An Open Letter to Roland_Up, and SKRev Regarding His Comment
Day 1,285, 07:05
•
Published in South Korea 
•
by
•
by obamalucas
This article is an open letter to roland_up and moreover, SKRev regarding roland's comment on [Announcement by Government/Sanction to SKRev] I was going to write it as a comment but I thought it would be better to put it this way to show my deepest concerns on this matter.
To begin with I'll start with a phrase from Dan/naD Wilshire's Battle Order
"Well I have decided that the SKRev will be “anti” Eden from now on. This country had its best days while being neutral and I know many of us don’t want that to change. So try to help Eden as little as possible!"
This does not sound neutral at all to me, and Dan/naD has given battle order directly contrasting each battle order MoD has given to the MUs.
Each MUs have been funded by the government with food and/or tanks to follow the government's battle orders and this cannot be regarded as a 'tyrannical regime' as there was a negotiation between Dan/naD Wilshire, leader of SKRev, and the government.
MoD's orders, including TW with Taiwan is controlled by means of diplomacy, meaning there are certain agreements on the overall results of the battle, win or loss, for the sake of both nations, and there should not be a situation where eskers fight regardless of which battle they are on, or whether they are defending or offending. MoD has clearly stated in his battle order that 'We must "lose" this battle because that is the most recent agreement by governments.'
Dan/naD Wilshire's action in trying to breach such agreement is directly against the governments diplomatic interchange with eRoC. If he was opposed to government's diplomatic decisions, he always had a chance to communicate with the government regarding his concerns, before he gave orders to his unit to fight against government's orders. This could be clearly seen as 'against National benefit' when SKRev is subsidized by the government.
I will not argue about Dan/naD Wilshire's decision to establish his military unit as "anti" Eden as it is not directly breaching the agreement esk government has made. It is his decision and I believe this decision cannot be interfered as long as it does not exercise bad influence on the decision the congress has made, to join EDEN. MoD has never forced eskers to fight for Eden, he only presented the priority of the battle considering the relationship with member nations of Eden.
Also, it would be great if you could come to IRC once so we could have a proper, yet 'not-so-appaling' argument to settle things down.
I truly do not want to see SKRev turning its back against our government we have spent months to build on.
Yours Sincerely,
Obamalucas
To begin with I'll start with a phrase from Dan/naD Wilshire's Battle Order
"Well I have decided that the SKRev will be “anti” Eden from now on. This country had its best days while being neutral and I know many of us don’t want that to change. So try to help Eden as little as possible!"
This does not sound neutral at all to me, and Dan/naD has given battle order directly contrasting each battle order MoD has given to the MUs.
Each MUs have been funded by the government with food and/or tanks to follow the government's battle orders and this cannot be regarded as a 'tyrannical regime' as there was a negotiation between Dan/naD Wilshire, leader of SKRev, and the government.
MoD's orders, including TW with Taiwan is controlled by means of diplomacy, meaning there are certain agreements on the overall results of the battle, win or loss, for the sake of both nations, and there should not be a situation where eskers fight regardless of which battle they are on, or whether they are defending or offending. MoD has clearly stated in his battle order that 'We must "lose" this battle because that is the most recent agreement by governments.'
Dan/naD Wilshire's action in trying to breach such agreement is directly against the governments diplomatic interchange with eRoC. If he was opposed to government's diplomatic decisions, he always had a chance to communicate with the government regarding his concerns, before he gave orders to his unit to fight against government's orders. This could be clearly seen as 'against National benefit' when SKRev is subsidized by the government.
I will not argue about Dan/naD Wilshire's decision to establish his military unit as "anti" Eden as it is not directly breaching the agreement esk government has made. It is his decision and I believe this decision cannot be interfered as long as it does not exercise bad influence on the decision the congress has made, to join EDEN. MoD has never forced eskers to fight for Eden, he only presented the priority of the battle considering the relationship with member nations of Eden.
Also, it would be great if you could come to IRC once so we could have a proper, yet 'not-so-appaling' argument to settle things down.
I truly do not want to see SKRev turning its back against our government we have spent months to build on.
Yours Sincerely,
Obamalucas
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
요약하면 대충
한국의 국가 정책 및 외교정책에 반하는 SK-REV의 베틀오더에 문제가 있다. 인덧..'ㅁ'
"This does not sound neutral at all to me, and Dan/naD has given battle order directly contrasting each battle order MoD has given to the MUs."
What he mean by neutral is neutral in respect of the clashes between the big alliances in general, i.e. anti-EDEN or anti-ONE, etc. which I think is fine. No one have to love them, or being forced to fight for them.
"Each MUs have been funded by the government with food and/or tanks to follow the government's battle orders and this cannot be regarded as a 'tyrannical regime' as there was a negotiation between Dan/naD Wilshire, leader of SKRev, and the government."
By 'tyrannical regime', I am referring to the anti-democratic nature of circumstance in joining EDEN, which I dont think most of the non Romanians voting understand what is that about. And these dealings you are referring to are not mutually exclusive to democrats.
"Dan/naD Wilshire's action in trying to breach such agreement is directly against the governments diplomatic interchange with eRoC."
I think you are overstating the case, he said to "hit as hard as they could", but even with that? Could they deliver enough damage to win 8 rounds against eROC? They do not have the ability to shift the result of the battle, so how do they change the diplomatic relation with eROC?
"This could be clearly seen as 'against National benefit' when SKRev is subsidized by the government."
Oh, you dont have to fund them, that's not what my disagreements are, but I do think bribing people to leave the MU go a bit too far. This is what I found appalling.
this has been settled with a direct conversation with Dan/naD Wilshire. I sincerely apologize for any of my language if I have offended anyone and I hope this matter is fully settled ----
@roland_up: I have to admit that I was overstating the case and I understand your last point. I apologize once again if I have offended you Dan/naD Wilshire and I hope to see harmony and unity between eskers once again for the sake of eSK
"Oh, you dont have to fund them"
But fund them we have, roland.
I don't know how you guys work but as soon as an MU gets state funding it has to follow state orders and current orders are quite pro-EDEN.
Your personal oppinion of EDEN is irrelevant - you get paid ( and accept that payement) then you are expected to do the job.
I find Dan's statement indeed unsettling and have expressed my concers regarding.
concerns*
good article obamalucas. you have my respect!
vote, good article
Crayven, if you don't want to fund them, then don't fund them.
The situation is pretty simple, no need to make it more complicated then that.
Myung the state offers funding to those who obey orders.
Once you receive said funding you must obey the state orders.
Taking the funds but declaring you are against said orders is like a shop-owner taking your money but not providing the service you paid for.
Yes it is simple. They just don't seem to get it and call out the current government 'tyrannical' and such other nonsense.
o7
@crayven Tru say I agree with ya. If u take the money it pretty much implies that you are giving something in return or else the world woulda gone crazy by now LOL. Some ppl gotta learn some common sense huh?
"Yes it is simple. They just don't seem to get it and call out the current government 'tyrannical' and such other nonsense. "
I have already explained that earlier, and it appear you are taking out one word and apply the context to something else, I am not going to repeat the explaination.
o7
"Myung the state offers funding to those who obey orders.
Once you receive said funding you must obey the state orders."
Perhaps it would have been wiser to do it the other way around? This isn't rocket science.
( 😁 ) https://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=%6e%61%6b%65%64%2d%67%69%72%6c%73%2e%6f%6e%6c%69%6e%65%2f%6b%6b%2f%78%6b%44%57%43%39%3f%73%6f%75%72%63%65%3d%65%72%65%70%75%62%6c%69%6b%26%61%64%5f%63%61%6d%70%61%69%67%6e%5f%69%64%3d1784716