Adrian LaCroix

It's only dumb if it affects you adversely.

[IMG]http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd245/Ranger_3/Chartcopy.jpg[/IMG] Probably somewhere around there.

Wake me up when the regular season starts.

It's almost like people assume that politics is connected with reality. People will be using that against you until admin smites us all on judgment day.

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281803073' post='2415765'] It was a "yes" or "no" question. Was this DoW really necessary? So, no, I haven't received an answer to it yet. Let's try and speak the same language we've all agreed upon. You are a real quote factory!!! Thank you for clearing that up. If we could keep this kind of progress flowing, by George, I think we'll be at a conclusion before the end of the war!! [/quote] No war is ever necessary. Period. But not everyone is GPA, and some people would rather not sit on their hands when they feel they've been slighted.

/b/ombing isn't a CB, it's grounds for removal from the game.

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1281751327' post='2415220'] Yes, so it's quite clear that RoK attacked a NSO nation without having talked this over at all with NSO, and then later declared war on NSO because aid was sent to a member attacked without having talked it over with NSO. Meaning RoK had declared war on NSO before Heft had contacted RoK about this, and way before finally aid was sent to the nation in question. So how does the CB citing "aiding a rogue" fit together with what happened and no one even denies? At least NSO thought they were still in talks when RoK had long since settled on DoWing NSO. That's at best an unfriendly act. [/quote] It's not standard practice to ask permission to attack a rogue who's at war with your protectorate, even if they pick up an AA. At least, I've never seen it done that way.

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1281750743' post='2415207'] I wonder why everytime this comes up, it is forgotten that RoK had just previously attacked a member of NSO. Sending aid was the most diplomatic response to just having been DoWed on by RoK. And saying that you are gonna do that doesn't in any way legitimize doing it, it just shows that diplomacy by this definition means "do what we want or you will get stomped in the ground - you have been informed, anything else is your fault". [/quote] ...what? Since when do you need to ask someone's permission to attack a rogue?

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281749876' post='2415183'] This is untrue. RoK was at war with him when they declared, after he was a NSO member. The treaty says "An attack on TENE is considered an attack on RoK." It doesn't say "If TENE is at war, RoK is also automatically at war." By your logic, TENE can declare war on MK and RoK doesn't have a choice but to be at war with MK. [/quote] It's like you don't understand the difference between defensive war and offensive war. [quote name='shilo' timestamp='1281750018' post='2415189'] Well, this is what talks are for. You have a situation, and you talk from alliance to alliance to resolve it. When we consider the CB used against NPO during Karma, ie attacking during talks, I do wonder why it's so suddenly standard protocol to attack the object of discussion during the discussion, and then claim that anything following this sincere breach of basic diplomatic standards as the original reason of breaking diplomatic code. [/quote] They didn't attack the rogue during talks, so I'm not sure what you're on about.

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1281748924' post='2415162'] This would have a lot of merit, had NSO, let's say aided him just like that out of spite during talks. Or when they accepted him in. But once more, they sent aid to him after Ragnarok declared wars against the nation in question - while at least NSO believed there was an interest in solving this issue, and while NSO had not yet released him from their protection. What was the rush? [/quote] If they were so interested in solving the issue, why would they aid him? If you're going to accept a rogue, get him to pay reps or pay his reps for him, it's not that difficult. I believe we here at BRIG have done it a few times.

If someone were being an asshat to me/my alliance, and I had a chance of winning. I don't suffer fools unless I have to.

I'd hang out in #ve more if IRC didn't make me feel like shanking people.

Alright, ty. tl;dr: Rabble, derp.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281666396' post='2413693'] As I have established, this is a lie. RoK never declared a state of war prior to Sedrick joining NSO, and one did not exist through treaty technicalities (Even if you take the treaty literally to the exact letter, an act of war does not confer a state of war between the parties, as established by longstanding precedent of diplomacy in general). [/quote] All you've established is that you haven't got the slightest clue how protectorates work, and always have worked.

I lol'd. Good stuff.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281583529' post='2412113'] You are nowhere near correct. You have a contractual obligation to defend your protectorate, but an attack on TENE is not an attack on RoK, the treaty does not confer some transitive property onto warfare. Furthermore, military attack, which the treaty specifies, is a separate act of war from the act of aiding enemies. Therefore, no act of war was committed onto RoK, only onto TENE. This would be different had RoK contacted NSO before attacking the nation, and asked NSO to release him for attack. In fact they didn't really need NSO's permission, they merely needed to explain why the guy was an enemy of RoK. They couldn't do even that. [/quote] ...what? The treaty means what it says. You can wax pseudo-intellectual about the properties of war until you're blue in the face, but it won't change the simple legal reality of the situation.

A valid point, my friend.

Hello Jarkko. What are your equally important thoughts on this war?

Rabble rabble, derp derp.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281574451' post='2411825'] This is some of the flavor text I was talking about in my response to Ashoka. It is no different from the fact that Hoo cannot arbitrarily claim something is an act of war when it isn't. What an act of war is, is not dictated by treaties or individuals, it is an abstract that exists separate from these. What it is, how these standards are set, I cannot say for sure, but I can say what it is not. For example, if I tell your alliance that aiding you is an act of war on mine, it does not make it true. Similarly, if I write as such into a treaty, it also does not make it true. It is fanciful text with the meaning: "An attack on TENE grants RoK a valid Casus Belli, and RoK is contractually obligated to defend TENE from such attack." Please note that there is a difference between an 'attack' and an 'act of war.' The former is an member of a larger group of items identified by the latter. [/quote] The text of the treaty defines how the treaty and the relationship between the alliances in question work, I dare say. You can claim it means nothing, but that's a fairly silly thing to allege.

[quote name='SpoiL' timestamp='1281573516' post='2411805'] There's [i]always[/i] two sides to a story, [b]so you can expect GATO to e-lawyer their way out of the losing side. This has been their policy for nearly 5 years, it's almost a constant of Cybernations.[/b] It's funny, because I already expected you to be piss poor 'allies', so one of the first things I wondered at the beginning of this whole spectacle was how GATO was going to try to get out of it. Then when we relieve you of having to weasel your way out of it, you still choose to hang yourselves. It's a shame that the only people that can count on you are the ones that statistically don't need you anyway. [/quote] Examples of this happening, please. I can't think of any in the last 2.5 years, and before that I can't think of a war they won off the top of my head.

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281571945' post='2411772'] Yeah, I still don't get it. You're mad at us because we were allied to IRON? I mean !@#$. We hate some of your allies; doesn't mean we didn't like you. [b]And I don't think you get to judge about our shenanigans because you never came to our aid for said shenanigans.[/b] We weren't being the bad ally here dude. Your policy of taking the moral high-ground before defending your ally is arguably immoral. If your friend makes a bad decision, you would let them fall for it. But what do I care. I'm not in the morality business. Just saying. [/quote] Do what now?

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281572340' post='2411779'] Another act of war is when RoK nations declared on the NSO member without RoK notifying NSO of the reasons for such actions. Now, this line of reasoning isn't my favorite thing to pick at, and so I'm going to go at it differently: The sending of aid was an act of war [i]against TENE[/i] because the TENE wars had not yet achieved peace. This is the reason, and the [u]only[/u] reason, why Heft was in error to send the aid. Just because Hoo says something is an act of war does not make it an act of war, [b]and in fact no act of war was ever committed against RoK, only against TENE.[/b][/quote] An act of war against TENE is an act of war against RoK, if you read the protectorate agreement.

[quote name='Sulmar' timestamp='1281561398' post='2411544'] I'm having flashbacks to WoTC. Just because an alliance has a MDP/Protectorate doesn't mean that the allied alliance is automatically at war with the attacking nation/alliance. TENE is not Rok, thus Rok was not at war with Sedrick before NSO accepted him. I decided that I just had to fight you again. Third times the charm, right? One day though, it will happen. [/quote] I've not read TENE's protectorate treaty specifically, but most such treaties are set up such that an attack on the protectorate is an attack on the protector. At least, that's always how I've written them up.

Raiding unaligned is generally alright with me, when I was in milcom I'd encourage our newbs to raid once or twice so they could learn the basic mechanics of war. As for raiding alliances, I consider any AA with 2 or more people a legitimate AA, though general opinion in BRIG is that it takes five to make an alliance.