HeroofTime55

[quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1281652841' post='2413364'] Whether Sedrick's attack on TENE was justified or not is entirely irrelevant. NSO decided to back him in his war against TENE and Rok, thus committing an act of war against those alliances. [/quote] RoK committed an act of war on NSO by attacking Sedrick without even explaining the situation to NSO. Sedrick was at war with TENE for several days, but only upon joining NSO was he attacked. Why didn't RoK attack him before? NSO had every right to aid Sedrick against the RoK attack... Unfortunately, the act was invalidated because it was also aiding his war against TENE. That is the point I'm trying to make. An act of war was committed against TENE, but not against RoK. Before we can discuss opinion on whether or not RoK was justified, we must first get the facts straight. (And just because RoK [i]considers[/i] it an act of war against them, does not mean it actually is. It only means that their policy is to treat it with the same weight as if an act of war was committed.)

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1281651162' post='2413334'] The difference is you're not an idiot (I hope). I'd hope you know that spying on someone is bad. However I doubt this TENE nation did. However one failed Defcon change level does not require attacks on multiple people. It's roguery plain and simple. [/quote]I would disagree. The spy attack indicates aggression, at the very least a desire to harm him which they are willing to act out on. To brush off an attack just because it did little real harm when it clearly shows malice on the part of the offender, is wrong. The nation had every right to defend himself, however I would argue that he should have struck only the offending nation. If you apply the same logic that Heft's action was representative of the whole NSO, however, than Sedrick's attack on TENE as a whole was justified by the same measure. I of course disagree with that assessment, but whatever.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why democracy is an absolutely terrible way to run your alliance.

This is not even close to what I'm saying.RoK had several days to attack, but instead they attacked a few hours after he was accepted into the NSO, without giving NSO an adequate explanation for their attack, let alone waiting for NSO to release the guy for attack. If it was so important, why didn't RoK attack him days earlier, before he was an NSO member? And people talk about spitting in Hoo's face? Please.

Can I ask, who in GATO enforced the 7 votes rule and forced the cancellation to go through even when opinions clearly were changed? Was there internal pressure to enforce this rule? Could there not have been a vote to postpone or cancel the action of the previous vote?

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' timestamp='1281596667' post='2412458'] Would you at least stop foaming at the mouth? Or at the very least, switch to decaf? [/quote]Incidentally, I'm calling off on posting after 1:30 AM. When I regain the mental capacity to do so, I will come back here to sort out the point I'm trying to make.

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1281595995' post='2412442'] Forgive them, old friend. They have seen so many trumped up CBs that they don't know what a clear-cut one actually looks like anymore. Next thing you know people will start saying that an alliance cannot decide for themselves what constitutes an act of war ... Oh wait ... [/quote]In other words, you believe you can arbitrarily declare any action to be an 'act of war' against RoK. Nice to know that the sovereignty of alliances doesn't apply when it comes to the Great and Mighty Hoo.

[quote name='ShadowChaos' timestamp='1281591691' post='2412345'] That's where you're wrong. It states in the Ragnablok that [b]An attack on any of the undersigned protectorates will be considered an attack on Ragnarok[/b]. Read [url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Ragnablok#III._Protection_and_Defense:]Article III[/url] of Ragnablok before you post. [/quote]"Will be considered" and "Is" are two entirely separate concepts. The former basically grants a license for RoK to respond, and then contractually obliges it. The latter claims to alter reality. [quote name='caligula' timestamp='1281592116' post='2412352'] So your argument is that this war is somehow unjust because NSO committed an act of war against TENE, RoK's protectorate, and not RoK. [/quote]I am arguing that RoK's rationale for skirting around the diplomatic process is invalid. It is the skirting around diplomacy that makes the war unjust. Basically, Hoo's ego got bruised when Heft ordered the aid, which was not an act of war on RoK just because Hoo claims it is. That's about the most generous scenario I can give as to why RoK might have skipped diplomacy. The reality is that they probably just wanted war for war's sake. That's the key thing. The strongest argument coming from the other side of the table is "But Hoo said it was an act of war!" and I mean to demonstrate that Hoo was incorrect in his assessment.

I'm going to go ahead and apologize, publicly, to magicninja, for crude personal attacks when I hadn't the full story. GATO is still a terrible alliance and deserves all the ridicule it gets. But I got rather personal and the reality is that you were perhaps the least deserving of that kind of heat. Especially considering what you did to try and make the situation right, now that I have the full picture. I know when I'm wrong and I'll stand here and admit to that. (As a side note to the peanut gallery, everything I said was IC. Crude and harsh and personal, but IC.)

[quote name='ShadowChaos' timestamp='1281578955' post='2411967'] Oh? So you're claiming that Protectorates isn't true, and that we (RoK) don't need to defend the signatory alliances of Ragnablok, a Protectorate Blok. Am I right then?[/quote]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.

Someone asked if they could subscribe to my newsletter. Well, now you can! So, we have a war on our hands, and now, as usual, those who declared are trying to validate their cause while those who are defending will try to show that the cause is weak. Standard politics. But something is going on, and it can be analyzed. So, how did this war start? From what I can gather, some guy made threats to an alliance, that alliance was spied on by an unknown agent, the alliance spied on the guy making threats, the guy making threats attacked the alliance. Boring. Unimportant, but boring. Then it kicks up. NSO have admitted this nation, per their longstanding policy of accepting nations at war. This guy apparently is less than honest with the Sith about the status of the war, and then suddenly, SURPRISE, RoK has attacked the nation with no indication to NSO that this would occur. Because of the lack of explanation from RoK at the time, this is interpreted as an act of war against the NSO. Enter Heft. Hoo threatens Heft that he will consider the aiding of the nation an act of war, but fails to provide adequate reasoning beyond a "my word is law" mentality. Ironically, in an attempt to avert war, he aids the nation in response to RoK's attacks, which he considered an act of war by RoK - Mind you, his reasoning has nothing to do with the ongoing TENE wars. This is a mistake by Heft, because the TENE wars had not achieved peace, and it violated the Sith policy of not aiding nations before their wars were resolved. It was in response to RoK attacks on the nation. A fatal oversight by Heft, no doubt, however, that the TENE wars were not left to resolve. In the end, the numbers are $6 million in aid to a 4k NS nation. The rest of the story comprises NSO officials attempting to correct Heft's error, and being ignored by RoK. These attempts at negotiation began almost instantly with Rebel Virginia and lasted until RoK would hastily declare war less than 24 hours later. No contact or negotiation was ever achieved in that period. The above are, to the best of my knowledge, an accurate representation of the facts. Now, let us analyze these facts to see the big picture. The first thing to make a note on is Hoo's threat: Just because Hoo says something is an act of war does not necessarily make it an act of war; the facts surrounding why the aid was given are what determine that. Therefore, we disregard Hoo's threat, and analyze the circumstances. RoK attacked a NSO member without NSO giving the OK, or even attempting to explain why. It cannot be expected that NSO see things from RoK's angle; They did not know the history and RoK failed to make available that history. All they saw was an attack by RoK nations on one of their own. It is therefore not unreasonable, and disregarding the active TENE wars, a very moderate response, to send aid, when an attack on the offending RoK nations could have been in order. This is why Heft viewed it as a 'compromise.' We move on and examine the act of giving the aid: Was this legitimate? I will argue that it was not, because the TENE wars had not achieved peace. Heft failed to see this bigger picture when he authorized the aid. The aid given was thus in violation of the Sith policy of not aiding new members until they have resolved their conflicts. This is only compounded by the fact that Sedrick, the recipient of the aid and the nation central to this debacle, directly lied to NSO command, telling them that the wars were resolved. In the end, NSO should have waited for verification of this claim by seeing peace achieved in those conflicts. The policy on not providing aid is in place precisely to prevent a conflict like this from occurring. Can Heft's actions be considered the official acts of the NSO? I will argue that they cannot be; First, Heft lacked the authority to order the aid, due to the standing Sith policy against doing so. Right off the bat, this presents problems for RoK's case, and Heft can arguably be considered a rogue member of the government. But the main thing that makes this event not the responsibility of NSO is that, almost immediately after Heft made his error, Rebel Virginia, a member with equal raking as Heft, moved to correct the mistake, by offering negotiations with RoK. RoK did not even entertain the offer of diplomatic negotiations. The government of the Sith would continue until the instigation of war to attempt negotiations to come to a diplomatic resolution. These were ignored, and RoK government had a notably reduced availability over this time frame. The above analysis of the facts, I hold to be true to the best of my knowledge. As we can see, mistakes were made by both sides, and the big thing left is to apply opinion to the facts: Was RoK justified to take military action, or was it an aggressive and unjustifiable move? To answer this, we have to answer whether or not the act of providing $6 million in aid to a ~4000 NS nation is an act which is beyond even entertaining the notion of diplomatic negotiation. There are some people with the opinion that any amount of aid, no matter how small, is an equal act of war with direct attacks on an alliance, and is beyond diplomatic negotiation, demanding immediate military response. I believe that the magnitude of an act is something that cannot be ignored, and I believe that the magnitude of this act was trivial. Why do people go to war? War is a diplomatic tool. It's primary function is to force compliance out of non-compliant parties. I therefore am of the opinion that diplomacy must always be a precursor to war, if only to make an assessment as to whether or not the other party is willing to be compliant with your demands. Because RoK entirely skipped over diplomacy after the offense had occurred, it is clear that they had no desire to determine whether or not NSO was willing to be compliant with any sort of demands they may have had to repair the situation. The only other possible motivation was that they simply wanted war for war's sake, and thus were content to not possibly lose their 'justification' for war in the course of diplomacy. Thus, I hold that RoK is in the wrong, and that RoK are the aggressors of this war. I hold that RoK simply desired to start a war with a weaker target.

[quote name='Adrian LaCroix' timestamp='1281574817' post='2411836'] 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]I did not claim it means nothing. I claimed that writing something down does not make it true. The world would be pretty awesome if you could just write stuff down and it became a reality, but that's not how it works. Just like Hoo is not god and he cannot dictate things to make them a reality. Although admittedly some people seem to think he is, including Hoo himself.

[quote name='Adrian LaCroix' timestamp='1281573136' post='2411796'] An act of war against TENE is an act of war against RoK, if you read the protectorate agreement. [/quote]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 name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1281571016' post='2411748'] HoT, I guess I'm making trouble for myself by taking your bait, but you missed the point spectacularly. The point is that you can't say 'Oh the aid was just Heft's personal thing' just like we wouldn't be able to say 'Oh those wardecs are just Goldie's personal thing', not that I'm trying to equate wardecs and aid. The sending of NSO government ordered aid to a rogue immediately after being warned that such a thing would be an act of war is, well, an act of war, and you don't get to say it's 'just his personal opinion' when he's used his government position to perform the actions in question.[/quote]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, and in fact no act of war was ever committed against RoK, only against TENE. But this is a distraction from the point, and the overall point is that from the very [i]instant[/i] that the act of war was committed against TENE, other officials in NSO recognized it for the mistake it was and swiftly moved in an attempt to correct the issue. Thus, the war instigated by RoK is not justified in that it was [i]not necessary[/i] to get NSO to comply and repair any damages done onto TENE or even RoK. NSO was willing and complicit to correct the issue. This war is an unjustified display of force by an aggressive, war-mongering alliance. [quote]I do disagree with Typo, government members can and do have opinions. A lot of what gets posted on these boards is personal opinions; I wouldn't use Haflinger's posts here to take Invicta's official position on anything for example (and I hope you don't take mine or Typo's to be VE's, particularly when we don't agree!). But when you're acting in an official government capacity – conducting diplomatic talks or ordering alliance nations to do something, whether that be aid, wars, spy attacks or anything else – then you are acting on behalf of the alliance and you don't get the 'personal opinion' escape. If the rest of the government feels sufficiently strongly that they don't back you up (for example if you've actually gone rogue) then they need to kick you out of government, at least – in fact alliances have been rolled in the past [i]even when they kicked the members out of the alliance[/i], though I would consider that to be wrong. In this case though Heft is still in NSO government so that doesn't apply. [/quote]I'm not arguing that there was not a fraction of an instant wherein Heft's actions might be considered the actions of the NSO - However, they could only be considered as such for that tiny fraction of an instant. The moment Rebel Virginia stepped up to the plate in an effort to correct the error, Heft's actions were no longer those of the NSO. On top of this, Heft acted in direct violation of official Sith policy when it comes to aiding new members with unresolved wars - He was literally not allowed to do what he did. It's like if the MoIA of an alliance declared war even though they (most likely) aren't authorized to do so. And that's an even more extreme example.

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1281570471' post='2411736'] So it's your contention that ignoring a treaty is OK when there is nothing within the treaty that allows you to do so? [/quote]When your ally [i]demands[/i] that you stay out because they believe it is in everyones, including their own, best interests to do so, then it is absolutely correct to ignore the specific wording of the treaty. The bond between the signing alliances far exceeds the value of a couple of words scribbled on a scrap of parchment. In any instance other than an ally's demand that you stay out for your mutual benefit, it is not OK to ignore the treaty. Only in the one, singular, above described instance. [quote]Just to be clear, this isn't even a question about the 'spirit' vs. the 'wording' of an agreement. The wording in this instance does not allow for interpretation.[/quote]So because of fanciful, flavorful wording meant to illustrate the strength of the bond between two alliances, Alliance A must impale itself on a sword despite Alliance B's protests not to. Brilliant. [quote]I keep asking this question, and nobody answers it. Instead what I get is "You're just upset that you're not fighting the NPO." ... With that in mind, you should be able to figure out why I keep bringing this up, and why I'm not surprised by the fact that I'm not getting an answer.[/quote]I hope I have answered your question adequately. If not, let me know.

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1281569930' post='2411726'] Wow, you managed to make a straw man argument by [i]accusing someone else of making a straw man argument[/i]. [/quote]I wasn't aware that Heft ordered a military strike on RoK targets. Can you link me to proof of this shocking new evidence? The point is that degrees of the violation are important. You can paint an example where the degrees of the violation far exceed what happened in the RoK/NSO incident, but to make an analogy between them is to, in fact, make a straw man argument.

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1281568627' post='2411704'] I just want to make one quick point. People keep talking about 'Heft's aid', but the aid wasn't actually sent by Heft. It was sent by NSO members in response to a direct governmental request to do so (by Heft, yes), and is therefore an alliance action, not an individual one. If Goldie tells ten people to declare war on random nations in Athens (to re-use the example brought up a few posts ago), we wouldn't expect to be able to say 'Oh, that's just Goldie's personal mistake' – certainly not if we kept him in his position after doing so! [/quote]And perhaps Heft would not have been kept in his position had RoK chosen to negotiate as NSO desired. But I suppose we'll never know at this point. Also, I should point out that this is a straw man - Heft did not, in fact, order an attack on RoK. Nor is he even authorized to do so. Not only that, but in instances of a government member doing this (as your example), it is usually chalked up as a "rogue government member" who is often immediately given the boot and attacked, with no war breaking out. What Heft did is trivial in comparison to what you describe, and even more when you consider his, albeit flawed, reasoning.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281566606' post='2411658'] I'm really having a hard time suspending disbelief and imagining anybody else being that blinding stupid long enough to decide how I'd react. I think I'd have trouble declaring war at the same speed Hoo did just on the basis that I'd be too stunned from the blinding idiocy to do anything coherent for a while. [/quote]In other words, "lol, but that would never happen." Well, not that I expected you to give a straight answer where a straight answer would do you harm. Surprise surprise. [quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1281566830' post='2411662'] I'm in my ally's Declaration of War announcement. You? Alas, I've learned that trying to convince faithless cowards to stand up for their allies -- when they have no treaty-related reasons for not doing so -- is a little bit like yelling at fish until they learn to walk. I mean, it's fun and all....but you know how it is. They're your pals, after all.[/quote]Really, hasn't it been explained that NSO didn't just ask, they [i]demanded[/i] that their allies stay out, like a thousand times now? Are you really that upset that you don't get to smash the NPO again? Were you looking forward to demanding another year of reps or something? I didn't realize free tech was so addicting, somebody should set up a support group for that. [quote]I'm still trying to get an official response as to why Pacifica isn't abiding by its treaty with the NSO. Every other NSO ally has that option. You do not. I understand that taking shots at me is easier than sticking by your word, and that this forms a key part in Pacifican 'debating technique'. Please continue. You're not fooling anyone. [/quote]And you accuse us of taking shots? Ha! Maybe one day you will figure out that the concept of "Defense" is more about talking with your allies and arriving at a plan that best "defends" your mutual interests, and is less about charging blindly into a suicidal war with no strategy. I'm not holding my breath, though.

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1281564889' post='2411617'] We are all mindless sheeple and you are our Hero of Time. You could make the propaganda focus more on the actual war, and less focus on how intellectually superior you are to everyone(which you're not) It has to communicate a simple yet powerful message not just :words:, stickmen just don't cut it for propaganda, improve your photoshopping skills and focus on using the image to get the message across. It might help to look at previous pieces of propaganda. I know how you detest us but we at MK do make some of the best propaganda so it's a good place to start if you want to see how it's done well. [/quote]Well I did feel a little funny inserting myself into my propaganda, and I can see why that would detract from things. But I am not the focus of the image; The focus is on the hypocrisy I see (And let's not debate whether or not it exists, that isn't the point of this thread. I am asking for artistic advice and thus you should look at it from a neutral perspective). As for stickmen: I rather like my stickmen. I'll admit that there is a more full version floating around that I'm not at liberty to post here, but it is still stickmen. The piece was done in MSPaint as I don't even have photoshop, though I did download GIMP and rapidly failed to understand how it works. Absolutely not dissing the MK propaganda machine, when it comes to image manipulation the Kingdom is of course unmatched. But I simply don't have the years of experience that you guys have. Using stickmen is poking fun at my own inability. And personally, I think the stickmen is a bit better creatively than inserting unfunny lines into a pre-existing webcomic, taking screen shots of vidya gaems, or haphazardly placing alliance flags on photos of people doing whatever. Personal opinion. Those can be good, but often they aren't. At any rate, I thank you for the advice.

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1281538740' post='2411117'] Funniest image of the thread. But not for the reasons you intended. [/quote]Care to elaborate? You know, what did I do wrong, what could I do better, what did you consider funny, so on.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281563799' post='2411592'] Secondly, you try to make it sound like the source of the crime has any bearing. Sending aid is an act of war, doesn't matter who did it, NSO. GATO, the ghost of NAAC. [/quote]Yes, but lets say, lets take an example here, let's say Athens does this exact same thing to the Viridian Entente that NSO did to RoK (This is a hypothetical, so don't chime in with a "lol but that would nevar happen"). Would VE hastily declare war on Athens while dodging Athens' attempts to negotiate?

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1281561981' post='2411553'] This was certainly not the precedent set by you and your allies (ex: BAPS during the BAPS war), nor any other alliance. An alliance is held responsible to its government members, simple as that. [/quote]You know, it's funny, I remember there being a war a while back that purported to 'change the world' and reverse all these evil precedents. In fact, I remember the main issue at hand being that the alliance at the center of war didn't take the time to properly negotiate with an alliance that had government officials who committed acts of war against them. And they spent a good week negotiating before that war. Well, I guess when you look at it that way, they really DID change the world - now you don't even have to negotiate, just go out there and smash things. And mind you, noWedge was a joke, so find a better examples than the BAPS war, please. [quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1281562273' post='2411556'] And what if he doesn't admit to your "facts"? What if I don't? What if nobody does? Will you and everyone else remotely connected to NSO continue to go on and on and on, directing your analysis and rebukes at an audience that either agrees with you (but won't do anything about it) or simply doesn't care? OMG.... I finally get it. Ragnarok & Friends are this guy: [center]Image[/center] Meanwhile, over in the NSO camp.... [center]Image[/center] Please continue HansofTime55. We're all paying attention. Honest. [/quote]Well, of course I don't expect you to admit to reality when it doesn't suit your ends. But I expect external parties may quietly start to see what's going on. Anyway what are you doing here, shouldn't you be busy calling NPO and friends cowards and trying desperately to goad them into war?

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281559032' post='2411495'] I'm saying you set a gold standard of diplomatic bungling. It was too late to approach Rok after the aid was sent, you killed your chance to negotiate your way out of it when you spat in Hoos face. [/quote]Except this isn't what you said, you said that NSO did not "immediately move to correct Heft's error," when in reality, they did. Can you just admit that NSO did everything in their power to try to negotiate a diplomatic solution after Heft caused an incident and that RoK ignored this? I don't care if you think RoK's aggression is somehow justified, just admit to the facts of the situation, please.

[quote name='Viking' timestamp='1281558196' post='2411476'] So NSO attempted negotiations after the time for negotiations had passed? [/quote]Another way of saying this is "There was never any time for negotiations." You will, of course, be ignorant of what the negotiations I refer to would have been about. So I have to spell it out for you: Negotiating a solution to [i]Heft's error in aiding the NSO member.[/i] You'll still ignore it, though. The other alternative is that you believe NSO should have been negotiating a solution to the problem before the problem occurred, but that's just absurd, right? ...Right?

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281554122' post='2411418'] Except, no they didn't. [/quote] You know, before you were just omitting parts of the story to try and drum up support... A mistruth, but forgivable. This is a blatant lie if there ever was one. I like to use the phrase 'blatant lie' but this, really, truly, is extreme, it is outright and explicit. Your statement could not possibly be more false. Immediately after the incident, Rebel Virginia (Of equal rank to Heft) and other NSO high government reached out to RoK in an attempt to solve the issue, and they were ignored. Once those ranking above Heft became available (Read: Wad of Lint and Heggo) they too tried to negotiate a peaceful, diplomatic solution with RoK. These attempts were also ignored. The NSO continued to constantly attempt to reach out to RoK before the war began, as RoK.gov made themselves scarce. NSO continues to reach out to RoK in an effort to approach a diplomatic solution. I am unaware of the current status of these talks, but I do know that NSO is still getting smacked around. And you sit there, trying to paint a picture of the whole NSO just waving certain extremities at RoK this whole time, something which clearly and assuredly did not happen. It doesn't get more blatant than that.