Tulafaras

i answered Sqrt when he asked the same question about 1 page before you asked. I did not believe i need to answer twice. But if you insist, no i would do what any target of a techraid does and that is respond to the best of my ability. Meaning, i'd ask you to pay reps and if you refuse i'd nuke the stuffing out of you until one of us drops out of range of the other. You won't find any post of mine where i try to defend a "techraid gone bad" retaliation. Frankly it's an inherent risk of techraiding that your target might fight back.

Considering i've had "techraiders will be nuked" in my nation bio for nearly 2 years i think it's pretty clear what i think of someone techraiding us. Honestly i don't agree with techraiding on principle (as in, i don't believe it makes sense. If you hit a nation who is willing to fight back you loose more than you gain in 3 raids) but neither do i agree that just because an alliance techraids or organises techraids they should be open to all kind of bullying from stronger opponents. Is that a doublestandard? Yes to some extent it is, but it's also an easily explainable one. To defend yourselve from a techraid all you need is a single protector, something almost any alliance can find if they are willing to go looking. To protect yourselve from Bullying from an alliance of NpO's size you need to be very well connected in the treaty web, and have a decent size to start with, something far more difficult to achieve. Ps: Now i will really take my leave of this thread. If you want to continue this discussion we can do so on IRC after tomorrow, when my exam is over

If you had decided to techraid \m/ and organised such i'd tip my hat to you for the irony and that would be it. Instead you declared an alliance war. Frankly i am sick and tired of this thread, so i will take my leave now. Hoo has posted the only relevant post of the last 5 pages, everything else is the same endless back and forth of the same arguments we have had for nearly 60 pages before that. PS: My personal opinion is that both sides made plenty of errors in their behaviour to go around.

There wasn't ANY situation between \m/ and Polaris before Grub decided to make one by entering their channel and issue his demands to their Goverment. So what kind of situation are you referring to good sir? Seriously, your party line is thin at best, bringing down the community is empty rethoric at best, and arguing against the "vileness" of Techraiding is hypocritical at best if you are willing to forgive PC and GOONs the same offence.

It might have something to do with the lack of nukes, AC attacks, CMs and navy attacks. It also might have something to do with the easy way to stop the raid ("pm for peace" ring any bells?).

Seriously, if you still cannot differentiate between a tech raid and an alliance war, than arguing with you is pointless. edit: In regards to your second post are you still harping on that empty point? The techraid was between FoA, GOONs, PC and \m/, where exactly does NpO come in? And what gives them the right to make demands? If you say it is a public manner, that may be arguable, but the only right to make demands would be as an offended party and that they certainly are not.

As i posted quite a few times before, i won't even try to defend the slurs and vulgar (i think that is how it is spelled) language. They have issued an apology for it, which shows quite clearly that they also recognise they were out of line. In regards to the proverbial finger what exactly did you expect? Do you answer in a diplomatic tone if an outside alliance you are not treatied with comes and butts their head into your affairs? Also, what i find quite amusing is the absurd lack of reading comprehension your side has shown in this thread. By my count there have been 2 \m/ members in here, and neither has been crying any kind of crocodile tears. Starfox posted a propaganda thread over in IC, but aside from that i haven't seen any real complaining from them.

Sorry but that doesn't make any sense. Just because Polar thinks they have buisness doesn't mean they actually do. Frankly a clean "No" would have been the only thing they could expect from any reasonable alliance who is willing to stand up for themselves. Anything else would be seen as a capitualtion to outside threats. And yes, after the insults an apology was clearly necessary, and has promptly been given. It might not have been the most eloquent post, but it was given, so what other buisness can Polar have in this affair? Frankly it is clear that they want to impose some kind of morality on \m/ (most likely something along the lines of "we won't techraid anymore alliances"). It is also quite clear that \m/ won't stand for those demands.

Obviously alliance leaders talk to other alliance leaders. But i can almost guarantee that if someone went to your channel and demanded you change your policies (that's the most logical demand i can think of in this context, possibly they demanded reps to FoA) your answer would be a big fat "NO", wouldn't it? I am not Xiph0 but i cannot imagine him giving any other answer. And no, that doesn't excuse the slurs and insults, but a seperate apology to those has already been made, so i do not really think war is an appropriate reaction.

Showing disrespect? You have got to be kidding me.... Bringing down the community? Now you are being absolutly ridiculous. Stop before i die from laughter.... Seriously, call it what it is, you don't like \m/ they left themselves open, and you are stomping down on them as hard as you can so they don't become more than an irritant.

A Techraid is not a fullscale alliance war. If that is the base of your argument we might as well go home, since it's a delusion at best. Also as i stated before, according to Grub and his OP the techraid was not the basis of the CB. Frankly you are trying to put words into my mouth and i don't appreciate it. "membership and treaty police" ? What in the world are you talking about? \m/ conducted a techraid, as they feel is their right. Polaris decided that no \m/ doesn't have the right to techraid and issued them some kind of ultimatum (since i don't have logs of that, i do not know what exactly they demanded). \m/ responded with a finger and some childish insults (which i am still not defending). NpO declared war (with grandstanding and typical Polaris rethoric as seen in the OP). So who is acting with arrogance here? Frankly every single Polaris post in this thread has been dripping with arrogance so i am not quite sure what you are trying to sell. If you say techraiding alliances is forbidden, i call that a typical moral police action, something i have never agreed with. As i said, if you want to protect alliances from being techraided, do so by protecting them, instead of trying to force your rules on someone else.

Just because you are sick of something doesn't make it less valid. They had options to curtail techraiding without directly provocing an alliance (or appearing heavyhanded), instead they went straight to the bully them instead approach. That is the precedent i dislike. If you want to provide a sense of security to small alliances, then offer to protect them from all techraids, easily done and diplomatically above reproach. War is a global concern? Since when? War is an action between two involved parties. You can become involved via treaties, or you can bandwagon in via flimsy constructs or simply with "because i said so". And no you are correct that you do not need a treaty to involve yourselve into a situation, but the how greatly influences how that involvement is received. If you involved yourselve diplomatically as a mediator (note not really necessary in this case since the situation was over and done with before Polar involved themselve) i'd be all for it. If you involve yourselve as some kind of moral police ("You must not do this again or we will stomp you") i'd call it arrogance of the highest order.

nitpick, budding your nose into a situation you are not involved in, and then issueing demands is a provocation as well. If Grub's response to the recent raids had been something along the lines of: "we consider it base and crass to bully alliances weaker than you, therefor we offer a blanket statement of protection for any alliance that wishes it, they need only come forth and ask for it" they would have been in the right, and most likely achieved widely positive PR. Instead they bulldozed their way into an already resolved conflict and picked a single agressor out to bully them instead. Well done! (Note i am still not defending the slurs on IRC Grubb received as a response. Frankly any player should be mature enough to be able to say: "No and stay out of here" without resorting to insults.)

Imho the reason this thread turned into a 50 page travesty is mostly based in the fact that Grub decided to post a flowery piece of fluff that doesn't say anything clearly. If he had posted: I went to discuss the outrageous actions of \m/ and was rudely insulted and told to bring it, so here goes! At least half the back and forth rethoric would be unnecessary. Instead he posted a muddy back and forth between: "tech raiding alliances is bad" and "they were rude and racist to me" (for which they apologized even if the OP ignored that point) and here we are.

Grub had no buisness getting involved into a mess that was resolved before he even appeared in the channel. Then he started laying down threats and an ultimatum. As Result he got told to bring it (with the addition of inappropriate slurs which i will not defend in any way). Would you have behaved differently? If any uninvolved party came to me and behaved like that, i would probably do the same (if i was in a position to make such decisions).

even war? that sounds strange to me. The only war which was even strength wise for a short amount of time was the unjust war before it turned into a game of "who can run away faster", every single other war i can remember was skewed to one side or the other. Considering how much of the game is played on the diplomatic front an even war is almost impossible unless alliances agree to fight each other 1on1 (which is a rather unnatural situation for this planet)

A casus belli is a historical term with a pretty clear definition. The latin root is also rather easy to see, historically the casus belli was not the incident which might have caused the war, but rather a term for the diplomatic proclamation which led to war as a last resort (ultima ratio). Meaning: Nation A insults Nation B in some manner (raids their border, treats diplomats badly, espionage etc.) Then Nation B writes a formal Document where they present their grievances and usually issue some threats/demands with a big "or else we go to war" somewhere in there. That was a classic case for a casus belli. (which explains why it is called a "case for war" instead of a "cause for war" which would have a different latin root). On Planet Bob on the other hand we usually refer to the CB as the reason for which a war has happened (as indeed also happened in the OOC history. Around the end of the 19th century CB was used as a justification for war instead of the start of a diplomatic process). Basically a CB is something you use to justify why your alliance is attacking someone, since we have left the days of "i don't like you wars" behind us (considering the size of the treaty web, a necessary evolution otherwise we'd probably blow each other to pieces every month). It has no ingame value, but on the "diplomatic front" (meaning the gathering of allies and the prevention of counters) it's impact can be immense (depending on how true your allies are and how steadfast the oppositions allies are). Regarding how valid they are (or strong if you prefer that word) frankly that is always a highly political question. Almost any evidence in this game is suspect (since everything happens on the internet where everything can be faked), the only clear cut causes would be true ingame action (e.g. nation xy has raided nation yz) everything else is a matter of opinion/trust (i trust XY so i believe his word) and reputation. As such i'd honestly be happier if we declared war with a bit less drama and a bit more honesty, but since that would probably devolve into a rule of the stronger (aka who is the bigger bully) i guess our current system isn't that bad after all....

so are yours *yawn* Seriously, if you want to discuss the Rish situation some more, be my guest but i think we have said all there can be said about 5 times in this thread alone. If your entire argument is based on: "We do not believe you" it is difficult to refute that.

??? I am unsure what you are referring to. Considering the logs it is rather clear that Mhawk intended ZH to both spy and sabotage Athens if possible. What further proof would we need to declare war? A signed statement? A blood oath? Considering the quality of the post you are hailing i wonder if i should even bother to reply, since it seems unlikely you will actually read what i am posting.

they met for 2 hours in continuation of talks which had started the night before. TPF stalled the talks until the declarations were imminent then walked out. When TPF walked out the offer was white peace, honestly it doesn't get better than that. Honestly, if you are going to accuse someone of stalling at least read the logs before you make a fool of yourselve.

seriously how often do we need to repeat that he was NOT in high goverment before you actually read and understand this point? Yes a number of wars have been declared due to spying CBs usually with a high amount of drama connected to it, since it is very hard to prove those CBs. In this case we have 2 situations who both at one point are connected to spying. Now let's compare them (since that is what you are doing): Situation 1: A single member of an alliance who may or may not have gone rogue (impossible to prove after the fact) has infiltrated a different alliance, after first ghosting a different AA and trying to raise problems with another alliance (which sounds like the actions of a rogue to me, not like someone trying to remain in the game afterwards). There is no proof he passed anything on, and because he was not only a bit stupid but rather very stupid he even got himself removed from Planet Bob. In reply to this entire mess the leader of his ex-alliance has stepped forward and apologized. Situation 2: A leader of an alliance orders a number of his members to resign from his alliance and form a splinter group. They are then supposed to integrate themselves into a different alliance and then subvert / sabotage the alliance through internal strife. The idea behind it is that the targeted alliance is open to merging other alliances into their core. The plan is called off after the initial stage has been implemented because of a break between the splinter group and their home alliance. Instead of taking any steps to clean up the mess the leader who started this !@#$ sweeps it under a rug and hopes he never hears from it again. Once the mess comes out (as all messes inevitably do) instead of apologizing or admitting that he might have acted rashly he posts a thread with shorted logs and tries to explain it all as a wartime tactic (even if he never was at war with the targeted alliance). Now be honest, do these situations sound in any way similar?

there isn't any proof possible aside from Hoo's word. Your argument is: "he must have passed information" (without any evidence i might add) and our counter is "no he didn't". If you are not willing to take Hoo's word for it, that is your right and i cannot change your mind, but it doesn't magically transform an unfounded allegation into truth. Usually the burden of evidence lies on the accuser you know. As to the other point i was trying to explain to you my train of logic is pretty simple: One of the defence arguments is that TPF was at war with Athens since they were at war with a part of the Karma coalition (even if they only declared and were counterdeclared on by specific alliances). If we follow that train of logic than the CC has now declared war on Rok making the entire dance to avoid Polar unnecessary. (Not that i agree with that train of logic. If entire coalitions are suddenly at war without declarations then why are we spamming this board with threads every time a major war happens?)

i am not going to derail another thread with this discussion. The fact that he was not an active goverment member anymore is not something i have any doubt about, but i'll grant you the fact that i probably get easier information from Rok so yes you might have a difficult time believing them (or me for that matter) but that is not something i can help you with. I seriously doubt Hoo is going to give you admin access to check As far as i saw it didn't really cost him anything until he got deleted. Frankly i've seen a number of old nations throw away their nation simply because they were bored with the game. I've seldom seen such a retarded action as Rish commited but with him gone from the planet what exactly are we supposed to do with it now? We can't spin a timeturner and go back to ZI him ingame or offer him to the people he spied on. Yes the topic raises some questions, but we cannot answer them in any objective way. We have Hoo's word and we have your suspicions. i am willing to believe him, you are not willing to believe him. We seem to be at an impasse Regardless of Rok's actions one difference remains about the current CB, mhawk's plans went quite a bit further than simple espionage. ZH was intended (and launched) as a weapon of subversion/sabotage, also there is little doubt that mhawk acting as TPF's leader sanctioned such measures. Frankly that goes quite a bit further than what is usually acceptable as actions of war by an alliance. If their situation had truly been desperate i might accept it as a weapon against their enemies, but Athens had no contact with them during Karma, and as we also both know TPF always had a way out to get peace only mhawk's pride kept em in the war until they were almost completly destroyed. Regardless of that sidetrack (and this will be my last post on this topic, if you want to revive a CB discussion please let's take it into a different thread) the DoS is not really a surprise (the inclusion of an oDP on the other hand is )

You know i think i can take a wild guess what our strategy is going to be: Call in our allies to counter the fearsome front arrayed against us. Drop nukes until the other side has enough. Negotiate a peace agreement. And i am sorry to say but i will certainly rib the CC until they actually manage to do something. Frankly for a planned counter anything less than 50% slot coverage is a disgrace. Considering how many alliances they had available one could even expect 75% coverage.

1. Repeating something does not make it true. Are you also aware that by that logic you all declared war on Rok making the complicated Dance to avoid Polar rather unnecessary? 2. He is referring to the fact that the accusations against Rok are based on a number of lies and exaggerations instead of truth or evidence.