azrhei

[quote name='BamaBuc' timestamp='1297124169' post='2624723'] Does this apply if they're just joining for the duration of the war? It doesn't specify either way. -Bama [/quote] Well if they leave alliance A and join alliance B just long enough to lob some nukes, and then immediately return to alliance A, they really aren't joining alliance B now are they. You, and others, are arguing about semantics. Whatever term or definition you want to apply to it, it is the [i]intent[/i] behind the actions that is the basis of contention here. And contrary to what you seem to be arguing (referring to your questioning of whether it would be exempted by the alliance having an application on their forums), it is not hard to derive intention based upon the collective information available. People that [i]temporarily[/i] leave their alliance and join another for the express purpose of war-time actions are doing the same thing as a ghost/rogue/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. When one, or two, or even a dozen people do it - yes, each would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. When OVER TWO MILLION NS worth of people do it, all in the span of two days from the point of a war being declared, you would have to be unequivocally bereft of intelligence and lacking anything remotely being recognizable as a sentient being if you look at that and try to say they "really were joining the alliance but then just changed their minds." So that brings us back around to "they are only joining for the duration of the war." To this, I would simply refer to my previous post. You completely invalidate the point of having treaties, or even alliances, if you are going to simply mob-transfer from alliance to alliance based on the wind and who - as an individual - you want to fight at any given time. People making the choice, as an individual, to attack another individual or alliance is the very definition of what a rogue is. Whether the individual chooses to hold no alliance affiliation, or throw someone else's flag up, is entirely inconsequential to the [i]intent[/i] behind the actions. Edited to clarify a point.

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1296993698' post='2621992'] Fark is claiming that people joined NEW because of a burning desire to see Fark destroyed. It's just paranoid. They joined NEW because they like NEW and wanted to help defend them. The people who came to NEW mostly had no prior dealings with Fark, and couldn't care less about them one way or the other. [/quote] To the first point; I don't think so. The second point is the point, however, to all of the derogation of this new stance. People did switch to the NEW AA for the explicit purpose of joining in combat - NOT for joining the NEW alliance. To those that don't understand the difference, and decry the conditions of OP/declaration believing they are ridiculous, there is no real point in trying to argue with you - you are entitled to your opinions, even though I would argue they are illogical and without merit. It is patently obvious that people whose aid slots are filled with aid incoming and outgoing under the banner of their real AA, whose nation description still lists their real AA's badges and membership information, whose flag and team colors still match their real AA, and who leave their bandwagoned alliance to rejoin their real AA as soon as the war ended cannot in any possible construction of the term be seen as "membership" for the AA into which they were ghosting. It is no different than if they were to drop their AA to nuke someone on a whim, and then expect to go back home and escape reprisal. The justification and reasoning behind why it was done does not eliminate the reality of what it is, and what consequences should follow. The reality of the situation is that it does happen all the time, on both sides of virtually any conflict. The difference that prompted such a clause in this declaration (in my opinion - I am not gov) was in the scale of it. Normal conflicts may see a handful of ghosts - at best a few hundred thousand NS - whereas NEW had more than three dozen ghosts for [u]more than[/u] 2 million NS. That is an entire extra alliance. By the arguments of some in here, this is entirely acceptable, and so the logical conclusion would be that an entire alliance could change AA to join another in a war, thereby entirely cirumventing treaties. And if that is to be the case, what would be the point of even having any treaties at all, let alone alliances to decide when and when not to enter into conflicts?

AQUAHOG ENGAGED

On behalf of: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=126498 Nation: The Great Spartaland Ruler: midtownzthug90 Has resigned as a member of Illuminati alliance, in compliance with surrender terms.