Haflinger's Blog

I'm guessing this is aimed at me. See the response in the thread before the mod killed it – whatever your opinion of the second FAN war (I think it wasn't justified, though the nations in violation should have been rolled), it was a fact of life at the time that GS chose to support them, and therefore they were declaring that they were for FAN and against the hegemony. So even though FAN shouldn't have been at war at that time, the GS war was justified. As you said in those two posts I linked

I'm guessing this is aimed at me. See the response in the thread before the mod killed it – whatever your opinion of the second FAN war (I think it wasn't justified, though the nations in violation should have been rolled), it was a fact of life at the time that GS chose to support them, and therefore they were declaring that they were for FAN and against the hegemony. So even though FAN shouldn't have been at war at that time, the GS war was justified. As you said in those two posts I linked

If crushing the Golden Sabers was justified, does it follow that the Golden Sabers' actions that led to the crushing were unjust?

I'm guessing this is aimed at me. See the response in the thread before the mod killed it – whatever your opinion of the second FAN war (I think it wasn't justified, though the nations in violation should have been rolled), it was a fact of life at the time that GS chose to support them, and therefore they were declaring that they were for FAN and against the hegemony. So even though FAN shouldn't have been at war at that time, the GS war was justified. As you said in those two posts I linked

Let's skip what I said at the time for the moment (which has a lot more to do with what Zessa thought than anything else), and focus on the current public policy of the VE.

So if you declare an unjustified war, and then someone else says that they would like to vote for a senator who is in the membership of your targetted alliance, you are then wholly justified in going to war against that second person?

You, sir, are annoyingly good at twisted words and then saying 'You mean this?'

If we declare an unjustified war, and then someone else actively assists that alliance while we at war with them, then yes, we have a stone wall CB on that second alliance. This is no different from Ninjas v GOONS or any number of individual rogues who jump in to assist against an 'unjust' cause.

That said, the reason GS's support for Brass was a good CB wasn't just because he was in FAN, it was because FAN were using him as a weapon against NPO allies (some crappy yellow alliance which I can't even remember). So it's not just voting for a senator in the wrong alliance (though that would be an interesting one to discuss, it's rather a grey area in my opinion), it's providing material support to an alliance with which you are at war.

I'm sorry, I just don't think you should ever start a war because of senate voting. It reeks of noWedge to me and his shenanigans.

If a senator commits an act of war, then yeah, declare war on the senator. But the senator's voters?

Heck why not just declare war on the whole colour; I mean, after all, the nations on that colour failed to prevent the senator from getting elected.

It's like if an alliance backs a nuke rogue, you're entitled to roll the alliance. If an alliance backs a senator who is being used as a weapon then it's essentially equivalent.