir Humphrey]

[quote name='Kyaris' timestamp='1300688412' post='2671977']
I'm pretty sure this is the stated reason in the DoW. A pre-emptive strategic attack to prevent NPO's re-rise to Hegemony, which is a direct threat to us, plus as a deterrent to keep the VE-NpO front from becoming complicated further by NPOs manipulations by giving them something else to worry about. I won't pretend to know if I'm interpreting it correctly, but as I understand it NPO, left alone, was a huge threat to our operational security, so we're out here taking care of it right now.
[/quote]
Actually, that is not what Roq is arguing. And it definitely does not constitute a preemptive strike. Edit: However, the fact that you interpreted it the way you did is quite revealing.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Sir Humphrey