Ivan Moldavi

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1281718261' post='2414463'] I would like to add... Sedricks case would be much stronger if he had attacked, and ONLY attacked the nation that spied on him. Alliances have single members who make spy attacks against other alliances every day. To be honest, alliances by and large are incapable of stopping members from being stupid. But, Nation A, being a member of alliance X, and spying on Nation B, is NOT a valid CB for nations B to attack alliance X in his defense. It is a CB for him to attack nation A in his defense. [/quote] I like you. Indeed, you are correct. I have never stated that I agreed with Sedrick's (or indeed anyone's) actions in this conflict, I have just been offering a viewpoint that has for some reason been overlooked. Sedrick may have overreached in his response but it was still a response just the same. There is no evidence that supports the claims that he was the initial aggressor except some circumstantial issues, but no facts.

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1281718026' post='2414458'] It appears as though we are at an impasse, the Hyperbole vs. Reason. Good thing the firepower is on my (Reason) side of the argument. As for my pity, I know you didn't care. I just thought Id take a go at being dramatic. Seems like you're having all the fun. [/quote] I always have fun. Otherwise I wouldn't be here. Might makes right was coined long before this attempt to equate it with some fanciful notion of "reason". Reason would imply that you not launch a full scale war over $6mil or that you wouldn't declare upon another alliance's member without at least the courtesy of a commonplace heads-up. Where was your "reason" when those actions took place?

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1281717238' post='2414443'] Then your bare bones assessment is flawed. Failing to recognize that certain acts of spying, particularly change defcon, only cause damage in certain situations (or no damage in this case) and magnifying that as being CB for an escalated conflict is a bit melodramatic on both Sedrick's and your part. Sedrick, unless he was at a final day of collection, stood to lose no money and lost no infra, land, nukes, soldiers, planes, ships, tanks, cms or tech because of the operation. His response, on the other hand, was over the top and set the ensuing conflict up purposefully. Calling foul, white knighting for the "rights" of individual nations, and exaggerating the conflict as NSO has done is proof that this entire conflict is based on surprisingly daring acts of stubbornness both on the part of Sedrick and the NSO. I feel no pity for your alliance or Sedrick. [/quote] I guess it is a good thing I have never concerned myself with gaining your pity then, right? *rollseyes* Your argument is flawed. Period. Spying is considered an aggressive act. Just because you wish this one instance to be labelled separately doesn't make it so, sorry. That isn't how it works. Spying has consistently been considered an aggressive act. Changing the definition to suit your arguments only highlights your failure in the attempt.

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1281715897' post='2414422'] Im saying that you are stretching the definition of aggressor to its extreme by claiming that he was "defending" himself from something that did not cause him any harm. INconvenience? yes. Harm? No. IN essence, this entire debate is hyperbole in motion. [/quote] I'm saying no such thing. I am pointing out the definition of an aggressive action. Spying on another nation has been defined as such since the very earliest days of its implementation as a tactic. I didn't create that definition. The result of the aggression doesn't matter, it's the act that counts.

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1281715343' post='2414407'] I think we are getting a bit bent out of shape over the spying thing. Yes, I know this is late but there are really only three ways a Change Defcon spy attack could ever harm a nation, all of which - from what I gather - have no relevance to Sedrick's case: 1) If that nation is at its final day of collection (20-25) 2) If that nation is involved in a war where defcon needs to be changed. 3) If that nation is stupid enough to collect soon after getting spied on. Unless Sedrick was dumb enough to collect immediately after being spied on, involved in a war, or on his final day of collection his losses are effectively $0 as all he had to do was change his defcon after update. This is far different from the $150,000+5*Sedrick's NS the nation who spied on him (to change his defcon) had to pay. So the only person who truly suffered from this event (had it been let be) was the person who did the spy attack. This leads me to the conclusion that Sedrick is an idiot for attacking a protected alliance as a single nation over something that (unless he absolutely had to collect or made the stupid mistake of collecting) caused him absolutely no strife but the inconvenience of having to change his defcon. [/quote] Sedrick's mental capacity is not the issue however. The issue is whether or not spying constitutes an aggressive act and is a legitimate CB, in which case TENE is the aggressor, which would make every subsequent act by Sedrick defensive in nature, and therefore not a rogue but a sovereign nation defending itself.

[quote name='Deathistan' timestamp='1281712901' post='2414348'] If you view protectorates as being meatshields, well then im just glad I wasnt in an alliance with any sort of pact with you... But anyway, im just thinking the NPO (and [s]meatshields[/s] friends) needed to make this about the NPO because of unwarranted self importance [/quote] I view everyone here, with very few exceptions, as a puppet on a string. I always have. I have never stated otherwise. Those that are in my alliances get preferential shipping crates but the end result is the same. I am a heartless son of a !@#$%* and will utilize whatever means are at my disposal to reach my aims in a given situation. Some people come along for the ride and do well, others do not. You failed to address my points however. Which is fine, because I know they are good points, I made them after all.

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1281712690' post='2414344'] It is relevant because this is what I was told by the Sith after Heft sent the aid. I keep seeing all these posts about how the NSO came and quickly apologized, stated they were wrong, and offered to pay reps ... this is not true. The "apology", if you can call it that, amounted to "Well, it isn't what I would have done, not without thinking about it first anyway. We'll talk it over, but we have a no reps policy." [/quote] Ah, I misunderstood your initial comment then. I thought you were implying that the NSO told you when you first started attacking one of their members without any notification that they wouldn't pay reps. I thought that was odd. Thanks.

[quote name='Deathistan' timestamp='1281712400' post='2414337'] Which the rogue decided to go and do first anyway, so whats your point exactly? that TENE was spied on first and retaliated in defense? [/quote] Please provide evidence to support this statement. Oh wait...

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1281699814' post='2414207'] Zombie Glaucon: An 'aggressive action' is not the same as an 'aggressive war'. Check my blog for the full argument, but it's self-evidently ridiculous if you consider a spy-op which is not exposed – it's still an 'aggressive action' but obviously it does not start an aggressive war, because there is no war there at all! Ivan: You are falling into the same trap. Even if you believe Sedrick's claims that 'they started it' (there's not really any reason to believe them over TENE's claims of aid thievery and whatever considering his clear instability, but that's a side issue), and therefore that he had a valid CB to attack TENE, [i]he still attacked TENE[/i]. Attacking first makes you the aggressor, and attacking an alliance from unaligned status makes you a rogue. Also, you had a small mistake in your timeline: Heft was warned not to aid Sedrick before he did so. That's actually the primary reason there is a war at all, it could be passed off as a mistake if he hadn't been but having just been told that it would be an act of war, to do it was as clear a 'screw you' as you get in diplomacy. [/quote] No. All I have stated is that the actions against Sedrick are [i]at least[/i] as justifiable as a CB as the actions of Heft in sending aid to Sedricks nation. Since RoK believes that $6mil to a nation that they attacked under the NSO banner (which, as I have stated many would see as a more "valid" CB for NSO to declare on RoK) constitutes a sufficient CB then having nations spy your Defcon level, which effects your income (I think, I don't actually know lol), seems equally convincing. An unaligned nation that is attacked, be it via spying or direct assault, has the right to attempt to defend itself and is not a rogue.

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1281679571' post='2414057'] The NSO does not pay reparations and this policy was made clear to us pre-war. TENE would not have received a dime from the New Sith Order. Keep reaching though. [/quote] I'm not sure if the payment of reps is against NSO policy these days or not, but I can't really figure out the relevance here. If a single member, a new member at that, got itself into trouble then surely that nation would be the one paying the reps, perhaps with NSO aid, but not necessarily and almost definitely not as an official alliance wide "NSO Rep Payment". Why would you clarify whether or not NSO as an alliance pays reps in regards to this minor incident? Seems odd. Just curious.

[quote name='Deathistan' timestamp='1281680143' post='2414065'] *Sarcasm*We all know the true motivation is going after NPO*Sarcasm off* or some other silly conspiracy theory NSO's side keep coming with because they just dont have any better [/quote] You are indeed correct. Because it makes so much more sense to drag your 35 nation [s]meatshield[/s] protectorate into a large scale nuclear war over a hostile response to spying by one nation. I believe Corinan's first strike against TENE's #2 last night netted more than $12mil in damages, without a nuclear assault. So yeah, that is what makes the most sense logistically. Of course it could never be that a group of alliances, that feel like certain other alliances gained ground too quickly and might pose a threat to them at some future point, saw an opportunity to draw them into a large scale conflict in which the sides were aligned in their favor. No, that could never happen. Perhaps I give those behind the scenes too much credit. That seems like the sort of planning that [i]I[/i] would have done. But not everyone is me. (Thank God.)

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281678320' post='2414039'] Ivan you've lost your edge in your semi-retirement. Nobody is questioning the NSO's ability to offer anyone they want membership. But if you really are going to accept any and all you are going to inherit their problems too. So you offered to protect Sedrick cool. Guess what, that makes his war your war. Its really that straight forward. Heft instead of doing the sane thing and asking what Hoo wanted to get Sedrick off RoK's hitlist sent aid to a nation at war and served up a valid CB on a silver platter. Adopt all the strays you want, just remember to get them their shots first. [/quote] I think you missed the point of my post. I was simply mimicking MM's response to the same question from me. Please see several of my other comments in this topic where I elaborate on exactly the points you make. I do not believe NSO is blameless. But I do believe that objectively both alliances had equally valid CBs for this to go down. RoK chose to act on it because they believed there would be escalation, at least that is my opinion. They have sacrificed a protectorate in the hopes of it. TENE and NSO are the only alliances that will bleed in this war that never had to be.

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1281677423' post='2414023'] This is were we part paths again, in my mind the existing wars trump the membership granted by NSO. If I remember correctly, and I believe you reiterated it early, when you ruled NSO applying members at war had to get them squared away before they were granted aid or protection. May I ask why you had that policy? [/quote] Because I'm a dick? Anyway, it doesn't matter, I don't make NSO's policy any longer so if they want to let people in then they can and accept the consequences, which this undoubtedly is. I do not believe that a nation in defensive wars (with anyone) is automatically defined as being an aggressor to that alliance's protectors, which is your main argument. The only proof available points to TENE, for whatever reason, launching a spying attack against Sedric. That was the initial provable event. TENE was the initial aggressor. RoK was not involved. RoK did not get involved until they too decided to be the aggressor and declare on Sedric after he was a member of NSO. I may not agree with some of the events that occurred after that point and how certain things were handled but that doesn't change the facts. RoK declared upon a member of the NSO. That is a valid CB. It just is. Anyway, it is late for me and I am about to log out. It has been fun, as usual. Goodnight.

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1281676923' post='2414006'] Care to explain to me how any of this was the business of the NSO? [/quote] It's rather simple, I would think a man of your stature and extensive experience would be on top of it, it's called a membership agreement between Sedric and NSO. Which generally is more of a connection than a protectorate agreement.

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1281676998' post='2414008'] Hey, I won't deny your statement. Isn't it a shame NSO gave them good cause for escalation? [/quote] Yes, it really is. I have not stated that the NSO is blameless for this event. I have stated that both alliances screwed the pooch royally.

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1281676923' post='2414006'] Care to explain to me how any of this was the business of the NSO? [/quote] Care to explain to me how any of this was the business of RoK?

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1281676507' post='2413991'] Wow, leave out a lot of information why don't you. NSO is getting rolled for aiding a nation at war with TENE/RoK [/quote] Wow, leave out a lot of facts why don't you? NSO is getting rolled because RoK hoped for escalation.

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1281676392' post='2413989'] The first war in that string was launched by Sedrick, you can twist that worm all you want, wont change the fact its a worm. Just because Sedrick "offered" peace doesn't mean jack if it isn't accepted by alliance leadership. What makes no sense is NSO thinking they can aid a nation at war with other alliances and walk away. [/quote] Yes, he launched in response to a TENE spying attack, which again, is at least as justifiable as a CB as $6mil.

[quote name='Lord Boris' timestamp='1281676364' post='2413987'] what you gave as a 'response' was pretty weak, actually. You try to justify his actions in it, but justification or lack thereof does not is not a requirement for the existance of something. Who fired the first spy attacks? We may never know. What we do know, however,is that he had been in a state of conflict with a Ragnarok protectorate prior to his joining NSO, and NSO opted to incite conflict by fueling the fire with aid after a direct warning not to do so. [/quote] Wait, you are saying my response is weak when I actually provided facts and you are providing suppositions? Really? Come on. I don't even know you but I assume since you decided to respond to my posts that you at least have a somewhat good opinion of yourself. Surely you can do better. What we [i]know[/i] is that the only provable wars were instigated by TENE. Period. Everything Sedric did after the fact was defensive so it doesn't matter who TENE is a protectorate of in that instance, they were the aggressor, which I believe invalidates the defensive aspect of their treaty (not 100% certain of that, just going by what is fairly standard in such situations) so again, RoK had nothing to do with this situation at all. They involved themselves by declaring aggressive wars against a member of the NSO, which was a completely, and some would argue, better, justified CB against RoK.

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1281675838' post='2413971'] Regardless of self defense or aggressive, the fact is a state of war did exist prior to NSO membership, NSO choose to intervene and we are now witnessing the results of that intervention. [/quote] Actually no. Sedric had offered peace on both wars prior to membership and there were no ongoing discussions or issues with RoK. You need to stick with one line of thought. No nation has ever been told that because they are in a defensive war with some other alliances protectorate that they are automatically in an aggressive war with that alliance. That makes no sense.

[quote name='Lord Boris' timestamp='1281675813' post='2413969'] I think I'll just let you in on something and then let you respond to you... [url="http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=410982&Extended=1"]http://www.cybernati...0982&Extended=1[/url] Now, Sederic may or may not have had a reason to do what he did (that part will be debated ad nauseum), [u]but that doesn't change the fact that he did, in fact, declare on TENE[/u]. Once again, a solid B- effort there, Ivan. [/quote] As usual, the wiseguys that think they will get a good potshot in on me are a little slow on the draw. See my response to this same "shocking revelation" earlier on the page.

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1281675554' post='2413963'] [img]http://i32.servimg.com/u/f32/14/32/95/80/sedric10.jpg[/img] Take a close look at Sedrick' AA, now tell me again how he wasn't at war with TENE/RoK prior to joining NSO. [/quote] Sure, those attacks occurred after a member of TENE spied on him, which is at least as marginally a good CB as $6mil in aid. Self defense is not an act of aggressive war. EDIT: Also, why aren't the color boxes complete on that second war? Odd.

[quote name='Salmia' timestamp='1281675031' post='2413946'] Bold is mine. You know, throughout this entire thread, you've sounded like a cheerleader for NSO, willing to twist [i]anything[/i] to get your own way and ignoring that doesn't match up to you. The facts are laid out in this thread, everyone knows them. It is up to people to choose their own interpretation. The facts are there but the implications and the behind the word twisting you're trying to do? That is you trying add your interpretation into it. We've moved beyond the facts already, you're just trying to twist the facts to your point of view of "NSO is innocent! NSO did nothing wrong!" Fact of the matter - both parties could have handled this better, NSO did a slap in the face to RoK, RoK wasn't exactly eager to be diplomatic but what else do you expect when you have two people who do not like each other? That means you need to tread lines even more carefully than before. Both have strong personalities, both aren't exactly known for backing down. It is not a surprise. Is the war exactly a great one? No. But to say NSO did no wrong is to paint a picture of sugar and plums and argue something that has long been lost. People do not debate the validity of the CB - that is accepted. A casus bellus is up to the alliance declaring that makes it valid to them. Whether the rest of us agree with it is up to us. I've watched throughout this thread as you twisted everything to the side. RoK considers it an act of war against them so it is an act of war. This war proves that. You can't stop the fact they did declare. So it was an act of war and has been considered so in the past. I've also seen you argue that an attack on a protectorate is not an attack on a protector and that a piece of paper doesn't make it reality. Do you realize what standards you've been arguing will turn us back to the stone age? In order to win your "PR" battle for whatever reason, you discard everything that would make us recede boundaries. Treaties are accepted facts, an attack on a protectorate is an attack on a protector. You can't dictate someone's treaty to someone else. You can disagree but you're trying to shove your views and replace the facts with your slant on it. The facts are there already, you're just trying to put your own spin on it and in it - you're damaging things by running through standards we've already set. Do you really want to send the message it is okay for people to attack protectorates and protectors won't protect the protectorate? 64digits was a protectorate once upon a time, TPF protected you. An attack on you would've been an attack on TPF and TPF would've responded. To debate, you shouldn't just toss everything to the curb just to make the point of making NSO appear angelic because the facts state for themselves but your twisting? You're setting new standards by shredding through old ones with your willingness to turn everything into a point of contention just to make your point. Sacricificing the security of what a treaty is? Doubting the fact that a treaty is a treaty? Please take PR lessons because you're destroying everything in one ammunition shot and setting precedents that should not be set at all. When you can't admit someone did something wrong on your "side" just because it is the opposing, there is something wrong. That is a mistake, you have to be able to see all points and not just shred through whatever you can. NSO committed a wrong, RoK and NSO didn't get along before well, it was a narrow line. It is understood that the situation wasn't handled as well as it could've been but you don't need to handle it that way in order to make your point. You paint a side purposefully and stir up precedents no one wants set. Don't lose your scruples when trying to make a point, you hurt the community when you do that as well as make yourself look like a cheerleader who refuses to listen and only has selective listening. [/quote] Considering that no evidence has been produced that justifies the position that Sedrick declared on TENE and the only evidence in existance is TENE spying on Sedrick couldn't your same argument be used to justify the validity of a NSO CB against RoK for declaring upon one of their members? Just curious.

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1281674661' post='2413939'] The moment Sedrick attack a TENE nation he was also at war with RoK. Read their Protectorate treaty. Whether Sedrick launched the first attack or not doesn't really matter as far as NSO is concerned, active war was underway which involved Sedrick, TENE and RoK prior to Sedrick joining NSO [/quote] Again, no. In order for the latter to be logically correct the former has to be true and that has not been proven by any party and denied by some. The NSO admitted a nation that was "at war" with TENE by sole virtue of a TENE member spying against it, not the other way around. There would be no logical reason for the NSO to have any inclination that this nation had any prior engagements with TENE or any issues with RoK. It is time for people to stop playing dumb and just accept the facts of the situation. RoK hoped for escalation, they saw this as a way to get it and played it out and it didn't work. They will get their shots in at NSO and go home happy because everyone hates the NSO, right? Who loses? No one. Oh wait, TENE does. But that doesn't really matter overall, right? They are just a [s]meatshield[/s] protectorate.

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1281672719' post='2413870'] Yeah because NSO doesn't have Frostbite to back them up anymore. [/quote] I will give you a B- for this effort but really, you can do better.