[We have a 2319]

and he did, and the consensus was that a ceasefire is kind of silly, especially considering one side all of a sudden declared it without consulting the other side
your intentions may be good, but you can see how the other side can see it as a buying time tactic,
I don't think a ceasefire is necessary for ongoing negotiations

 

I do find it pretty hilarious that you guys thought the same thing we did, because the ceasefire didn't come from us, and we were told you were in support of it, or at least ok with it. So we naturally assumed that when you guys started attacking us it was just a ruse at buying time to move more people int peace mode, or to get more people ready for more attacks; while we didn't nuke or attack anyone it worked out more in your favor. 

[We have a 2319]

Escalation during the Beer Guzzlers War didn't happen as we had utterly broken Guinness and destroyed the North Star Federation sufficiently.

 

NSF capitulated so fast, and hard it was just plain old sad. Though according to saxplayer that was the reason SN-X was formed. 

[We have a 2319]

No one agreed to a ceasefire, you just unilaterally declared it

Go talk to sabcat.

[We have a 2319]

 
Two of your members attacked an established, treatied alliance. Just off the top of my head, I can think of several alliances who would have responded with massive force within hours of such a brazen, foolish attack.
 
Now, you could say to yourself, "We blew it, and we need to fix this as quickly as possible." But instead, what you're saying is, "Mommy, the bad people hit us back! And they won't stop!" And you've been saying it since the beginning. That was your entire reason for this DoW.
 
I've always said most raiders are just crybabies masquerading as tough guys. From the OP onward, you've proven just that.

Golly jee, king zog. There you go making stuff up again.

[We have a 2319]

Again, MIs failure to understand the relationship between SWF and LSF is key to the mess they are in and their inability to get out of the situation.

If you mean understanding that they are one, and that they both agreed to a ceasefire, and LSF breaks it, when MInc was about to agree to reps and pay. Then we must consider SWF to be the main offenders of breaking the agreement to pay reps as well.

Then I think we understand quite well that SWF broke the deal to pay reps for peace between us.

[We have a 2319]

Well since L_H of MI attacked a LSF dude does that trigger their mDPs? :popcorn:

Well actually LSF sent new attacks during the cease fire we had in place, SWF has been he only one to hold to the ceasefire, as of right now before our final round of talks tonight 6 pm. To my knowledge LSF was apart of this ceasefire in place.

So if we take the knowledge that LSF is SWF, and vice versa. SWF failed to keep the ceasefire while we negotiated a final rep number that was being gotten ready to be paid by myself.

Also it depends on how we view the new attacks via LSF, they can claim all they want to be one alliance, we can choose how we see it. We're not apart of their little club, and we see them as two different AAs, but if they want to be viewed as one their MDPs already were triggered.

[We have a 2319]

 

 

Your statements conflict.

 

They don't because they line you are quoting from me says that it was taken from the DoE, and subsequently removed via our new charter. Something you're quoting from LH has yet to be updated or even added to our internal policy. So no they are not conflicting. One was something removed entirely that someone was quoting as fact. The other is something that hasn't beed added or updated. Though I thank you for your continued scrutiny of our charter. 

 

One say's explicitly what, and one is implicit. I hope you know the difference. The explicit one was removed via a new charter instead of guidelines from our DoE. 

 

 

 

I would like to thank Sabcat for being easier to work with than SWF, in understanding the fact that some of our leaders are no readily available to partake in our little war, has been in this whole situation. 

[We have a 2319]

 
Is this also an "internal policy"?  If so, you used an incorrect term twice, and the second time deliberately in order to respond misleadingly to a legitimate point.  If not, then where does this come from, because either you're claiming kingzog is a liar or you're not and he's correctly citing your laws.  If it's the latter, then you violated your Charter by failing to enforce the laws it provides the means to make.

 

That line was in the DoE of Monsters Inc. That was when they were six members big, with no charter. Just a "set rules". That was changed awhile ago, just never announced via the OWF, as I mean really, who wants to read a charter update on the OWF? The line has nothing to do with us now, or in our charter, or any part of written down internal policy.

 

He would have been right going just off of the DoE, but if we go off of everyone's DoE ever, a lot of charter's or first set of rules will always look different than what they have now. 

[We have a 2319]

You're right, I said charter in the OP, and I was wrong. That doesn't negate that we didn't break our charter. Words have meanings, and I use the wrong word giving the wrong meaning to the world, in having them assume that our charter had that clause in it. 

 

I should have used internal bill, procedure, policy other than charter. Charter was a place holding word for the something that is technically an internal policy. As LH pointed out, it's not in the charter yet, but it will be. So even if we go by the current charter we have now, there is nothing wrong, and even with our internal procedure there is nothing done wrong by our members. 

 

So if we can agree that I messed up using the word charter in the OP, we can move on to agreeing we did not break our current charter as found on our forums, even with our internal procedure. So there shouldn't be anymore debate about that. 

[We have a 2319]

I beg to differ. Your complete misunderstanding of Die Linke and its provisions reflects precisely why this has blown up in MI's face. Strangely enough, they are quite rational filthy commies and that is also your path to getting out of this before the escalation that you fear gets out of hand.

 

Rational is saying for peace to be achieved we need to edit our charter; in addition to other things? Now The other things aren't bad, and we can handle, but is it rational of them to force us to change our charter for peace? 

[We have a 2319]

 

 

MI violated its own Charter and continues to defend that violation, even in the face of fairly decent evidence that they did so. Was it an inadvertent violation? Yes, it definitely seems so. That doesn't make it defensible.

 

Actually please show me where we violated our charter?

 

 

 

You couldn't see that? Really?

 

 

Where are you getting that from? Because I do not see that in our charter, if you'd like the most current version of our charter you can go to our forums. Where it actually says nothing about what you are talking about. For your information http://montersincorporated.proboards.com/thread/56/monstrous-charter?page=1&scrollTo=465 posted before the wars with the last edits before the raids, have fun admitting you had no idea what you were talking about in regards to our charter. Thank you in advanced. 

 

I see your point and I concur...I am the worst at diplomacy ever and always resort to violence which solves everything eventually... :awesome: I am however disappointed as I'm sure you are at the lack of activity on the war screens last update and hope that an update blitz of commies is forthcoming... :war: :popcorn:

 

If I posted one third of what people have wanted me to post from our alliance i'd have been banned forum wise. 

 

 

 

Also, if anyone wants to know the latest peace talks, SWF demands that we change our charter for peace to write in something that specifically guarantees  that we change our policy of "picking on" smaller alliances. Because as of right now there is nothing in our charter about tech raiding, but if you listened to King Zog we have broken our chrater. So it's weird that SWF wants something in our charter for peace that actually limits our ability to declare raids. 

 

Golly Jee, King Zog, why do you think that is? 

 

 

At this point, the only question of any importance is whether you knew you were lying with all you said or whether you were merely misinformed about the actions of your alliance members ('raids' on treatied alliances, attempted extortion, etc.) and the 'intricacies' of your own incredibly complex Charter. I suppose it's possible that you could just be incredibly obtuse.

 

Misinformed about the attempted extortion is the only thing you've been right about so far. As soon as I found out, I apologized for them, and unilaterally banned that person from raiding. Now some people may think that's not enough. I say, simply, you have your way you'd like to do things, we have ours. 

[We have a 2319]

This was the first time I was shown these extortion claims to be true. This is unacceptable for our nations to try, and do. I have banned super tramp from raiding for one month, and I want to apologize for his behavior.

I have no qualms with raiding, but extortion for peace (which happens a lot from others) is not something I agree with. It's not something I've done, or will ever do, and I hold the same position with those in my alliance.

I will never apologize for raiding, but I will apologize that your one nation was held at random for tech, and no nukes. This will also weigh in our decision on how his ends.

I do thank you for finally showing me these screenshots that's I requested. I am truly sorry for what he did/said.

Though that doesn't change our stance on the retaliatory attacks on our other nations.

[We have a 2319]

So wait a sec.  Correct me if I'm wrong here.  But it sounds like some Monsters guys hit X nation in SWF, and in turn that SWF guy, just the ones that ate raids, then attacked additional Monsters targets.

If the initial attack on SWF by a couple of raiders was not an initiation of alliance wide war, why was the individual response by those nations regarded as such?

 

You're right about Monsters Inc nations raiding a target. That target did not launch any other attacks, two different (no the one who was raided) SWF nations then attacked two uninvolved monster inc nations. Then three more after an Monsters inc did the same as the SWF retaliation. So that leaves us at Two raids, and on retaliation to the retaliation, a grand total of three wars declared by Monsters Inc. Then five retaliatory wars by non raided SWF members. For total of 3-5 wars declared with SWF declaring more. No qualms with them declaring more.

 

We regarded it as such that we (the raiders) went to SWF for peace first, they said reps or nothing, saying we shouldn't be surprised they attacked. So I wonder what would have happened if we didn't go to them first, and waited for them. Would we have seen more, and more declarations on our nations? We weren't going to wait, and find out. 

 

We were happy to walk away with them doing more damage to us then we did to them, with reps to both original two nations on both sides that were attacked out of the blue. Rejected by SWF. 

[We have a 2319]

I'm not saying you did, but SWF want reps for peace. So if you want peace pay reps, not hard. Well you have your other members to thank for bringing uninvolved members into this mess, which has in turn also brought your whole membership into this mess. All because of a botched "raid" on a connected alliance.

 

Yes, your members got your alliance in this mess, it is up to your alliance to pay its way out and not blame it on SWF's attacks, blaming SWF for defending their alliance is your attempt at playing the victim. The only reason your alliance is playing hardball is because you know you won't get rolled, due to SWF's lack of any real strong connections.

 

I'm not blaming them for defending their AA, i'd have gone about it in a different manner, but I can't/won't fault them.

 

What you see as is our responsibility to pay our way out is not entirely wrong. They declared 5 wars to our three, initially, doing more damage than or raid combined. Is that not enough? 

 

 

Also, LSF holding a DMT/MDAP with SWF has more than enough fire power with them via treaties to help SWF with, bringing more to the table than we can. 

[We have a 2319]

It's hardly a controversial definition of an act of war I'm using - nations declare war and attack.

 

The difference between a tech raid, and alliance war being? 

[We have a 2319]

You can do whatever you please, it is your alliance. However don't make it out like it is SWF's fault when it was your alliance that started it. You had the option of paying reps, but instead escalated it. SWF simply defended their alliance from your alliances' aggression.

 

If it's peace you want then pay the reps, otherwise stop trying to play the victim. You are fooling no one.

 

Would you like screen shots of where I said i'd pay reps? I want peace, but not at the expense of those who were not involved in the tech raid. 

 

I didn't know I was playing the victim, thank you for telling me, i'd have been at a loss otherwise. 

[We have a 2319]

Dear Monsters Inc.:

I am unable to fathom just how goddamn stupid this is.

Two members of your alliance 'raid' nations whose alliance belongs to a bloc. Through the miracle of chaining, said bloc is tied to multiple alliances.

So what do you do when SWF responds as if you've launched an undeclared war and fights back? You declare war.

You need a do-over. Take back this DoW, go to SWF, admit you screwed up, and sort it out. Be prepared to pay for your idiotic members' mistakes. Then take it out of your members' hides.

- kz

 

Actually, we tried peace first. They wanted reps, for their nations that were attacked, and I shouldn't be surprised that they attacked. Fine. So I asked for reparations for the two nations they attacked in kind to even it out, they got their pound of flesh, by attacking three more of our nations, and we could all move on. They got their attacks 5 declared against our three, token reps per each, and we go our separate ways. They said no. 

 

I then suggested CPCN, someone who SWF, and Minc both trust, and work with, to help us reach a mutually agreeable end to all of this (yes I agree with you) sillyness. So far, SWF has been how do I say, more than unwilling to come to an agreement. 

[We have a 2319]

A tech raid against an aligned nation is not a tech raid at all. It is and ever was an act of war against the alliance the nation belongs to.

As for LSF you've declared war on SWF who we have dual membership with as well as belonging to an MDAP bloc. You've declared war on us in your op.

 

We have a fundamental difference on what we consider tech raids. So Ill take your second statement as confirmation of your attacking of Monsters Inc. 

 

It's pretty obvious you should've just kicked the raiders the $%&@ out if you weren't going to approach SWF to make it look like less of a blatant attack on their nations.

 

Why is it obvious? The followed our charter, and didn't break it. Why should we kick them out?

 

Also we did approach SWF before SWF even approached us, even after they escalated attacks. Did you miss the part where I said we approached them first on how to end this whole raid before it escalated? 

[We have a 2319]

So when it was nations from your alliance attacking an SWF nation, that wasn't a war? It's now a war because you don't like what's happening as a consequence of that initial attack?

It's all very confusing but regardless it all comes down to this - MI have declared war and initiated aggression against SWF.

 

It wasn't a war, it was a tech raid. It's now a war because SWF (well within their rights) escalated it into an alliance war. Us liking it, or not liking it has no bearing on what we consider a tech raid, or what turned into a war escalated by SWF. 

 

With your interpretation, I can assume I will see LSF tonight? 

[We have a 2319]

There's attacks, a DoW and messages demanding 100 tech for peace. Looks like a war to me. What do you want to call it?

 

Now yes, but not in the first place was there an actual alliance war that warrants a DoW, which has been the rhetoric of SWF to spout during our talks with CPCN. I was just fixing your confusion in your post above. 

[We have a 2319]

I don't understand what you're whining about. MI nations hit SWF, that's what war is, fighting and stuff. Now you've done what you should have done in the first place and posted the DoW. What do you want?

 

It was never a war in the first place, so please, calm down. 

[We have a 2319]

You are the one that brought that line from your charter to the OWF. The consequence was that from their raids, other members of your alliance were hit, that's a consequence your members who initiated the raids should suffer for and repay for the damage.

 

You didn't go to SWF diplomatically and see if it was okay to raid them, so why expect diplomacy in return for your alliance members unprovoked attacks?

 

Also your other members need not face any further attacks should you pay reparations as asked for by SWF.

 

The line says you deal with the consequences, not other members of your AA deal with your consequence. You're right, they are dealing with that consequence of them being attacked. other members of their alliance being attacked. Now that doesn't mean we as an alliance allow non-involved parties to have those consequences pushed upon them, or enforced by SWF who are well within their rights to attack how they see fit.

 

I don't expect them to, but if they wanted reps they could have asked us before attacking un-involved members, and presto reparations paid. They decided to attack, not even get in contact with us. So again I reiterate, that if I had no gone to talk to them after their first initial attacks on un-involved nations, do I then assume that they would have not come to us, and kept attacking us? Or just attacked those nations, and then came to us to end the raids? Though I expect you not to care, and say what ever happens to us or the other nations is our own fault, and I wont fault you for saying that. Though it's misleading, and disingenuous to the nations we all protect in our alliance. 

 

Can I ask you plain, and simple.

 

Do we forfeit the right to defend our un-involved nations because of two raids? 

[We have a 2319]

They raided, SWF responded. Why aren't the raiders facing the consequences of having to pay for the damages your other Nations have taken due to their acts or is that part of your charter to be ignored?

 

Had they not raided SWF then there would have been no counter. Which then brings it back to being a consequence of the initial raiding. Through having a loose leash on their raiding policy this has ended up with Monster Inc defending their raiders actions, which in their charter it says they won't. I mean whenever GOONS have backed up their raiders they have come in for a whole ton of abuse for it.

 

 

Because no one from SWF came to us to ask for reps, except me going to them to ask what we could stop this from escalating. The answer was only reps to the two people who were first raided, and too bad for the ones we attacked in return. Now if they came to us before attacking uninvolved parties, sure, yes, reps for everyone that was initially raided. Just because they choose to attack first before attempting to diplomatically resolve this means we can't defend our members how we see fit? No where are we defending our raiders, we are defending our alliance from more attacks in retribution of our raid. 

 

I was even told there should be no surprise that SWF is attacking, and by the time I got in touch with SWF, first may I add, that they had 5 declared wars to our three. Two initial raids, and one nation who was doing the same thing that SWF did, saw coordinated attacks on members, and decided to defend their alliance mates. 

 

If you want to see it as implicitly defending our raiders actions, sure, you want to see it that way, and only that way. I wont fault you, because it can be seen that way. What you are blatantly ignoring is that we also have the right to defend our nations (not involved in the tech raid) from escalation as we see fit, just as SWF saw fit. Also, I didn't know you were privy to our internal discussions about the two in question that did the raiding. Now will you ever know what we decided with these two nations no, but what we decide are the consequences for those two nations are what we decide, not SWF or anyone else.

 

Again, as I said in PMs, in embassies, and here. That if there was no escalation to non-involved parties we would have paid reps, had they came to us first. Or even if they just attacked the two raiders in question, there would have been no escalation from us. 

 

I don't get where you think we get/have to let SWF attack non-involved parties without trying SWF to get the raids ended, and reparations for their affect nations. 

 

This.  No point in having that clause in your Charter if you're just going to ignore it.  Yes, SWF escalated the situation, but it seems a bit silly that if the defender escalates the original attackers get let off with a slap on the wrist while the alliance suffers.  Surely if the defender escalates, the raiders should be punished even more harshly.

 

We are not ignoring it. Though in your eyes it should be perfectly fine to let SWF attack our non-involved non-raiding nations in turn? I don't want to keep reiterating that or charter was no broken, or that you think it is, must mean that it was. We aren't ignoring our charter, if SWF came to us before escalating, and asked for reps, i'd have paid them to them, simple as that. I will also reiterate that we are dealing internally with our two raiders in question, but we also reserve the right to defend our nations as we see fit, just as SWF did. We have no qualms with how they escalated it. 

 

So SWF who has allies LSF? got raided and instead of bending over and supplying lube they decided to fight back so now you declared war on them? Amirite? And you violated your charter to do so? Amirite? Or did I not read all this correctly? Do not get my line of questioning skewed as obviously I don't care and am rooting for L_H anyways...I'm just wanting to see the expansion capabilities of this war, so besides LSF does SWF have anyone else to come to the rescue?

 

You are right on the first part, I guess, in a round about way. They sent over two attacks on non-involved people, then one of our members seeing two nations attack decided to defend them and attacked SWF, leading SWF to send over three more attacks on non-involved raiders. So before I attempted to clear up this misunderstanding it was 5-3 in declared wars in favor of SWF. Their leader said too bad, your guys got attacked, pay us reps. Now, I would have paid reps if they came to us before sending attacks in turn. 

 

Would they have kept sending more, and more attacks against us as they didn't even come talk to us about the raid, and to get reps before hand? Who knows, we weren't going to take that chance.

 

We did not violate our charter. The raid wen't bad, but instead of trying to get reps for their members they decided to attack ours in kind. They then wanted reps for them to stop attacking. I said i'd pay reps for your nations affected form the raid, if you pay reps for the nations affected by your counter attacks. Each nations were un-involved nations at the time. Basically a hey, you go your way, we go our way. Two for two. It's over. He said no to reps for my nations, and only for his. Which is his right, but don't mistake us to roll over, and let him continue to attack our nations which could have been diplomatically solved if they had sent me a PM, or anyone in our government a PM. 

 

A micro led by BMTH getting into a squabble because they picked a bad raid target? Impossibreu. 

 

If your damned charter says the raiders lose their ability to be defended, then WTF would they need to come talk to you before defending themselves 1st? Lets be honest, you absolutely did not mean that line of the charter. But I look at the cast of characters, and I am 0 shocked.

 

 

I am not the leader, your first mistake. 

 

Your second mistake is actually thinking our charter is in a public space for SWF to see it. Your third mistake is that the raiders were never attacked in return other nations on our AA were. Let's be honest, if they had come to me, about the raids before attacking, and asked for reps, they'd have them. Period. 

 

So, rush, are we to forfeit the right to defend our non raiding nations? Or just say hey, since you got attacked because some one else's mistake we wont defend you, sucks to suck?

[We have a 2319]

I thought that was CPCN?

CPCN is actually really active, and since we share common friends in them, I have asked CPCN to host peace talks on their forums with SWF, and Monsters Inc. hopefully SWF takes this opportunity to discuss peace with us rather than demanding reps from us after attacking members who had no part of the raid.

I requested this after CPCN saw our DoW and responded on our embassy about helping achieve peace between us two.

As I said, if they attacked the original members then asked for reps; or just asked for reps without attacking other members of Monsters Inc we'd not be in this situation.

I hope SWF comes to CPCNs forums to discuss peace with a moderator that we both trust, and like. Should be easier to come to an understanding.

[Post here to be assigned a WWF wrestler that matches your CN Character]

I request it