Tyga's Litter Box

Interesting take.

In the end, casus belli isn't so much a reason you use to justify your actions as it is a reason to justify yourself to the world. Everyone fights for a reason, but the weaker and more petty the reason is, the less people there will be who choose to join your cause.

I tend to agree, Tyga, but realistically speaking having a "valid" CB could determine whether or not you'll win or lose a war.

Not necessarily. If you have a sufficient number of alliances in agreement with you over a threat or general disliking of an alliance then you can win a war based on no CB (in the Cybernations sense).

Not necessarily. If you have a sufficient number of alliances in agreement with you over a threat or general disliking of an alliance then you can win a war based on no CB (in the Cybernations sense).

Bah-dum tsh.

I suppose most people want to come up with a CB in order to reach that sufficient number, since most folks simply arent interested in a massive, full scale war for the sake of someone else's grudge.

But what if the grudge is held by many alliances? Do you think they;d be best to act on it or sit around in an IRC channel trying invent another reason to act on it to try and mask the fact that the war is over a grudge?

Well, it depends on how much they want to fight said alliance in comparison to their own sense of Stat-well-being.

It all comes down to self-interest, really.

We basically saw TOP/IRON do that in BiPolar and it didn't exactly work out well for them. That being said, I agree with the post, and I'm rather dissapointed that the war didn't go down. Not so much because I want to see GOONS destroyed, but because it would be good to see someone willing to roll tanks for what they believed in

Which gets me back to the contrived CB. If they did not really want to fight then why bother with the gymnastics to try and create a reason for a war they don't really want to fight?

We basically saw TOP/IRON do that in BiPolar and it didn't exactly work out well for them. That being said, I agree with the post, and I'm rather dissapointed that the war didn't go down. Not so much because I want to see GOONS destroyed, but because it would be good to see someone willing to roll tanks for what they believed in

Well, I'm not saying it'd guarantee success. I'm saying I'd respect alliance more if they went to war for the real reason they feel war is warranted rather than jumping through silly hoops to convince everyone else they have a legitimate reason to go to war. I'd rather lose a war standing for something than win one over nonsense.

Well, I'm not saying it'd guarantee success. I'm saying I'd respect alliance more if they went to war for the real reason they feel war is warranted rather than jumping through silly hoops to convince everyone else they have a legitimate reason to go to war. I'd rather lose a war standing for something than win one over nonsense.

Well, the folks involved in the planning had something of a healthy fear of the aftermath of them taking a stand and failing.

Respect is good and all, but it doesn't help you advance much politically when you're under the jackboot of those that you declared war against openly.

I've always thought that when all else fails, you could always fabricate something.

Only two people would know that it wasn't true, but with CBs, only two people generally know that it is true, and there would be little difference in the discussion over the CB regardless of it was factual or manufactured.

Well, the folks involved in the planning had something of a healthy fear of the aftermath of them taking a stand and failing.

Respect is good and all, but it doesn't help you advance much politically when you're under the jackboot of those that you declared war against openly.

Then they obviously did not believe in what they were doing.

Then they obviously did not believe in what they were doing.

"I dislike these guys" isnt really much of a motivation to begin with, so you have a point there.

I've always thought that when all else fails, you could always fabricate something.

Only two people would know that it wasn't true, but with CBs, only two people generally know that it is true, and there would be little difference in the discussion over the CB regardless of it was factual or manufactured.

Exactly. Fabrication is no better than creating a situation to get a more "credible" CB, in my opinion.

Then they obviously did not believe in what they were doing.

Going in kamikaze style in this case not only wouldn't have achieved what those planning had hoped but also would have solidified the other sides position by removing themselves as factors in future disputes. Thus it is possible to believe in something and not emphasis the points you believe in while trying to have your side appeal to others. This isn't to say I condone the manner in which they went about it but I think you too readily jumped to that statement.

Edit: hopped != hoped

The Moldavi Doctrine states something along the lines for NSO that they can help whoever they want in war and other can do the same for NSO, which I think is sufficient reasoning for going to war even without a treaty. So I think anyone that wants to declare on GOONS could just use the CB that they are supporting Kerberos Nexus or another alliance at war with GOONS. Disliking an alliance or supporting alliances not treatied to you I would consider as good a reason for declaring than waiting for them to slip up somewhere or declaring in support of a treaty partner. The sooner people move away from the idea that you need a treaty to go to war, the sooner we'll stop having almost every alliance tied together somewhere on the treaty web.

Going in kamikaze style in this case not only wouldn't have achieved what those planning had hoped but also would have solidified the other sides position by removing themselves as factors in future disputes. Thus it is possible to believe in something and not emphasis the points you believe in while trying to have your side appeal to others. This isn't to say I condone the manner in which they went about it but I think you too readily jumped to that statement.

Edit: hopped != hoped

Do you believe contriving a CB would have made any difference? This is really my point. If you do not believe your real reason for war is reason enough for war then why bother contorting yourselves to generate something fake but more "reasonable"? Everyone who was considering war was in on it plot so how does it change the motivation for war at all?

Methrage

If anyone joins the war with that as the reason then the one they should be joining to support really is FnKa. The Ninjas are merely backing up their statements with no clear goal other then to respond to what was more or less "do something about it" and your alliance went to war under dubious cicrcumstances no matter your intentions. This leaves FnKa is really the only one to openly state their reason and making demands on the topic of GOONS's raiding practices.

Do you believe contriving a CB would have made any difference? This is really my point. If you do not believe your real reason for war is reason enough for war then why bother contorting yourselves to generate something fake but more "reasonable"? Everyone who was considering war was in on it plot so how does it change the motivation for war at all?

Everyone who was considering war for the same reason of what probably boils down to "I don't much like GOONS" was there. That doesn't speak on what those who might join would need to convince them. Personally I think having as many varied reasons as one possibly can have will typically work in persuading multitudes of others to take part in your favor or sit by instead of joining the other side. There isn't anything inherently wrong with trying to secure that extra support even if the reasons for that support might differ from your own goals. The problem was with how things were progressing in the logs, not with the fact that they wanted to keep the firepower on the other side limited. Not everyone thinks or feels the same way which is why when you wish to achieve a political goal it's never a good idea to just think if it's good enough for me it'll be good enough for everyone else.

Would contriving a CB make a difference? Certainly. What kind of difference or whether by "difference" you mean significant, I have no idea. It depends upon what they would have came up with and how it all played out (log leaks, etc.).

I also think you misunderstand my aim here. My aim is not to ridicule those in Sardonic's log dump (although I guess I can see how people may see it that way), it was to ridicule the system of social norms in the Cyberverse that push people to do what the people in those logs were doing.

Methrage

If anyone joins the war with that as the reason then the one they should be joining to support really is FnKa. The Ninjas are merely backing up their statements with no clear goal other then to respond to what was more or less "do something about it" and your alliance went to war under dubious cicrcumstances no matter your intentions. This leaves FnKa is really the only one to openly state their reason and making demands on the topic of GOONS's raiding practices.

Regardless of what is used there are people who will complain over what the CB is and those who don't care what the posted reason is much. It wouldn't be the first time alliances have done stuff without needing treaties to guide them, although I can see why people would want a good CB to try guaranteeing victory with more initial support first.

I also think you misunderstand my aim here. My aim is not to ridicule those in Sardonic's log dump (although I guess I can see how people may see it that way), it was to ridicule the system of social norms in the Cyberverse that push people to do what the people in those logs were doing.

Oh no, I didn't get that impression at all. I don't even like the present set of social norms I merely understand the fuss over it. The reason it's come about is people holding preference over defense to offense because of the assumption that the defender might be an innocent thus should be protected. A way to challenge the notion of the defender being an innocent thus not worthy of outside aid is to charge that they've wrong another party some how in a manner others can get behind. What wrong others may rally behind will again, depend on social norms.

In the end of the day CB is just an PR tool to make your side be the biggest one.

Oh no, I didn't get that impression at all. I don't even like the present set of social norms I merely understand the fuss over it. The reason it's come about is people holding preference over defense to offense because of the assumption that the defender might be an innocent thus should be protected. A way to challenge the notion of the defender being an innocent thus not worthy of outside aid is to charge that they've wrong another party some how in a manner others can get behind. What wrong others may rally behind will again, depend on social norms.

Would the reasons why a reasonable number of alliances were contemplating war with another alliance not represent a significant enough "wrong" to justify a war, especially to the alliances planning the attack? My point being that even when we get a group of alliances together with a mutual dislike of another alliance it is not deemed "enough" to warrant or justify a war. There are two reasons for that. One being the social requirement to provide evidence of wrongdoing acceptable to the opposing side (which is in itself ludicrous) and the other being the risk/gain assessment by those planning to start a war.

I think if the risk is somehow reduced (I have proposed a change in the Suggestion Box that is pending approval for publication that addresses this) then the need for a casus belli will be somewhat reduced and people will be more inclined to stand up for themselves or for their principles which will make the game more interesting politically and militarily.

Ideological differences are reasons for war in RL, I fail to see why they cannot be in the Cyberverse.

How history judges the validity of a CB depends on if you win the war.

And I have also noticed since the last big war that most of the major alliances appear to be dead scared of being seen to be "immoral" since this might bring a curbstomp along.

Perhaps CBs are a product of the planets Hive Mind. Without doubt the number of very destructive wars is lessened by the perceived need of a honking big CB, maybe that's what the hive wants.