Ferrous

I don't understand why everyone likes Flying Dog. It's kinda gross, IMO. Nice reviews, ol' chum.

Rock on, Mia.

I don't see any amendment clause. This makes me sad.

Hail Zenith! I miss you guys.

Congrats to both parties. I like you both. I just wish you would've chosen something... tastier.

Whatever my gut tells me is factual. Did you know? The stomach has more nerve endings than the brain.

A. You know I prefer too long rather than too short. I think people who ask for "tl;dr" versions are lazy, although I don't mind providing a synopsis. B. I disagree.

STA is founded by a nuclear rogue. Sorta.

That is way too brief an explanation

Skippy. In charge of people. For Admin's sake, run for cover!

Actually, I'm not trying to paint him as a hypocrite. I'm trying to paint him as trying to engage in an idea that is half-baked at best. The problem with him not getting into specifics is that it gives him some leeway in interpretation - which can easily lead to hypocrisy - so people really like to see what he considers "bad" and what he considers "good" - specifics. Much more specific than the general categories that he presented in the OP. His original post states that he will declare war on alliances that commit one of the following: "[illegal] intervention," "hypocrisy," and "opportunism." He gives brief definitions, which as you can see, are highly circumstantial. In the end, while hypocrisy is fairly straightforward, intervention and opportunism are highly subjective. Therefore, it is necessary that Jack either be more specific about his own laws so he can't "pick and choose" which ones to enforce, or revoke some of the ideals altogether. I happen to be a person who thinks that treaties and charters should at least to their letter, in order to prevent miscommunication and misinterpretation. In this case, since Jack's OP downrides intervention of any kind, then yes, I do believe he should declare war on every single alliance that has an active treaty. That's what it says. If Jack disagrees, then he can either get more specific, or get rid of them.

I knew that my point would fall on deaf ears. There are two forms of intervention, proactive and passive. Most people understand the proactive or reactionary kind of intervention. After someone has done something wrong (according to a party), that party then commences on whatever action they feel is appropriate to intervene. In this case, Jack does not like it when proactive intervention occurs when there is no legal basis for the action. It is the second kind of intervention that is often ignored. By Athens declaring that they will declare on anyone who tech raids Jack, they are essentially putting walls around what other people can and cannot do. Granted, it's a very small wall, but the principle still holds. Since this is essentially a preventive measure, it's intervention that happens before the actual act. As I said, I have no qualms with Athens' protection of Jack, but if Jack is to uphold his values (or else prove himself a hypocrite), he'd either have to declare war on Athens or amend his own values.

It is how most alliances act. However, it's also an imposition to an alliance about what they can and cannot do. Mind you, it's a stance that I completely agree with, but since it's inherently a form of passive moral interventionism (you can't raid my friends because I will hurt you because I value my friends), it also means that if I tech raid Jack, and Athens declares war on me, then Jack has to declare war on Athens.

So... Tech raiding is fine, as long as you don't tech raid Athens or any of Athens' friends?

Heh, I'm well aware of the limitations of my nation. I was only speaking hypothetically. So do you guys have something against common tech raids then?