TIR war update

[Rayvon]

7 hours ago, Immortan Junka said:

 

I differentiate between offensive and aggressive for a reason. A military offensive has no moral implications and simply refers to the type of kinetic operations conducted. An aggressive action however does carry moral and political implications and refers to the reason for war and not just tactical deployment.

 

As an Imperator Emeritus of an Order of Ivan I would hope you would have a deeper understanding of war, but I guess that's too much to ask for in this age of barbarism

 

As an Imperator of an Order of Ivan - a claim your puny worthless ass doesn't hold as you arrogantly tell me what I should and shouldn't understand, I understand that for Order to exist, every action must have a reaction and every choice a consequence. Every action starts with a choice. Your "philosophicals" make no difference, you are either in an aggressive stance or a defensive stance. There is little wiggle room in between. That you choose to hide behind semantics does not further Order nor justice nor anything. 

 

When your ally gets hit and put on the defensive, you per your agreement military up and take offensive aggressive action in reaction to the choice of the leaders of the alliance whom hit your ally. You build up, you step up and step forward, and you provide an aggressive response. This offensive action then triggers a defense clause in the alliance you hit, putting them on the defensive. Then you see one of two basic things: 1) cowards who hide behind 'non-chaining' clauses - "Oh, well they were hit first and you're hitting in their defense - you're on your own. See ya!" and 2) leaders who step forward and continue the chain of aggression ...  Till a point of Order eventually rises out of the chaos. 

Edited June 26, 2016 by Rayvon

[DoorNail]

When you declared on Kaskus, you declared on TIR too, basically. A protection agreement is a MDP.

 

We knew that there was a chance that TIR would be included, which is why we sent everyone that was active into peace mode before the ghost. I was just confirming, not complaining. Why this is even an issue after some of the other more juicy stuff was said is nothing but deflection away from the facts. You actually reinforce what was said about your side being the aggressors by including TIR and mentioning us in a DoW.

 

 

Sure, we could've made a DoW for 2 people ready to take on a massive bloc and been laughed at for it, that is what this war continues for anyway, humiliation because we've already been beaten down, but that's not enough blood is it? You want us to snivel and beg for you to turn us loose, but that's not going to happen.

Let's address the issue of you giving false statements, you know, where your rogue senator got santioned and you've twisted it into a "defensive" action by hitting the declare war button first, instead of trying a diplomatic solution. Tell us Auctor, did the Brokeback Mountain Cowboy have a hissy fit when he got knocked offf his horse?

If you're going to claim defensive, then you have to show us where you actually tried for a diplomatic solution, but we all know you didn't so that means you also have to claim your side is diplomatically incapable of even discussing an end to the war and equal to your failures that actually initiated war.

[The Zigur]

2 hours ago, Rayvon said:

 

As an Imperator of an Order of Ivan - a claim your puny worthless ass doesn't hold as you arrogantly tell me what I should and shouldn't understand, I understand that for Order to exist, every action must have a reaction and every choice a consequence. Every action starts with a choice. Your "philosophicals" make no difference, you are either in an aggressive stance or a defensive stance. There is little wiggle room in between. That you choose to hide behind semantics does not further Order nor justice nor anything. 

 

When your ally gets hit and put on the defensive, you per your agreement military up and take offensive aggressive action in reaction to the choice of the leaders of the alliance whom hit your ally. You build up, you step up and step forward, and you provide an aggressive response. This offensive action then triggers a defense clause in the alliance you hit, putting them on the defensive. Then you see one of two basic things: 1) cowards who hide behind 'non-chaining' clauses - "Oh, well they were hit first and you're hitting in their defense - you're on your own. See ya!" and 2) leaders who step forward and continue the chain of aggression ...  Till a point of Order eventually rises out of the chaos. 

 

Haughtily bragging about your status does not make you right; an offensive action is distinct from an aggressive action no matter how many times you angrily repeat yourself. 

 

Engaging to defend a treaty partner is always a defensive action, and you completely ignored my earlier logic: treaties are agreements between alliance sovereigns that provide increased common security (a defensive intent). Unless you are saying that alliance governments are not legitimate and sovereign entities, there is no way a defensive agreement can be considered an act of aggression when acted upon.

 

What you call "semantics" is actually an extremely important detail as it relates to the sovereignty of an alliance, and the position you take is simply embarassing and something I would expect someone like Lord Hitchcock to say.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Immortan Junka

[DoorNail]

WTF kind of jibberish is this? "Oh, well they were hit first and you're hitting in their defense - you're on your own. See ya!"

 

 

I don't know how your allies feel, but if you told me that we would not ba allies any more. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, anyone want to translate, I'm a little rusty on senile.

 

 

Watch out Junka, you don't want to get the "Order out of chaos" off balance, might break a hip trying to hit you with his cane.

 

Edited June 26, 2016 by DoorNail

[white majik]

I think caliph, :doornail:, and junka need to start an AA together 

[The Zigur]

4 minutes ago, white majik said:

I think caliph, :doornail:, and junka need to start an AA together 

 

I would be down to poach them both, but you guys won't give them peace

[DoorNail]

Just now, white majik said:

I think caliph, :doornail:, and junka need to start an AA together 

 

 

 

[Rayvon]

1 hour ago, DoorNail said:

WTF kind of jibberish is this? "Oh, well they were hit first and you're hitting in their defense - you're on your own. See ya!"

 

 

I don't know how your allies feel, but if you told me that we would not ba allies any more. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, anyone want to translate, I'm a little rusty on senile.

 

 

Watch out Junka, you don't want to get the "Order out of chaos" off balance, might break a hip trying to hit you with his cane.

 

 

Wow - good reading. You saw where I said that was one of two possible outcomes [the cowardice outcome to be specific] with non-chaining treaties and correlated it to a supposed statement you think I am making. Read in full: "Then you see one of two basic things: 1) cowards who hide behind 'non-chaining' clauses - "Oh, well they were hit first and you're hitting in their defense - you're on your own. See ya!" and 2) leaders who step forward and continue the chain of aggression "

 

If an ally said that to me as well, I'd also ensure we weren't allies anymore. Additionally, I wouldn't sign a non-chaining treaty to begin with. In for a penny, in for a pound.

 

As for :

1 hour ago, Immortan Junka said:

 

Haughtily bragging about your status does not make you right; an offensive action is distinct from an aggressive action no matter how many times you angrily repeat yourself. 

 

Engaging to defend a treaty partner is always a defensive action, and you completely ignored my earlier logic: treaties are agreements between alliance sovereigns that provide increased common security (a defensive intent). Unless you are saying that alliance governments are not legitimate and sovereign entities, there is no way a defensive agreement can be considered an act of aggression when acted upon.

 

What you call "semantics" is actually an extremely important detail as it relates to the sovereignty of an alliance, and the position you take is simply embarassing and something I would expect someone like Lord Hitchcock to say.

 

Right - sovereignty. Each alliance sovereign is making an agreement to work together, neither is giving up their sovereignty. Each alliance is still an individual entity working in conjunction, order and agreement with each other. Each is making a decision to make an action in every action they take. They are still two separate alliances, and thus one being hit does not literally indicate the other being hit.

 

For example: NSO and RIA hold an MDoAP. When NSO gets hit by NPO, RIA doesn't activate their defensive treaties "because a hit on NSO is a hit on RIA" - GOD, CRAP or TTK aren't going to "defend RIA in the aggression against NSO" .. RIA still maintains 100% sovereignty, and by way of their treaty, takes an aggressive stance against the alliance hitting NSO. Their allies, who are also fully sovereign, are going to engage when RIA actually gets engaged by an aggressive action. 

 

By your definition, signing a treaty releases sovereignty.

 

And regarding my status, you brought it up. You thought you could score a cheapshot, and when rebutted it all of a sudden doesn't matter. Don't bring it up to begin with; the positions I have held don't change my opinion and my definition of a treaty and alliance sovereignty.

 

Besides - this was all about two government members of TIR choosing to ghost their ally to take an aggressive action against an alliance that hit their protector. A choice made by TIR, and a consequence that followed TIR.

[DoorNail]

Rayvon you're comparing an optional treaty to a protection agreement, basically an MDP which is not optional. Had we have been hit first Kaskus would have rolled out in defence and I seriously doubt they would even bother to question the reason.

 

 

It's well known and the only treaty we have that's officially posted. It's not our fault that Oculas didn't include us in the initial attacks on our brothers and sisters in Kaskus. That protection treaty came about when GOONS attacked us, that was back when Sardonic was leading them and we were under a different alliance name, definately not a new treaty.

 

 

Again, this is not really an issue worth going on about, we knew it was possible for TIR to be declared on because of our ghosting. To back that up when me and Ace declared, we went after those who had attacked Kaskus which was Sengoku, not the Oculas bloc.

 

edit...The decision to ghost came about after taking a roll call and asking who was ready for war, there were two and another that is semi-active about twice a week. The rest had real life to deal with and that always takes a priority in this game. So when TIR was included, all of the nations attacked were inactives or they would've went to PM. Oculas destroyed a bunch of inactive nations, wasn't that enough payback for two of us ghosting?  Obviously not and some how makes us the aggressive side according to the other side.

 

 

Edited June 26, 2016 by DoorNail

[The Zigur]

My arguments should not be construed as supporting one side or the other in the squabble... my concern is mostly with countering the perception that defending a treaty partner is an act of aggression. If it becomes acceptable, even expected, that treaty partners do not defend their ally, this will have serious geopolitical ramifications down the road and will decrease political stability for any alliance that's isn't part of the ruling coalition, so to speak.

 

Of course, an alliance can choose not to defend a treaty partner, and sometimes a valid case can be made for this to be the case... it's why I like optional treaties. But to not do so in the case of a mandatory treaty certainly encourages some well-deserved ridicule and impacts the credibility of the treaty-dodging alliance.

 

Ultimately, because alliances are sovereign, all treaties are optional. However, that does not make engaging in defense of a treaty partner an act of aggression. That case could be made if there is a "secret treaty;" but a clearly defined defense pact removes any element of aggression, being publicly stated before military operations take place. It's something the actual aggressor has to factor into his calculations hopefully without trying to enforce harsh terms against an "aggressor" defending his ally (as happened to IAA in 2008 for defending GATO).

 

Edited June 26, 2016 by Immortan Junka

[Haflinger]

1 hour ago, white majik said:

I think caliph, :doornail:, and junka need to start an AA together 

Caliph's not free to do anything like that, and I don't think the other two want to join Last Call somehow.

[DoorNail]

Guess it would be appropriate to say thanks, because now we have several more allies that have all gotten together for a common threat and we're all pissed off.

 

 

Not sure if that's what was intended, but it's happening and simply the reaction to Oculas actions.

 

 

When I first approached Auctor privately about ending the war, kindness and reason was on my mind, but I was told I didn't have authority to speak for my own alliance, let alone the other leaders/involved members on our side that I was actively speaking to, big mistake there cowboy, when you underetimate somebody, don't be upset when you get you ass handed to you on a plate.

[DoorNail]

Just now, Haflinger said:

Caliph's not free to do anything like that, and I don't think the other two want to join Last Call somehow.

LC was one of the alliances who stuck their nose into a legit CB we had on Kashmir, yeah I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[Stoopid Ace]

1 hour ago, DoorNail said:

When I first approached Auctor privately about ending the war, kindness and reason was on my mind, but I was told I didn't have authority to speak for my own alliance, let alone the other leaders/involved members on our side that I was actively speaking to, big mistake there cowboy, when you underetimate somebody, don't be upset when you get you ass handed to you on a plate.

 

I just want to clarify if anyone is still wondering or unsure...DoorNail has complete authority to speak and negotiate on behalf of TIR. That is all. 

[Auctor]

ok cool. Well if he has authority to speak for yall, hitting yall as a response to him hitting us was entirely justified. Thanks for playing.

[Rayvon]

 

 

5 hours ago, DoorNail said:

Rayvon you're comparing an optional treaty to a protection agreement, basically an MDP which is not optional. Had we have been hit first Kaskus would have rolled out in defence and I seriously doubt they would even bother to question the reason.

 

It's well known and the only treaty we have that's officially posted. It's not our fault that Oculas didn't include us in the initial attacks on our brothers and sisters in Kaskus. That protection treaty came about when GOONS attacked us, that was back when Sardonic was leading them and we were under a different alliance name, definately not a new treaty.

 

Again, this is not really an issue worth going on about, we knew it was possible for TIR to be declared on because of our ghosting. To back that up when me and Ace declared, we went after those who had attacked Kaskus which was Sengoku, not the Oculas bloc.

 

edit...The decision to ghost came about after taking a roll call and asking who was ready for war, there were two and another that is semi-active about twice a week. The rest had real life to deal with and that always takes a priority in this game. So when TIR was included, all of the nations attacked were inactives or they would've went to PM. Oculas destroyed a bunch of inactive nations, wasn't that enough payback for two of us ghosting?  Obviously not and some how makes us the aggressive side according to the other side.

 

 

 

"Protection agreement" - Kaskus agrees to protect you unilaterally. Otherwise it is an MDP and not a Protection Agreement. If you want to traverse that conversational road, it's far from the road that Junka decided to derail down - but at least it's about you and on-topic. Whereas the rest, you seem to think I'm talking about you, when I'm addressing Junka's philosophical disagreement derailment.

 

You made a choice to go and ghost, which you also admit you realize might get the rest of TIR declared on [" we knew it was possible for TIR to be declared on because of our ghosting"]. This is because you know that you are making a choice to insert yourself when you were not attacked. You are taking an aggressive action (again - you've done this before, my 'definition of insanity' reference) against those alliances. That this protection agreement that you've got confused with an MDP is your only treaty, is irrelevant. It's still a unilateral treaty you have confused and can't keep straight. Just sign an MDP already and you're good to go - hell, make it an MADP and y'all can run together tied to the hip till the cow's come home with no question. That doesn't change the fact that, even with an MDP/MADP, if you as a government member ghost an alliance (or a step further, multiple government members ghost and attack), you are taking your full alliance along for the ride.

 

 

As I said at the end of my previous post: 

"Besides - this was all about two government members of TIR choosing to ghost their ally to take an aggressive action against an alliance that hit their protector. A choice made by TIR, and a consequence that followed TIR." But I'll go back to Junka's derail:

5 hours ago, Immortan Junka said:

My arguments should not be construed as supporting one side or the other in the squabble... my concern is mostly with countering the perception that defending a treaty partner is an act of aggression. If it becomes acceptable, even expected, that treaty partners do not defend their ally, this will have serious geopolitical ramifications down the road and will decrease political stability for any alliance that's isn't part of the ruling coalition, so to speak.

 

Of course, an alliance can choose not to defend a treaty partner, and sometimes a valid case can be made for this to be the case... it's why I like optional treaties. But to not do so in the case of a mandatory treaty certainly encourages some well-deserved ridicule and impacts the credibility of the treaty-dodging alliance.

 

Ultimately, because alliances are sovereign, all treaties are optional. However, that does not make engaging in defense of a treaty partner an act of aggression. That case could be made if there is a "secret treaty;" but a clearly defined defense pact removes any element of aggression, being publicly stated before military operations take place. It's something the actual aggressor has to factor into his calculations hopefully without trying to enforce harsh terms against an "aggressor" defending his ally (as happened to IAA in 2008 for defending GATO).

 

 

Who said anything about my perception intending to make it acceptable for anyone to not defend? The agreements are made. If I give you my word (especially on paper) that I'm going to defend you, that's that. I'm going to defend you. That's why we sign an agreement together. Neither you or I are giving up our sovereignty. Neither you or I are seeing it acceptable or expected that each other is going to break our word. You alliance and my alliance remain entirely sovereign, but we have a public agreement that if you $%&@ with one of us you're !@#$@#$ with the other.

 

Again, as my previous example wrote: if one half of a treaty get's hit, the other half has not been hit. But they have an obligation to take action. The hit alliance activates a defense clause in the treaty, asking the other alliance to take action. "take action" .. 

 

I step in to defend you, you're on the defense and I'm on the offense against the same party. That other party is offensive against you and defensive against me.

 

Exactly so, all treaties are essentially optional due to sovereignty. Your entire philosophical argument is in contradiction to this fact. Your philosophical argument is that once that treaty is signed, each alliance is now one. One gets hit, both are defensive. That means if you get hit, my other allies would have to act as if it was I that got hit. 

 

This takes nothing away from the fact that a defensive pact is a defensive pact. You're agreeing to defend your ally from attack. You're agreeing to "take action" and "go hit" the person who hit your ally. 

[The Zigur]

Well now you are saying "offensive" instead of "aggressive" so there is nothing we really disagree about. But when I look at a war, I see an aggressive coalition and defensive coalition, defense pact counters to the aggressive coalition can be military offensives, but are not actually aggressive actions.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Immortan Junka

[Rayvon]

You're still on the semantics in your little philosophical haven. When one is on the offensive, they are aggressors. They are making an aggressive action towards another; they are not making any sort of benevolent offensive action.

 

Defense pact on one side counters the offensive action of another, yes. And this is an aggressive action to stand up and act - even if the action is dictated by a treaty. "X alliance declares war on Y alliance in accordance to Article 420" where Article 420 is a Defensive Clause. The key words in there are "declares war" and "in accordance to" as the denotation of aggressive actions. 

 

Go start a new philosophy thread if you want to keep talking in circles on this .... The outcome of that particular debate doesn't change the fact that, back on thread topic, Doornail and Ace ghosting Kaskus were an aggressive action on their part ... If Joe gave permission for any of our gov to go ghost (which he has, and which I am not against the idea of) one of our allies, I would fully expect the other side to recognize the actions as aggressive and act upon them (if they have the capability and desire to do so) .. Especially so if it was any of our actual gov .. 

Edited June 27, 2016 by Rayvon

[Auctor]

DoorNail's entire argument for the first week was he wasn't government. Not that I expect any kind of internal logic to this crap but worth noting.

[Samus]

On 6/21/2016 at 11:30 AM, Isolatar said:

 

I never said that conversation was about me. I clearly stated it was for Addaff to get peace. Do you remember it now or should I send you the logs in private to help jog your memory?

 

I'm going to presume the other party is RON. Either you're telling a lie to help save face or TheWarrior and Samus have serious memory problems. I've been asking for peace for a while. Off the top of my head, the last time I asked was two weeks ago, but don't quote me on that.

this is true and I don't have memory problems

[DoorNail]

Just now, Auctor said:

DoorNail's entire argument for the first week was he wasn't government. Not that I expect any kind of internal logic to this crap but worth noting.

 

 

Now you can show where I said that or you're a !@#$@#$ liar. Moff of Defense is gov and I take pride in it, you blew off an alliances MOD that you were at war with trying to communicate with you, You  disrespected me and I'll not forget it.  I'll step down before I'll say I wasn't government of TIR, you're a delusional little !@#$%* to say such things and reinforces what was said about your total failure in diplomacy.

 

I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying Rayvon, to me it's irrelevant to the situation and not even worth the time to discuss. I'll take a guess at it though, you're saying because we defended our closest allies that we are aggressive. If that's what you mean then yes, you mess with our allies and we'll attack you until you're not a threat any more, please feel free to post some more !@#$%^&* because you seem to have a boner in this fight that you have no business in, !@#$%^&.

[Rayvon]

38 minutes ago, DoorNail said:

I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying Rayvon, to me it's irrelevant to the situation and not even worth the time to discuss. I'll take a guess at it though, you're saying because we defended our closest allies that we are aggressive. If that's what you mean then yes, you mess with our allies and we'll attack you until you're not a threat any more, please feel free to post some more !@#$%^&* because you seem to have a boner in this fight that you have no business in, !@#$%^&.

 

Colour me surprised. You.. You don't understand? I'm shocked and appalled. You rarely understand anything you're reading.

 

"Whereas the rest, you seem to think I'm talking about you, when I'm addressing Junka's philosophical disagreement derailment." -- See, you're right - it is irrelevant. If you understood what I was saying, if you read it, you'd have seen this. 

 

Or this, "Go start a new philosophy thread if you want to keep talking in circles on this .... The outcome of that particular debate doesn't change the fact that, back on thread topic, Doornail and Ace ghosting Kaskus were an aggressive action on their part"

 

The only parts I said that had anything to do with you, from my first post in this thread to this one, are the parts of which you are here agreeing with. The part where you made an aggressive choice to attack on behalf of your attacker (where in my first post I pointed it out as a behavioural pattern combined with the pattern of confusion about why you're being attacked for your actions). This is where Junka stepped in with his philosophical disagreement. 

 

Keep dancing my jesters, keep dancing.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Rayvon

[DoorNail]

lol, don't bother trying to dig something up Auctor, the only time I haven't been a part of our alliances gov is when I spent almost two years in UMB. My entire time in this game has been involved in our alliances gov in one form or another, you've been caught in lies and your credibility is !@#$.

 

 

Rayvon you're just butthurt, take your nutritional suppliment and go to bed old man.

[Rayvon]

Butthurt? lol .. Ok ... Cause you're definitely showing comprehension now. 

 

All I've had to say to you, and you've agreed with it, is that your actions were aggressive. Leave it at that, and move on. The rest was all for Junka - not you. Sorry to hurt your little ego - but that doesn't make me butthurt, it just means his nonsense was more entertaining than your nonsense.

 

[DoorNail]

Just now, Rayvon said:

Butthurt? lol .. Ok ... Cause you're definitely showing comprehension now. 

 

All I've had to say to you, and you've agreed with it, is that your actions were aggressive. Leave it at that, and move on. The rest was all for Junka - not you. Sorry to hurt your little ego - but that doesn't make me butthurt, it just means his nonsense was more entertaining than your nonsense.

 

Whatever you say grandpa, just so you know, when you post all I see is: bla bla bla bla bla bla bla I'm a crazy old man bla bla bla bla bla.

 

 

Now if you please, I'm busy pointing out what a liar and piece of !@#$ Auctor is.