LokiLockpicker

I'm curious, how long will the rogue that started the sequence of events leading to this war remain in peace mode? Any update on peace talks? I've said before, I think $24 mil in reps from NSO would be fair.

I was originally thinking that I would have handled this differently in the place of Ragnarok, but realized that I would have authorized the attacks that morning when I heard about the rogue (low probability of getting money for the injured nation being the main reason), probably wouldn't have looked again that day to see if he had joined an alliance (since I wouldn't have been planning on hitting him personally, I'd have no reason to look). When NSO came for discussions, my thought would have been, "sure, we'll send peace to him, as soon as the attacked nation gets money for his actions", and I would have had the same response to aiding a nation we were at war with. My reasoning and relative lack of caring about the rogue's wellbeing may have been different than Rok's (too tired to read minds today), but it's fairly easy to see a reasonable ruler or alliance proceeding in what would be the same path.

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1282001227' post='2418369'] Yes. You should have declared on him when the dispute began. Instead, you waited several days. If you'd had a nation on him within 24 hours of the beginning of the dispute, none of this would have happened. [/quote] My *sources say they had nations on him within 21 hours of him declaring an offensive war on their protectorate. Before that point, they really had no reason to attack him, even though his supposed reasons for attacking were from several days prior according to my *sources. *said sources including screenshots posted in this thread and a quick search for Sedrick's wars

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1281879421' post='2416633'] TENE claims that Sedrick launched a spy mission on the 4th. That's certainly when they spied on him. So why the 72 hours of delay, now? [/quote] That is a rather good question. If Sedrick was 'attacked' by spies, why did he wait that long to respond to it? Though the better question would be, why did he respond at all, since at worst that would be considered a prelude to a tech raid on him, with tech raiding still being accepted in the world.

I'm still not understanding how people are claiming that Ragnarok didn't let NSO know. Both sides have admitted to the logs of an NSO representative being told about the attack, being told that sending aid to the guy they were at war with was an act of war, and basically saying screw it and ordering that the aid be sent. I'm also shocked that this hasn't been resolved, sending $6 mil to each of the nations that guy was at war with would have been a relatively fair compromise, and $24 mil to avoid/end a war seems to be a small price. Shoot, $3 mil each would have probably been fair. Although, with NSO's stance of not paying reps, and sending money out to cover your mistakes being reps, I guess that would explain why it is still ongoing.

[quote name='Aimee Mann' timestamp='1281100562' post='2402653'] There's nothing wrong with the logic at all and it's pleasing to see a senator with a degree of colour-based independence who is willing to stand up for himself. If the maroon senators believe that Swat128's long service to his colour in the past is more important than a few weeks of roguery then I can understand why a sanction request from a foreign power over a relatively minor issue would be denied. It's about showing a respect for a ruler's history, and not simply branding them as the ultimate evil because they attacked a few people for a few weeks of an almost 1000 day existence. No alliance is entitled to sanctions and it shouldn't be a formality that they are granted out of hand. If ODN or UPN or anyone else wants sway over maroon they should either have a good relationship with them, offer an incentive, or be prepared to use force. There shouldn't be an automatic 'yes' just because it's an alliance v independent ruler situation and alliances are used to simply rounding up on the lone ruler in the past because it was the easy thing to do. There are always other circumstances to consider before attacking the trade and aid of a nation and it's nice to see maroon being thoughtful about it. ... assuming that the stated reason for the denial of a sanction is the actual reason, and that it's got nothing to do with a few alliances simply taking the opportunity to thumb their noses at a few other alliances, obviously. I'm just going to have faith on this one. [/quote] That logic is like deciding that you shouldn't arrest a murderer because he spent 30 years helping people first, even while he is continuing to murder people in front of you.

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1280877049' post='2400067'] This treaty wasn't like any other treaty because, as I understand it, this treaty specifically said it could not be canceled and as far as I'm aware no other treaty has that clause. However, that clause was always bug$%&@ retarded and no reasonable person could ever have expected that clause to ever actually be followed. Generally, all a cancellation clause does is establish a procedure for leaving the treaty. The lack of such a clause does not in any way prevent an alliance from canceling a treating. In this case, the presence of an explicit "cannot be canceled" clause does technically prevent MHA from canceling it in a strict legal sense, but, again, that clause was basically meaningless superfluous rhetoric that never belonged in the treaty in the first place. It's utterly silly to demonize MHA for "breaking" such a ridiculous clause. If people are going to mock them it should be for signing the thing in the first place, not finally breaking it when it clearly no longer had any proper meaning for anyone involved. The mistake was in the creation, not the canceling. [/quote] Typically any contract with sections that are impossible to perform or that require something illegal from one of the parties to it, can be declared to be null and void without much fuss. Forcing a party (or multiple parties) to be tied together forever, would seem to be at the least something that could be considered illegal, if you compared it to typical contracts.

It's not so much a punishment for SWAT128, as it is a warning to others not to do it. I'm fairly sure most alliances (even the ones supporting SWAT128) would ZI anyone that did this to them for the same reasons.

Good luck you guys, you know you're welcome around any time. I know USN will also be protecting the AA, as well as CDT as a whole. I've also been told FK will protect them

Good luck with this, hopefully it does help with our maroon trades they can be dreadfully annoying to find

Good luck with taking over and destroying the world

Congratulations to the newest member of maroon

Congrats on finally making it over there. We've been waiting patiently for you to move I suppose you'd like your embassy redecorated now?

So, after so much debate, is there any action on this? Is the safari continuing? Is Red Dawn going to change their tactics? I realize most of the debate wasn't particularly relevant, but figure something might have happened in all the pages I skipped over

Congratulations, those Polars are pretty good people