Augustus Autumn

I remain perpetually shocked at the screaming ignorance expressed repeatedly in this thread. Thus, congratulations on the end of this conflict - I look forward to the mistakes which lead to this war being rehashed and repackaged in time for the next one.

Take it easy, man. Keep being classy and all that, my regards to your better half.

I'm not sure "admire" is the correct term, but it's a short list none-the-less (relative to the number of persons who inhabit these parts). Captain Flinders - lots of reasons, more than most, but all-around a really stand up guy. Chron - restored my faith in the undercurrent of the 'verse. Cortath - classy, diplomatic and well-spoken. James Maximus - while you can be a real pain in the posterior, no one can doubt your passion or commitment to your alliance, something which is often found to be sorely lacking. Kzoppistan - level head, always a good intellectual contributer. The MVP - we've had our ups and downs, but I still think of you as one of the betters around here. Weirdgus - no matter how bad things get, you're always there to make with the laughter. It's hard to find such consistent positivity.

[quote name='Swanfield' timestamp='1282549286' post='2427485'] That's because the supporters and allies of Emperor Marx are rather quick to jump to his defence, to say the least. Effective perhaps, but I'm not going to hide and not make a stand for myself. [/quote] Very noble and all that, but unfortunately I don't think you're going to see anything other than a mockery of your efforts come out of this. Unless there's some ulterior objective to your creating this thread (drawing attention to yourself as a distraction, for example) I don't think you'll see some massive upheaval inside \m/ that will end with your vindicated, at least not in the short term. Either \m/ will get itself settled or it will suffer the consequences of an audacious foreign policy. By departing the alliance you've unfortunately lost whatever direct avenues you had to effect change and, in the process, will only harm the alliance in the short term through this discussion being entertained.

Interesting decision to put this into the public light, but as evidenced by the tone of the conversation here I doubt you're going to see any postive movement for \m/ come out of this. If anything, it'll attract some public lambasting of you while, privately, it will be taken as a sign that the alliance truly is in trouble and probably isn't the best treaty partner out there. \m/ will sort things out for themselves one way or the other - I would like to think that the events of the past week or so will serve as some sort of learning experience for the government and will lead to a better pattern of behavior concerning ill-advised jokes and how to manage flare-ups in the future. That being said, good luck going forward. Unfortunately, people have long memories when it comes to coups or coup-like behaviors.

The treaty web is very sphere-like - how precisely does a spherical object have a "side"?

Clearly, the haters will indeed be hating on this occasion.

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1282199093' post='2422804'] Nah, I just call them like I see them. I don't expect anything.[/quote] That's not true and both you and I know it. You don't take your issues public "just because". You're smarter than that. [quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1282199093' post='2422804'] If the loudest member of an alliance gets to be the leader then a lot of alliances get new leaders. I want a list by Friday so I know who is the go to guy. [/quote] I didn't say leader, I said public face. It's kind of like being the spokesperson with public acclaim. For better or worse, you're eclipsing Omni pretty fast in that regard.

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1282182797' post='2422410'] I have no problem with NPO canceling. I took exception to the way Cortath approached us. Nothing more, nothing less. [/quote] And the publicizing of private communications is meant to do... what? Make GATO and/or yourself look better? Elicit a public apology? Humiliate Pacifica? I don't get the aim here. As in the GATO cancellation thread, you're coming across as overly aggressive and hurting both yourself and your alliance in the process. [quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1282193660' post='2422694'] For the record these opinions of Cortath's approach are my own. I hold no position in GATO government. If anyone takes my word as GATO's word then I am flattered you think I count but you are mistaken. [/quote] That's legalistic and silly. You're becoming the public face of GATO pretty damned fast whether you like it or not.

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1282182577' post='2422402'] I'm not saying I wouldn't have voided/canceled again. The truth of the matter is the article is left to wide interpretation over what constitutes a violation. There is no minimum or maximum time limit. Therefore the executor of the treaty, in our case Omni, can decide when he feels that article is violated regardless of the time. Get it yet? The damn article doesn't even go based on an fact of the matter. The article is left up to interpretation and opinion of the people who enforce it. Again that is Omni. Technically, the damn thing is void if Omni says they took too much time to inform us and congress agrees. That is just how the treaty is written. That is a fact that no one can deny. Did Omni absolutely have no choice? No. He could have overlooked it and went about having the treaty. I would have as would have many people in GATO. We were not the authority on it. If you want to ask Omni why his standards for communication are so high ask him. I'm not accusing NSO of anything other than they cannot come to terms with what is an obvious direct threat from Hoo. I don't understand how they can keep saying they didn't think that was legitimate. I'm just trying to straighten out the facts.[/quote] While Omni / GATO may have been in the legalistic right to cancel the treaty, the move still comes off as a cheap shot no matter how you want to spin it. The extremely aggressive tone adopted by yourself and other GATOans compounds the fact and, indeed, increases the damage already done. What could have happened was a quiet cancellation with reasons communicated in private since, frankly, any cancellation of a treaty with an ally after that ally comes under assault is a pretty low move, especially when said ally makes it clear they have no intention of activating that very treaty. You clean house after the party when everyone has left, not just as you tap the keg. [quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1282182577' post='2422402'] Let's try again.[/quote] Indeed, we shall. A point-by-point, as it were. To save on quote tags I'll place my responses in [color="#FF0000"]red[/color]. 1. Hoo gives an obvious and legitimate threat to NSO. [color="#FF0000"]No issue.[/color] 2. NSO knows (though they deny recognizing the threat) but doesn't tell us til the next day. [color="#FF0000"]Eh, shaky. There's a difference between fact and suspicion. If the Sith had been moving into peace mode on that day and/or going into DEFCON 1 I'd agree with your point. As that isn't confirmed, I'll dispute your fact. Feel free to correct me with factual documentation, please.[/color] 3. Omni talks to people about various things and decides NSO should have said something earlier. [color="#FF0000"]No issue.[/color] 4. The treaty wording states the treaty is void if NSO doesn't communicate trouble to us. It gives no minimum or maximum time to do so leaving the guy in charge to decide what time is enough time. Omni felt NSO did not meet his standards. [color="#FF0000"]In essence, Omni engages in an emotional response with no real guidelines surrounding it. Legal, yes. Measured, no.[/color] 5. Omni gives the info to congress. He neglects to tell congress that NSO doesn't want help because it's not part of his reasoning for canceling. He does not give congress a specific timeline on when to complete their vote. [color="#FF0000"]Thus, the leader of your government provides little to no information and no timeline to the governming body which is intended to make decisions of this magnitude? Shaky, very shaky.[/color] 6. The congressional speaker feels that if we are going to void/cancel we should do it before we are asked to help someone who may have violated our treaty. Therefore the vote goes up and at the time this thread was posted all 7 votes were in at a unanimous to void/cancel. [color="#FF0000"]So the congress, incorrectly informed, engages in a panic vote... why? So GATO doesn't end up getting attacked? So GATO doesn't stand by its treaty partner? Such speed implies a real sense of fear among your government, something I would hope is not truly the case.[/color] 7. I come in on Monday and see what has went down and because of my love for NSO and because I didn't think congress did what was done right I call for the congress to re-evaluate with all information in hand. I thought the rule was 24 hours before it was official. This results in a majority of congress taking back the yes vote and reinstating the treaty. [color="#FF0000"]No issue.[/color] 8. Due to an oversight on my part and on the part of congress a rule was overlooked that shows that the vote was official as soon as all 7 people voted. The taking back of the votes was illegal at that point and had to be tossed out. [color="#FF0000"]So your government rushed something and then couldn't take it back. Oops.[/color] 9. I inform NSO of the unfortunate outcome as we had been discussing the possibility of the vote being reversed and they were waiting on the info. Instead of a thanks for trying I get harassed. [color="#FF0000"]No issue. For whatever it's worth, consider your and GATO's reaction to the Pacifican cancellation of your PIAT - I wouldn't classify your reaction as kindly banter.[/color] 10. Omni knew that NSO wouldn't be requesting help so canceling to avoid war is not the reason and GATO cannot be said to be cowards. [color="#FF0000"]This flies in the face of Item 6 - again, you don't rush-vote the cancellation of a treaty if you know it's not going to be activated. By your own admission, the Congress had no idea the Sith were going to waive the obligation. Thus, I take major issue with this assertion.[/color] [quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1282182577' post='2422402'] That's pretty much it. If anyone wants to attack those facts be my guest but those are the facts. You can have an [i]opinion[/i] that the reason was weak. Fine but it is still a legit reason and we don't interpret your treaties. Don't do it to us. You can say we threw salt in NSO's wounds by posting this as they were getting attacked. I agree and have apologized. Anyone in GATO will tell you there is no love lost between Omni and I. I would love a legit chance to pin something solely on him and rub his face in it. This was not that chance. While I do not agree with what he did. He did do it by the book and as far as I can tell had no other motive than that stated to cancel/void. [/quote] Consider your facts attacked and a response invited. As for apologies offered, they only stick if the subsequent tone offered is consistent. In this case it isn't. Again, MN, you're coming across much as you did back when you were in Soldier and I was working with you - emotional, headstrong and aggressive. Your assertions about Omni's intentions fly in the fact of the facts you are attempting to hold up which isn't serving your cause in the least. You're not going to win a PR fight anymore - after fifty-something pages of chatter people have their minds pretty solidly made up. My repeated suggestion is for you to step away, collect yourself and move along. The longer you drag this out, the more damage you're doing to the alliance you clearly care about and want to see do well. Hurting the thing you love isn't the aim here so best to avoid that.

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1282181345' post='2422355'] I think Banksy said it best on our boards, etc. [/quote] That's certainly possible, though a little cynical. I don't think there's any real credibility, considering the past relations between Pacifica and GATO, that you'd end up seeing something on the level of a mandatory defensive agreement. I'd rank this as likely as Pacifica and the IAA buddying up. I suspect the more likely possibility lies with GATO's recent activities. For better or worse, Pacifica and the Sith enjoy a high-level treaty together. When GATO decided to take some shots at the Sith, drop their high-level agreement with them and then waved the decision all over the OWF in some mismanaged attempt at PR to capitalize on the anti-Sith feelings, Pacifica decided to drop a low-level treaty both as a signal to GATO of their displeasure with GATO's activities and with some understanding that GATO would probably do the same to them as they did to the Sith. Objectively, I wouldn't put much stock in GATO running to help me if I wasn't the golden child of the 'verse and/or was on the losing side of the good ol' treaty web what with what they've shown of late. For better or worse, Emperor Cortath has shown that he takes his responsibilities as leader of Pacifica seriously, especially when it comes to forming treaties which his alliance will rely on.

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1282180661' post='2422335'] You call it a disservice when your allies and friends are getting told the truth in a manner suitable for people who think as they do. I've been complimented far more in private, even by allies of NSO, then I've been told only by you as of now that my words are not helping. So, forgive me if I ignore your advice and continue decimating any argument the NSO and now by extension the NPO has on the matter. [/quote] MN, why precisely is GATO so offended here? Your alliance cancelled a treaty, Pacifica cancelled a treaty. Smacks a little bit of hypocrisy I think if GATO is going to come onto the world stage to scream and yell, especially when Pacifica was far more reserved in the public declaration than GATO was. You and yours are the ones who appear to have started the public mud-slinging, not Pacifica. Besides, it's a relatively minor treaty that was lost and, over it, you and yours are trouncing any real chance for reconcilliation or future bridging.

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1282174755' post='2422206'] Cancellation....voided...same thing really.[/quote] Not so much. Voiding a treaty is when the party-at-fault knowingly / ignorantly engaged in an action which was against the wording and the spirit of the treaty in question. Cancellation is when one of the signatories elects to end a treaty on the grounds that they no longer wish to be a part of it. MN, while I like you, the repeated contention that the NSO voided the treaty by not communicating is just plain moronic and has, I think, been shown to be less than true. At the end of the day, while GATO would have been entirely within its rights to cancel, going so far as to attempt to pin the entire precipitant for the cancellation on them was a real blunder. As a result, the course of action chosen comes off as a cheap shot and a poorly executed attempt at a PR victory, one which has come to make GATO look cowardly and inept. You're not going to be gaining any real traction at this point with more words, much less accusatory ones, and in the process you're actually hurting your alliance more. Out of this disaster GATO has lost two treaties and a protectorate as well as taken a drubbing on the OWF the likes of which even \m/ is having a hard time surpassing. Take a breather, walk away from the OWF and perhaps lead the way inside GATO to a time where you have the chance to reconsider what has happened and how it will affect your alliance's pursuit of affairs in the future. Thankfully, there is always the chance for reform and alteration of behavior. Perhaps some introspection would serve well to ensure that the next time GATO steps onto the world stage this doesn't happen again.

You know, I seem to remember Marx being in on something like this back in September of 2008. How charming to see history repeat itself. Way to keep it Germanic, Marxiepoo. KFred would be proud.

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1282089692' post='2420618'] 1. \m/ made a joke, which very few people 'got'. [/quote] The spectaculat failure of anyone to get the joke probably means it was a pretty terrible joke in the first place. The only suitable punishment for such a poorly developed and refined sence of humor is the response the Siberians gave. The lesson here is to be funnier or see some sky rockets.

[quote name='LegendoftheSkies' timestamp='1282025124' post='2419004'] Indeed, they are protected by \m/ [/quote] What an interesting definition of "protected". I'll note this down for future use.

[quote name='heggo' timestamp='1282024575' post='2418987'] I suspect we've all learned our lesson in organization from that war. [/quote] I seriously hope so. Then again, twisting things around into the pro-raider / anti-raider argument would fit with the general mob-mentality unthinking trend around here. Let's hope this leads to more interesting and dynamic times, as it were.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1282022920' post='2418927'] i encourage \m/ to make ICAN an attacktorate... [/quote] That would imply the effort in doing so is worthwhile.

Huh. I noted elsewhere in the \m/ thread concerning this matter that this "attacktorate" trend would be the root of some future conflict. Granted, I had hoped that, for an interesting spin, it might form a conflict out of competition for these nation-claims. Interesting to see this development instead. Let's hope this doesn't take the same course as the so-called BiPolar War (because reliving that idiocy isn't something anyone really wants).

[quote name='Ernesto Che Guevara' timestamp='1282008081' post='2418479'] Oh snap. /readies the Thunderdome [/quote] Bust a deal, face the wheel.

I think this is the excellent start of a trend which could grow into a real friction point. Like children in the backseat of a large vehicle, alliances can now claim swathes of nations as raiding property with the inevitable spark point being when one alliance raids another's territory. Much like yelling at each other to keep to their side of the seat, we could see real wars grow here. Or not. But one can hope.

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1281965508' post='2417869'] M6 is a former member of Hydra. There was some drama while he was there. [/quote] That was my suspicion, good to see it confirmed. I'll have to remember the ease with which M6 is goaded for future actions. [quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1281975711' post='2417981'] I didn't 'start' or 'quit' any 'games'. I have posted two threads about conduct that was improper; one was about Athens raiding a 38-man alliance 'because they could', and the other was about IAA's repeated harassment, threats and ultimately spying on a group of nations that had the [i]audacity[/i] to start their own home and try to keep to themselves. Both were appropriate threads, and both helped immediately end what I feel were two injustices. Both are also history now, and don't really matter anymore. There's an appropriate time, an appropriate place and an appropriate method to posting 'call-out' threads, and this thread misses the mark in all three categories. Even then, it doesn't make a convincing argument that there's even an issue at all here. [/quote] Good lord, man, take the compliment.

[quote name='Sabertooth' timestamp='1281931090' post='2417463'] 1. [b][u]God Awful and Harsh Terms[/u][/b] (Example: 10 months of terms on the NPO) -- Harsh terms scare alliances away from war, because they risk losing a lot if they lose. [/quote] I'd hazard this is one of the bigger problems out there. With the cost of waging wars increasing massively, the victors now need to exact more and more spoils from the vanquished in order to even begin to attempt to make good their losses. Because of the limitations on how much aid can be sent at any one time by a particular nation higher demands take longer to fulfill. This, in turn, removes major player-alliances from the political spectrum due to concerns over getting rolled or otherwise not being able to participate fully. While I don't endorse the idea of white peace being the only peace, a little more reasonability in the understanding that war is not, in fact, profitable, might be the order of the day. [quote name='Sabertooth' timestamp='1281931090' post='2417463'] 4. [b][u]Waiting for a Valid CB[/u][/b] -- Meh! Waiting for an alliance to make a mistake to declare war on them is silly. Why not declare war on them because they're on the Pink Team or something? [/quote] I think the bigger problem here is that no one is willing to take the risks to provide what could be construed as a valid CB. Everyone on the OWF is either under the gun not to get in trouble with their bosses or the old "I don't represent my alliance line" gets trotted out. All the risk-taking alliances have been beaten into the ground at this point and nobody wants to end up like FAN, the NPO or any of the old big names. Hell, look at the top alliance and ask yourself when the last time they took a leading stand on anything of major important was. [quote name='Sabertooth' timestamp='1281931090' post='2417463'] 5. [b][u]Too Many Alliances[/u][/b] -- There is simply too many. We should declare war on them and make them disband. [/quote] Eh, not really a major issue either way except that it allows for the incompetant to end up in charge of alliances. Of course, in certain instances, this is damned entertaining. [quote name='Sabertooth' timestamp='1281931090' post='2417463'] 6. [b][u]Lack of Evil Alliances and Mega Rogues[/u][/b] -- We need more evil nations and alliance - period! Then there will be a reason to declare war on them [/quote] Nobody has the fortitude to do this and pull it off well.

Much like the Harmlins cancellation, did anyone not expect to see this? Also, good move, Pacifica.

[quote name='M6 Redneck' timestamp='1281916001' post='2417143'] Hydra are being singled out because I find them particularlly odious. Worse even than the smell of brown originating at GATO. ([Hydra are still to complete their surrender terms to that Japanes cartoon alliance), not only do they leave the field early they do not stick to terms of release].[/quote] How edgy of you. I still don't see why this merits such a poorly constructed opener or campaign which comes off as designed to do nothing but garner you attention on the world stage without actually promoting an actual intelligent discussion. [quote name='M6 Redneck' timestamp='1281916001' post='2417143'] My aims are to discover if beneath the NSO directive to let them go it alone, Hydra is secretly pleased to have avoided actually being an ally in any meaningful sense of the word.[/quote] Do you actually expect that you'll be able to fulfill this objective? Considering that you're not really addressing the responses from Hydra itself, I think you're being a little disingenuous here. Also, for thought, even Penkala knew when to quit these games.