Tulafaras

i must admit i am rather curious what different meaning "fine gentleman" has, since in my understanding of the english language that is a compliment. Guess i'll ask some Mkers on IRC.

and i see you are still repeating the same drivel. Could you maybe come up with something new instead of repeating this kind of trash? How is it arrogant to expect your treaty partners to treat you decently and to convey concerns in private instead of grandstanding on the OWF? @shahenshah: i sure hope the next time your allies decide to treat you like trash you will also be there to hail them repeatedly.

he left either today or yesterday. At least that was the last time he posted something. I think he included the date in his own thread replying to the DoW (some phrase like: "i am going on a buisness trip so this will be my last post on this matter". Regardless i am pretty sure he left some kind of chain of command in place which would be able to deal with any negotiations that need to happen in his absence so i don't think the post you quoted is correct either. (edit: checked his thread he left on the 29th)

I've been wondering why TOP comes up in every single thread connected to this war....

i could think of quite a few other things you could do which might be classified as war crimes but most of them happen in the OOC area around the game instead of inside the game per se. If one wants to be pedantic on the other hand, a direct attack on a community might be a suitable analogy for "wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages not justified by military necessity" but frankly that analogy is problematic (as is the phrase "war crimes" in general in regards to CN)

you know we are having this discussion in every single war i can remember. The fight about which side is the defensive and which side is traditional! Honestly i can see both sides of the argument. On the one hand Athens started this war so clearly they are offensive. But on the other hand if TPF's allies counter declare they will also be on defending themselve. Frankly that is why i dislike MDPs, because e-lawyering and nitpicking becomes necessary when those treaties are involved with an MADP things are clear, if your ally goes to war you go as well

there are sides to this war? so far i have yet to see another side. TPF seems mighty alone in their corner.

I think we all know you are a troll by now, but seriously could you find something at least interesting to troll about? As far back as i can remember we have offered similar individual surrender terms in our conflicts. We did so in the UJW (even if almost nobody took us up on that) we did so during Karma etc. you can agree or disagree that nations should have the right to get out of wars individually, but frankly wether they want to surrender or go down with their alliance should be their choice shouldn't it?

nice try, but the surrender agreement (that TPF has fulfilled and have been released from) has nothing to do with the CB.

we either read different pages or one of us lacks reading comprehension. The NPO attacked OV because they allegedly accepted information from a Spy while refusing to disclose the spy they used to get that information in the first place. Athens attacked TPF because TPF launched a guerilla plot to sabotage Athens. Now how are those situations in any way similar?

going by your points in order: 1) If ADI had simply said they want to remain neutral nothing would have happened. Rok might have been disappointed but that would probably be it. Instead they said they had Rok's back and then did a flipflop and posted this thread. 2) they were never asked to support the attack on TPF directly (frankly there wouldn't even be any slots for them if they wanted to) 3) we do not use OOC examples as a rule. In your example there were a number of nations who were at war with one part of the axis coalition but not involved at all on another front. The seperation of fronts during Karma was real and accepted at the point. There were a number of heated discussions regarding specific surrenders where alliances were not satisfied with the result, if they had had a voice (as you imply) those would not have happened. 4) Who said anything about PermaZI? 5) it is well and good to say "could you please try diplomacy" but if Rok's reply is "No" (which wasn't even the case, Hoo talked to TPF the day this was posted) then you can either accept that or not. You are still missing the point, that being that Rok pretty much raised and protected ADI from nothing and now instead of repaying that friendship they choose to treat them badly to say the least. 6) Frankly no matter how fast they backpeddle an action such as this OP is not something your diplomacy can easily survive. The reason you see "private channels ftw" posted that often, is because it is generally accepted that if you have a problem with your allies conduct during wartime you convey such problems in private. Once you have started to feed the trolls nothing can be done to stop it.

Did you even bother to read the thread? Since when is it called a tantrum when you cancel a treaty if the other side treats you like !@#$? I have no problem with them backing out of the war, honestly that is their decision, but their conduct has been unacceptable.

seriously Srqt you are just wrong here. TPF declared against a specific alliance to follow their treaty obligation. They did not declare against Athens and they did not engage athens. What you are doing here is splitting hairs so thin that you can't even see them anymore. You honestly want to say that a long term plan which might come to fruition 4 months later was TPF's obligation? And no Srqt you are also wrong that Archon had the authority to sign ANYTHING for "karma". He called himself the voice of Karma in a specific thread which explained our reasons. He did not post our Dow's for us nor anything similar. Not a single alliance gave him a proxy to sign binding treaties for us. Which is why every single front negotiated their own peace agreements at the end of the war.

or they had no viable means to force compliance on ZH (which is just as likely as what you are saying).

in that case they are still at war since Athens was not a signatory of their surrender.

so would the never fired bullet from a jammed gun you disagreed with earlier. Frankly what is your obsession with damage in regards to a spying/sabotage plot attempt? The thing would have needed to run it's entire course before real CN damage would have been done. But the intent to do harm to an alliance was present much earlier. Frankly Sqrt you are grasping at straws. I can probably find a 100 CBs which had no "damage" done in the offensive action that started the war. Every single diplomatic insult doesn't do "damage" but if you insult badly enough none here would say you don't have a CB.

I am sorry but your post is completly wrong regarding your interpretation of Athen's role in Karma. Londo was the hardest worker in regards of the peace negotiations. He was the guy who actually got the ball rolling and did the work to get NPO peace so if you are now saying that Athens threatened eternal war it is simply slander nothing more. Some alliances would have liked to destroy NPO but from the start onwards it was pretty much accepted that that goal would not be attainable in any reasonable amount of time (they had far too many peacemode nations for that to be feasible and the staggers were bad during the first week because no proper central command had been established, so even more nations got into PM). Athens was never among them to my knowledge. There was no Karma which gave TPF peace, a number of alliances (some affiliated with what you want to call karma, but frankly that was never a solid block (as in something with substance to it, you know treaties, chain of command, irc channels, boards etc.)) were at war with TPF and declared peace. Neither Athens nor Rok nor GOD or \m/ were part of those surrender negotiations nor were we parties to the peace signed. Basically please if you must slander us at least stick to halfcorrect statements. Or better yet state something which cannot be disproven.

Your skills at selective reading are top notch in that case.

Not sure what exactly you are referring to but in my book conspiring to sabotage an alliance comes under the heading of crime. If the part where you disagree is the attempted part, then it is my sad duty to inform you that success does not have anything to do with the terminology of the word crime. Otherwise we wouldn't have such nice phrases as "attempted murder" in front of a judge. You are correct that on Planet Bob we do not have a code of laws which is enforced by a higher authority. We have always relied on individual alliances to make up their own "laws" in regards to what they are willing to accept as a casus belli or not. In this context it seems pretty clear that Athens considers attempted sabotage/subversion a crime. Wether the world of CN accepts this in the end or not is something history will have to clear up.

Aside from the fact the we do not use OOC examples in an IC board, could you maybe at least use some which make sense? Athens wasn't engaged with TPF so why should them commisioning terrorist attacks (if you want to call it that, i'd use acts of sabotage, subversion and espionage) against them? That is a rather major point of the CB you know? If this had been commited against PC or any other alliance actively fighting TPF during Karma i wouldn't agree with the CB either since they have paid their dues for that war already.

great job replying to my arguments. It's almost as if you picked a post apart to reply to a single line. Nice try for the failed analogy as well, we are really getting somewhere here. Now since you've started the analogy game i'll reply in kind: Scenario: during a rather large war with clearly defined fronts your military commander orders a number of his soldiers to do a black ops operation. The target of this operation is a state on the other side of this conflict, but geographically and politically far removed from your enemies (e.g. Italy ordering such an operation against China in WW2). While your operation is running your targeted nation declares peace and leaves the battlefield. The do not attack you, or even make demands of you they simply leave. Do you still leave the operation as it is? Because that is exactly what you did. You did not bother to call it off, you did not bother to confirm it had been stopped if a communication breakdown has occured between your operatives and yourselve.

I have yet to see a SINGLE post/log where TPF called off anything. I have also not called you a name, instead i have doubted your intelligence since you still seem to try to defend an action which everyone else considers detestable at the least and a clear act of war at worst. I have read the time line in the first post, i also remember when the NPO peace was signed (the point where Athens stopped being involved in the Karma war). Maybe you want to go back and find a new argument since this one seems to have run it's course? (edit in regards to your post in reply to AJ since that wasn't up when i was writing): My sympathies if Mhawk left you without the revelevant information but that is hardly our fault is it? Even when he came back he did nothing except hope that this all goes away.

It seems that we will not agree on that point. Frankly i agree with this CB, in part because i dislike this entire plot a lot and in part because TPF was obviously not interested in letting the past be done after the karma war (otherwise they would not have hatched such an underhanded plot once they had been offered peace). Let me repeat my key point: In my opinion this plot had nothing to do with the karma war. They were not engaged with Athens and Athens itself had been at peace while this was still going on (otherwise they would have stopped it and aimed ZH at Poison Clan instead, an alliance they actually were engaged with). If they had done something like that, i would still consider this a stupid plan, but their argument that it was war and they did what they had to would be acceptable. Since they did nothing except let it run, it shows to me that they were still accepting further hostile actions against Athens making their entire defensive argument moot.

That would probably have been the point where you should have told ZH to abort then. Instead you did nothing which makes your entire post a pile of drivel. Frankly the fact alone that you are trying to defend a so far unique act of sabotage and treason (as in they would have joined athens to betray them) as a normal war tactic makes me seriously doubt your intelligence.

Yes Hal i am pretty sure it would have. Do you honestly think Athens would have started a new war (since the Karma war was well and truly over for every alliance by the time Mhawk stopped being stubborn) over something like this at that point? They might have removed the protectorate from ZH, but coming clean about some !@#$ you have done is usually the first step to avoid harsh punishment.