James Spanier Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 10 hours ago, Monty of the Herm said: The 4000 soldiers does make for a pretty blatant and obvious act of war, but even if it were strictly a tech deal it still is just as much an act of war nonetheless. Tech enhances a nation's fighting capability and ability to inflict damage on an opponent. This is a very clearcut CB with probably close to a decade of precedent on Planet Bob. It's a lot stronger CB than several wars in the past where the entire CB was "we don't like you" and nothing more. Oh yeah and it's good to see a DoW finally done in honor of me... To Camelot!!! o/ So when does Pacifica go to war with ODN for that tech deal with eejack from the 12th? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandystalin Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 Based on current practice, I'd say expect the DoW on the 25th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ch33kY Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 Just now, Mandystalin said: Based on current practice, I'd say expect the DoW on the 25th The Plan has been foiled!And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackatron Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 2 hours ago, James Spanier said: So when does Pacifica go to war with ODN for that tech deal with eejack from the 12th? Well honestly I have noticed quite a few times when nations at war, with Oculus, have received aid from alliances not in the conflict, Oculus either doesn't care or doesn't notice, because a few sporadic tech deals aren't worth worrying over. Of course this time it is made more problematic by the inclusion of soldiers, but it is not a CB against the alliance when aid is sent by one member, it only becomes so if it is revealed that his AA requested he provide the aid or if they refuse to come to a reasonable resolution regarding their member's actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathAdder Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 3 hours ago, James Spanier said: So when does Pacifica go to war with ODN for that tech deal with eejack from the 12th? I fail to see any soldiers in that one. It's already been resolved, though, thanks for asking! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Spanier Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 Just now, DeathAdder said: I fail to see any soldiers in that one. It's already been resolved, though, thanks for asking! 4 minutes ago, Blackatron said: Well honestly I have noticed quite a few times when nations at war, with Oculus, have received aid from alliances not in the conflict, Oculus either doesn't care or doesn't notice, because a few sporadic tech deals aren't worth worrying over. Of course this time it is made more problematic by the inclusion of soldiers, but it is not a CB against the alliance when aid is sent by one member, it only becomes so if it is revealed that his AA requested he provide the aid or if they refuse to come to a reasonable resolution regarding their member's actions. "...but even if it were strictly a tech deal it still is just as much an act of war nonetheless." - Monty of the Herm The point of my reply was highlighting the absurdity of the comment to which I replied, within the context provided by the person I replied to. Thanks for playing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathAdder Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, James Spanier said: "...but even if it were strictly a tech deal it still is just as much an act of war nonetheless." - Monty of the Herm The point of my reply was highlighting the absurdity of the comment to which I replied, within the context provided by the person I replied to. Thanks for playing. Actually, if you bothered to read, Monty's quote was in regards to the precedent of Aid being sent during war being an established thing on Bob for over 10 yrs that -could- be punishable by recognizing a CB against the offending Alliance. A precedent doesn't really mean a dictation. Furthermore the only real absurdity is your expectation that KoRT, who is tied to AA's our sphere is at war with should be given the same consideration on how to handle an FA situation as an Allied Alliance, whose aiding was conducted by an actual newb as opposed to just a noob... Either way, ODN has the decency to understand their Govt=Responsible for actions of rank and file. Pleasure of playing was all mine. Edited March 20, 2017 by DeathAdder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Spanier Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 1 minute ago, DeathAdder said: Actually, if you bothered to read, Monty's quote was in regards to the precedent of Aid being sent during war being an established thing on Bob for over 10 yrs that -could- be punishable by recognizing a CB against the offending Alliance. A precedent doesn't really mean a dictation. Pleasure of playing was all mine. I did bother to read, and I refuted the notion. There weren't uncertain terms in their reply, which is why I replied with my reply. Where I will concede is that in their later statement, that I had not read, they stepped back and added greater context to their statement. Thanks for getting me to go back a page and update myself on their stance. However their original statement which was what I was referring to is not any less absurd, so good try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathAdder Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, James Spanier said: I did bother to read, and I refuted the notion. There weren't uncertain terms in their reply, which is why I replied with my reply. Where I will concede is that in their later statement, that I had not read, they stepped back and added greater context to their statement. Thanks for getting me to go back a page and update myself on their stance. However their original statement which was what I was referring to is not any less absurd, so good try. I'm pretty sure that even Monty realized his initial post was kind of absurd, or rather the initial wording of it, which is why he corrected himself when that was pointed out by the first guy. Edited March 20, 2017 by DeathAdder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty of the Herm Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, James Spanier said: I did bother to read, and I refuted the notion. There weren't uncertain terms in their reply, which is why I replied with my reply. Where I will concede is that in their later statement, that I had not read, they stepped back and added greater context to their statement. Thanks for getting me to go back a page and update myself on their stance. However their original statement which was what I was referring to is not any less absurd, so good try. Apparently people have a really hard time understanding the overall point I was making by questioning parts of what I originally said which still make my original post completely valid. So maybe reiterating my point a third time will do the trick. There is a long-standing precedent on Planet Bob where wars have been started with extremely shoddy CB's with no substantive reason beyond simple dislike of an alliance or utter boredom. Even if this CB were simply for tech being sent it is a more substantive justification for war than simply dislike or boredom. Whether things have softened over time doesn't mean that there isn't precedent on Planet Bob for far less justifiable CB's. Edited March 20, 2017 by Monty of the Herm Grammar, punctuation, etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandystalin Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 4 hours ago, DeathAdder said: Either way, ODN has the decency to understand their Govt=Responsible for actions of rank and file. Oh, so you did spend those 13 days in diplomatic talks with KoRT. I'm most relieved, now I don't look quite so naive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tevron Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 2 hours ago, Mandystalin said: Oh, so you did spend those 13 days in diplomatic talks with KoRT. I'm most relieved, now I don't look quite so naive. I am going to say this to you again since you can't seem to read arguments that reveal your gaslighting. Quote Why would they do that when they could destroy them and assert their supremacy? Welcome to politics 101. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandystalin Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 So can we take that as an official NPO announcement that the issue of aid was simply an excuse to launch a war - that no effort at diplomacy was made and that y'all just don't give a monkeys? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caustic Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 You can take it however you want. I don't think any one of us cares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duderonomy Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) I thought that this was simply an excuse to quote Monty Python, and I'm quite disappointed in all of you. Stop repressing NPO, Mandystalin. Edited March 20, 2017 by Duderonomy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse End Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 This is an official NPO announcement that we declared on KoRT. That is all. Continue with the psychoanalyzing though, I love watching people obsess about us. 3 minutes ago, Duderonomy said: I thought that this was simply an excuse to quote Monty Python, and I'm quite disappointed in all of you. Stop repressing NPO, Mandystalin. If someone hated us already, they're going to hate us for everything we do. It doesn't bother us, we're used to it. Haters always hate #1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandystalin Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Jesse End said: Continue with the psychoanalyzing though, I love watching people obsess about us. If someone hated us already, they're going to hate us for everything we do. Now who is psychoanalysing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathAdder Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Mandystalin said: Now who is psychoanalysing? The frothing at the mouth that is generally given to the reigning Alliances or Hegemonies is far from an unconscious act from any of you faux moralists. Your inability to grasp the concept of power politics and the proper activation of a casus belli provided, and in turn jump to paranoid conclusions as to why it actually took place over our stated reason, is your own inadequacy. Not ours. Keep fishing, though, it really is amusing to watch you run around and reach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, DeathAdder said: The frothing at the mouth that is generally given to the reigning Alliances or Hegemonies is far from an unconscious act from any of you faux moralists. Your inability to grasp the concept of power politics and the proper activation of a casus belli provided, and in turn jump to paranoid conclusions as to why it actually took place over our stated reason, is your own inadequacy. Not ours. Keep fishing, though, it really is amusing to watch you run around and reach. Also, if you catch any fish, I call dibs on eating them. Logic Algorithm regarding situation: CommunityDeclaration (PartyA,PartyB,PartyC,AtWar) Declarations: PartyA Entity PartyB Entity PartyC Entity AtWar Boolean Array Aid Boolean Array CasusBelli Array user AllianceLeadershipEntity If (PartyA.AtWar(PartyB) ==True){ then If (PartyC.Aid(PartyA)==True){ PartyB.CasusBelli=PartyC.True; else if (PartyC.Aid(PartyB) == True){ PartyA.CasusBelli=PartyC.True; If (Party(x).CasusBelli == Party(z).True, set user = Party(x); var = raw_input("(F)orgive, (N)egotiate (S)ettlement, (W)ar, (O)ther?: ") Return var; In summary, having a casus belli doesn't dictate what you do with it, that's a matter of user input. Also, key note that the offending party grants the choice of action. User input could likely be predicted by another logic algorithm that'd be to complex to really build here as it contains too many variables including items that cannot be quantified such as mood and sanity. Edited March 20, 2017 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eejack Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 49 minutes ago, Maelstrom Vortex said: Logic Algorithm regarding situation: First time I have seen dick move described in pseudo code. Interdasting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 It's really a dick move? The logic is there, pure, sweet, and simple. KORT would not be in war if they had not validated one of the if statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScandinavianTaco Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 I'm disappointed in my beloved KoRT for even giving pretext to such an indomitable AA. Down the well we go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) Is vainglorious leadership stuck in peacemode giving you migraines? Does there seem no reprieve from taking the responsibility for other's shallow and poorly executed actions? Say no more! Contact Pacifica's leadership for a personal settlement claim today. We're here to listen.* *All peace agreements contingent upon the approval of high command. We will not be held liable for inaction on your part, act now while supplies may be in stock. use reference code MV for possible discount on your salvation, offer code is in a quantum state depending on high command's mood so no guarantee of value can be given. Edited March 21, 2017 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eejack Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 5 hours ago, Maelstrom Vortex said: It's really a dick move? The logic is there, pure, sweet, and simple. KORT would not be in war if they had not validated one of the if statements. Yes. Taking the action of a single nation and with no conversation attack an alliance is a dick move. The 'logic' you wield is nigh on a club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted March 22, 2017 Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) The alliance is responsible for their member's action and internal discipline. Plus, they could always contact our leadership and take responsibility for the action, there has been no indication that they have done this and therefore taken responsibility for correcting their offense. This is not a dick move. This is Justice. This is forcing the irresponsible to become responsible. The inactive to become active, the unaccountable to accounting. Learn or face the consequences. If you believe internal protocols cannot prevent this, then explain how so many other alliances pull this off. Edited March 22, 2017 by Maelstrom Vortex 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.