Seerow

Agreed. I'd trade all the tech and wonders my nation has to get Diskord and Monorojo back.

[quote name='The Normandy' timestamp='1318030181' post='2820222'] I bet 700 tech by the end of this war/GREAT war IAA, NsO, NSO, BTA, Tetris will all disband. [/quote] I'll take that bet on 5 to 1 odds. If you win that bet, I'll pay you 3500 tech.

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1318020525' post='2820054'] I think we'll have to agree to disagree here because I don't consider that defensive... considering we "started" the war. EDIT: Though I see where you are coming from. [/quote] While you started the war, they did declare on you. Now this is a case of chaining, so NpO and NADC are within rights to say "Sorry no not entering" since they have the chaining clause. They might be dicks for doing so if they did so when you really desperately needed them (which may not be now, but could happen down the line, especially as more of your members hit bill lock, which we both know is happening pretty quickly regardless of your OWF posturing), but they would be within their rights per your treaty. Invicta and TLR however have no such clause, so if you ask, even though you started with an act of aggression, they are required to enter to defend you from those who attacked you. (So against anyone currently involved except Tetris). Unless there actually is a non-chaining clause involved in those two treaties I didn't see when checking earlier (which is possible, I have been known to miss details in the past, and will admit I'm wrong if you can point one out to me). [quote]I was responding since you were asking about the chaining clauses. They don't "chain" unless we make a formal request. There is no automatic activation so therefore, no chaining. At least, as I understand chaining. If I've misunderstood the main point of your question then my mistake. [/quote] Okay, this is a case of a misunderstanding of what chaining is. You're saying the activation itself is a chain. That's not true. In the case of all of your treaties, all of them require a direct request to activate. What the chaining clause is, is that clause in the polar treaty that says if you start with an act of aggression, Polar is within rights to deny to defend you for your aggression. So since you attacked Tetris, even though you're being attacked, if you requested help, Polar could say no, per that clause. Invicta and TLR don't have that clause though, so even though you started it aggressively, if you ask for help, they have to come. That's the difference. Hope that makes it clearer.

[quote name='Banedon' timestamp='1318020220' post='2820048'] If you have not, please look at Leet Guy's post. It's all there, nicely bolded for you. In summary: In order for the defensive component of the treaties to activate, we have to formally ask the other side to join us. Until then, they can want to join us all they want, there is nothing requiring them to do so. If we do ask for help, they don't have a choice, they must come in. Currently we have not asked them to assist us, in fact we've asked them to stay out at this time. [/quote] I'm genuinely curious. Did you even read my post that you just quoted? In fact, let me quote it again for you: [quote]That post is totally irrelevant to anything I'm saying, since [b]I haven't said that Polar or your allies are breaking treaties by not entering[/b], just pointing out that if they did it would be via defensive clauses. Seriously I think you're taking my explaining the basics of how treaties work, and confusing that with someone else's "I want to roll Polar, Polar won't let me, so they are BAD!" arguments. [/quote]

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1318019041' post='2820022'] That is called chaining and our MDoAPs do not have chaining clauses, (neither do a couple of the declaree's, but I'll save that for some other time). In addition to that, I think you would do well to read Leet Guy's [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105867]post[/url] [/quote] That post is totally irrelevant to anything I'm saying, since I haven't said that Polar or your allies are breaking treaties by not entering, just pointing out that if they did it would be via defensive clauses. Seriously I think you're taking my explaining the basics of how treaties work, and confusing that with someone else's "I want to roll Polar, Polar won't let me, so they are BAD!" arguments. As to treaty chaining, please point me to the non-chaining clauses in your treaties. NADC and Polar treaties have a mention that the treaty becomes optional when chained, but not that it is forbidden. Invicta and TLR have no chaining clause at all that I see, so if you asked their help they'd still have to come in (TLR may not if they have a conflicting treaty).

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1318000694' post='2819699'] So.. Legion is in an offensive war, and we haven't asked our allies to come in, they respect our decision and don't have to enter because its an oA? So, every single thing anyone from Legion, or Legions allies for that matter, have done, is absolutely correct? Since when did you do a 180 with your perspective on this war? [/quote] Legion is in an offensive war. Correct. So no ally of yours is obligated to attack Tetris, since attacking Tetris was an offensive action. However, you have since been attacked by other alliances. These other alliances, while entering as defense, is an attack on Legion, mandating your allies to defend you. This is especially true in the case of the IAA (whose DoW we're all supposed to be discussing), and BTA, since they represent alliances coming in off aggressive clauses. Really how hard is it to understand, if you get attacked, allies are obligated to defend. Right now the breakdown as I see it: Legion->Tetris, agressive. NSO&NsO->Legion, defensive (has defensive treaty with Tetris who was attacked by Legion) IAA&BTA->Legion, offensive (has no treaty with Tetris, but has an offensive treaty with NsO which was activated) Right now, if Polar decided to declare on Tetris, that would be using an aggressive clause, because Tetris hasn't actually attacked anyone. But declaring on any of the 4 other alliances would be using defensive, because they attacked Legion, even though two of them did so defensively. Similarly, right now everyone on Tetris's side can only call in allies with aggressive clauses, because aside from Tetris, nobody's been hit. But when someone actually goes about attacking them, they start activating those defensive clauses, and the war will get bigger quickly. This is pretty much exactly why Legion's allies are trying to avoid attacking, because they don't want those defensive treaties to activate. Given that every one of the alliances involved actually activated their treaties in the manner I described, I'd say the way I interpret it is actually a pretty common interpretation on Bob. But people like you try to confuse things by lumping sides together and saying "this whole side is aggressive" or "We're all just defending" which is bs. The way treaties are activated has pretty much always been relative.

[quote name='The Corrupt Teacher' timestamp='1317952943' post='2819180'] Personally outside of NSO this has been a sad war effort against Legion...really I'm depressed at this effort with this much fail NpO might not come out to play and we'll be sitting here blue balled again. So pick up your game so the rest of us can have some fun. [/quote] To be perfectly honest, I think Polar is so paranoid about getting rolled, they'd sit there and watch Legion go all the way down to rubble as a collective and still not jump in. Nobody's going to touch polar until they decide to actually go after Polar. But nobody will do that for fear of PR.

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1317929215' post='2818770'] Have you never heard of the phrase: "Lies, lies and statistics"? [/quote] I think you just butchered that phrase.

[quote name='Avery du Troiseau' timestamp='1317950695' post='2819130'] I like the Po-lure war better. It cant be Incompetence Extravaganza. The weebs and sith made some nice blitzes and Polar stayed in peacemode like they ought to. Doesn't fit. [/quote] The point that makes IE fit is that it's a war involving one incompetent alliance fighting a fistful of incompetent micros, and everyone insisting they're awesome because of it. It really is the best name. Also, I don't get the appeal of the "Sup War". Really, can someone explain that one to me?

In that case change my bet to 100 tech saying somebody will release a calendar to commemorate this war. Because we all know there is a killer market for calendars.

[quote name='TehChron' timestamp='1317946292' post='2819044'] 2:1 odds is what Ill give it, so he'll only be getting a 1/2 Dilber as his winnings. So...Seerow, what will you be doing with half a Dilber? [/quote] As mentioned, it depends which half I get. Presuming that he can live as a half a person, I'm sure there's plenty of people who'd pay a large sum for something like that.... [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1317946300' post='2819046'] Your predictable behavior is so funny guys. If someone wants to learn how reply to my posts with those guys, I'll give you some hints: Doesn't ever change guys <3 Also I predict a "NO U" post coming in 5, 4, 3, 2... [/quote] NO U

[quote name='Jtkode' timestamp='1317946097' post='2819040'] So you have a ODAP with the winning side and an ODAP with the losing side, you say ok we will aggressively attack with the winning side and say the losing side was optional... still looks like bandwagoning to me. [/quote] I think NSO is the only alliance in the game with an ODoAP with every other alliance in the game.

I bet one Dilber that D34th will continue to make nonsensical posts on OWF. Value that as you will.

Also signing on to the Incompetence Extravaganza. Or the IE War for short.

[quote name='Jtkode' timestamp='1317938107' post='2818930'] oA's have always in my eyes been purely for bandwagoning, nothing else. [/quote] They were actually made basically to get rid of bandwagoning, given originally that term was used for people who jumped in on the winning side with no treaty at all.

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1317916192' post='2818567'] I can't believe someone found out that I maneuvered NSO to troll the Legion, then forced Legion to attack their ankle biter, just to finally get a stab at Polar. I was really hoping this plan would never get leaked an exposed to the OWF. I don't know how you found this Sparta, but there will be repercussions. [/quote] Looks like an open and shut case of spying to me. Let's roll.

[quote]Valid CB everywhere. Stop making it sound like Tetris was walking down the street minding its own business when someone threw a bunch of classified documents at them out of a passing van and moments later Legion showed up to frame them for spying. You people (and I mean this generally, not specifically anyone) amaze me at times with your need for spin. Can you not wage wars that involve clear CBs, clear treaties, and decisive outcomes without hand wringing/rationalizing/bawwing/rewriting history/holding 5 year grudges/and bawwing some more? [/quote] Okay let's back it up a step. Despite my argument with Schatt, I do think the CB was valid. I do also believe that there were other ways to handle it, as there are in almost any war, but Legion had just cause to go to war. The place where it gets weird is when people try to obfuscate who is attacking and who is defending, in an attempt to e-lawyer allies of one alliance or the other from coming in via a defense clause, or try to paint them in a bad light for using an optional agression one rather than a defensive one that is wholly appropriate. The act of posting screenshots publicly like that was in fact a provocation. You could even call it an "act of war". But an act of war is not in fact an attack, nor is it a declaration of war. Legion was at no time actually threatened by the screenshots posted. The screenshots were mostly harmless stuff that you can find on the general private forums of almost any alliance. I could dig through MK and find hundreds of posts and quote pyramids of "Roll ______" and give them to somebody to post. But nobody would be surprised. Point is, Legion wasn't actually threatened by this, except in knowing that there was somebody willing to leak private information inside their alliance. Given the information had gone to other places besides Tetris before Tetris posted, it isn't necessarily even clear that Tetris was behind that particular affair, and probably couldn't have named the leak if they wanted to. Given that Legion wasn't being attacked when it declared war, its attack was the act of aggression in this war. Tetris was defending against Legion, and everyone who has entered to help Tetris so far has done so in defense of Tetris. Now, when someone comes in against all of these micros (except Tetris) that have declared on Legion, they will be defending Legion. When someone defends those Micros after they get attacked, they will be defending the micros. What I'm getting at here is that any time an alliance is attacked, and others come to its aid, it is always defense. An offensive would have been if Legion said "You know, we kind of suck, and need some help taking out Tetris, who wants to attack with us?" would have been an offensive clause. Or if someone is treatied to somebody who chooses to defend Legion, but not Legion itself, they could enter on a offensive clause. tl;dr: You don't have entire sides who are attacking or defending, as many have been trying to say. And people defending tetris aren't taking part in offensive action. Whether you are attacking or defending is defined by whether your target actively attacked the alliance you are helping or not.

[quote name='+Zeke+' timestamp='1317878800' post='2818069'] Meh, already the 5th page and likely to be lost in all the noise, but here goes..... There is no IAA/NsO Protectorate. Over a month ago a full member vote changed the treaty to an MDP. Ergo, unless NsO was attacked then IAA was not going to roll. Furthermore the vote approved a non-chain treaty as well. But it seems that James Wilson somehow forgot to announce a properly approved treaty he is now saying the Protectorate is in force still. If anything, with the vote and lack of announcement it seems more like no valid treaty exists at all. The Protectorate treaty was struck down by valid IAA member vote and the new one wasn't declared here. Does any treaty exist at all even? Many will note that IAA basically didn't roll out tonight. They weren't interested in war and voted accordingly a month ago. A few devout JW followers, or more likely just bored members, will roll. I'd be very surprised if even a dozen declare if you give them a week. This isn't an alliance at war. This is a leader practicing a bit of CYA because he's too embarrassed to come here and tell you he completely screwed up and didn't post the new treaty. A true leader owns up to his mistakes, no matter how embarrassing. He doesn't declare a non-approved war to save personal face. Me? I'll be in hippy. Actually, I was looking forward to the winter war season to finally break some things. But I've played long enough not to be party to an illegally declared war. So when this circus ends be sure to address the fact that JW trotted out a war declaration with no basis or authority by treaty to do so. It has been said that an alliance that approves of a leader's actions are responsible for his actions. But this is clearly a case where we did not give him treaty authority to declare this war. He has taken this burden upon himself without our permission. For the record the vote was held and passed on August 3. [/quote] IAA, best allies ever. [quote]My money is on the former, considering MK members already post screenshots of their forums just to mess with peoples heads. [/quote] My money is actually on neither, unless I actually found something sensitive I had access to to give him. Because really, who cares about screenshots of members saying they want to roll alliance X? It may be entertaining, but it's not really news.

[quote name='T.Hubb' timestamp='1317877771' post='2818011'] Every single alliance out there who says "lolegion" (or comes up with some other witty catchphrase that keeps you warm at night) are full of crap. It's funny how you guys go from "oh wait, Legion won't do anything" to "Oh God, get all our allies on Legion now!" I also find it amusing that pretty much every one of you have condoned spying. The level of butthurt you would all feel at this would reach the heavens, I'm sure, and you would've done the same thing. If you want one of our allies so bad, knuckle up and call them out. However, you won't. You'll sit and e-lawyer until you find a way to reach your goals. Cowards. The Legion will still be here once this is done, regardless. Deal with it. Now, show me how much you all can hate. I know you can. [/quote] So you declare war, then insist it was all a ploy to get somebody else. This is almost as silly as the anti-GOD conspiracy theory that was on CNtel recently.

[quote name='Wyrmon' timestamp='1317877207' post='2817979'] CnG has always been about supporting allies. CnG hasn't fallen anywhere. [/quote] Seriously, this. CnG is a MADP bloc. It was founded on the principle of everybody backing up whatever stupid !@#$ the other pulled. Had any member of CnG refused to provide aid to an ally because they disagreed with them, then I would be more inclined to say CnG fell far.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1317877035' post='2817963'] Yes, "spying" is a broad term and it always has been. Passing on spied screenshots is a "spying" CB. The fact of the matter is that the other three idiots which replied to the same post would all declare war on CoJ in 5 minutes if I got screenshots from their forums and posted them. And that is what matters. [/quote] Let's test that theory. I'll send you some screenshots. You post them. See what happens, CoJ getting rolled, or me getting kicked out of MK.

[quote name='Flonker' timestamp='1317876517' post='2817902'] Five on 1 now? Seriously, all this attention is downright flattering. [/quote] Incidentally I think even with the 5 or 6 on 1, Legion still has the NS advantage, maybe even the #of nations advantage. Piling a bunch of tiny alliances doesn't exactly make Legion good, it just means that Tetris didn't have much in the way of equal size allies, so we get a bunch of tiny alliances instead.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1317876693' post='2817928'] In defense of Tetris' spying, which is an aggressive act of war. In everyone's opinion. [/quote] One day, I hope I can be like Schatt and have the ability to declare everyone's opinion.

[quote name='Supa_Troop3r' timestamp='1317876090' post='2817870'] Why you would let your protectorate have an higher level treaty then the relations you share is beyond me.. Good luck with this. [/quote] Honestly NsO and IAA are close to the same size. They should probably be changed to a MDP or something at this point. But I can't imagine they care enough to rectify the issue, and the protectorate works just as well it seems.

It's like a great game, how many tiny alliances can we pile on Legion before it collapses? It's sort of reminiscent of Jenga, really.