Jump to content

To Camelot!


Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by DeathAdder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by DeathAdder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Monty of the Herm
Grammar, punctuation, etc...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mandystalin said:

Now who is psychoanalysing? :D

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...