Augustus Autumn

Because levelling heavy reparations and forcing disbandments is an effective tactic for doing... what precisely? Leave your revenge at the door, lest ye be revenged upon.

This entire affair seems screamingly familiar. Freddie, good to see you and yours haven't changed a bit.

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1288401570' post='2496777'] "May you live in interesting times" is as much an insult as saying "I hope you die". If that wasn't what you meant, you should've picked a different phrase. [/quote] Or maybe I prefer to use words bluntly and not rely on colloquialisms. I prefer things to be interesting, personally. If you want to take offense, go right on ahead.

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1288392926' post='2496699'] If you thought this insult was ~*~too subtle~*~ to go unnoticed you are sorely mistaken. [/quote] It wasn't an insult, buckwheat. You need to give up your need to twist my words, repetitive and ego-feeding thought it is. The Kingdom wanted to shake things up - more power to y'all.

I simply don't understand what the author was going for here. Is this some sort of anti-Pacifican thing? If so, very poorly executed and/or exceedingly poorly investigated.

This signing, coming after the cancellations on the part of the Kingdom, makes some interesting suggestions. I'll be interested in seeing how things develop from here. May you live in interesting times.

[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' timestamp='1288255017' post='2495059'] This thread makes me think of Paris Hilton and I hate you for it. [/quote] To be fair, we drink more. Rather, I drink more and blame everyone else for it. But whatever works.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1288053353' post='2493200'] [color="#0000FF"]Using that logic, should the GOONS sign a treaty with NSO because of Nippy's undying admiration for me?[/color] [/quote] Whatever makes your day. It'd be amusing and create some laughs, at the very least.

[quote name='Ginryusama' timestamp='1288047129' post='2493127'] Oh plz, give me a break... World can be changed just by nice words alone. [/quote] I'll be sure to get right on that.

[quote name='lordliam' timestamp='1287970368' post='2492410'] To be honest, I think both parties could've just said. "Yo man, I'm sorry. I guess I wasn't really thinking when I did that. Let's go out for a drink and not screw up like this again. Let's forget this sorry affair and keep being the best we can be." But I guess CN doesn't work like that. [/quote] If it did, the political landscape (if you could call such a poor immitation that) would be radically different and more mature. Unfortunately, people thrive on ego-driven plays at drama as a form of amusement and thus you have such charming showings. That being said, there's always hope for the future.

Certainly an interesting move, though it does make things a little harder to keep up as it encourages personal relationships between members of alliances over making foreign relations more accessible to the rank-and-file. But to each their own, as it were.

[quote name='Qaianna' timestamp='1287463344' post='2487462'] Interesting essay, but I have to lean towards the notion that calculated, effective words can have their effect. And not just on neutrals, either. One aspect of war is, again, psychological. You don't have to destroy pixels if you destroy morale. Granted, a possible side effect may be that you take that enemy out of more than just the war, but it's still a factor in fighting. And, as many previously have pointed out, you do need to plan past the current war--especially if you're losing. And especially if you're winning. [/quote] The stated cause, as I've said, can have an effect on the diplomatic approach to warfare. What I've objected to is one side sitting there screaming at the other that their cause is unjust, invalid or whatever. Validity extends exactly as far as the front line and, while in the late-war or post-war phase you can certainly spin the conflict (or attempt to spin it) to suit your needs it doesn't obviate the need to actually fight the war and stop complaining. There's a lot of useless drivel which crops up when a war starts and very little actual discourse which goes on, something which ends up making either or both sides look idiotic.

The best of luck to the former members of FnKa. Everything else being said here is political piracy.

[quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1287248315' post='2485950'] You used the IRON/Gramlins war as an example. I'd like to point out that a lot of people who had been selling tech to Gramlins quit selling them tech. And a few people, including myself, changed AA to help fight. Others sent aid. None of that would have happened if it were not for the posts on the OWF. [/quote] That had much more to do with what GRE wanted from the peace, not for their reason to get involved in the first place. [quote name='greenacres' timestamp='1287280326' post='2486155'] You could always declare war for fun, or for non-conventional reasons. RIA could declare war against sanity, FAN could declare war against neutrality, NPO could declare war against NATO for being in the atlantic instead of the pacific, etc. etc. War doesn't have to be because "I don't like how you talked to me in this backroom channel and I think my way of being is inherently better than yours, thus you're evil and I'm righteous so my crusade is justified!" War could simply be for whatever reason you want it to be, in whatever context that you wish to define. [/quote] Absolutely.

My apologies for not addressing these replies more promptly but my time has been limited. [quote name='Stilcho' timestamp='1287073430' post='2484489'] From my reading of the forums, it seems that the most of the arguing over CB or "playing fair" is done by people who are not involved in the conflict. They can't be swayed or reasoned with because they don't HAVE to be reasonable. They are not the ones actually at war. [/quote] Eh, yes and no? There are a lot of bystanders, so unless you're see a major global conflict there tends to be a lot of peanut gallery work going on. And yes, I'm aware that I'm participating in that to some degree. [quote name='caligula' timestamp='1287083770' post='2484599'] I think you're advocating for a removal of politics from the game. The way IRON (I won't refer to DAWN, because they had no affect on the entire war whatsoever,) maneuvered was in such a way that they could make the aggressor's look foolish. They had already been decimated, and your analogy is off a tad. In this example IRON's actions resemble resistance movement. Force, while a component (sabotage,) of resistance, is predicated on winning the hearts and minds. FARK would have disbanded during the Holy Farkistan War if it had not persisted, and waited on time to turn against the holy insurrection. Thus I think your assertion that an alliance should roll over and just take it is wrong in that if there are other options available it would be a crime to not pursue them. [/quote] I'm advocating for a more qualitative approach than anything. Rather than scream and yell about the fact that GRE had come after IRON and DAWN, the debate seemed to center around GRE's conditions for ending the war and letting the conflict end. That was the main cause for victory, especially since both IRON and DAWN decided to actually fight the war instead of simply complain. [quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1287084279' post='2484604'] The war of words is simply another aspect of the war. Fight in mind and in body. EDIT: Or rather, with mind and body. [/quote] If the words are qualitative, certainly. If you're just whining, you're not fighting. [quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1287087721' post='2484647'] An opinion (i.e. not a fact) that not everyone else holds. I can see why you hold the position that you do based on your view - it makes since coming from the position that "morality" is "ridiculous." However not everyone leads their nation with the same philosophy. While I agree that arguments about a CB, when they get to the point of arguing "you" and then "no, you" get really old fast, a good CB discussion can be entertaining to at least a good representation of Planet Bob.[/quote] Certainly, it can be important to someone to have a "valid CB" used against them or whatnot, but the validity of the cause for war doesn't change that the war is on. It's not like the war is a ruling on the field which can be overruled and turned around or repealed like some sort of legislation. Whether or not the cause is valid, the war is still happening. The validity of the CB tends to have real impact in the late-war / post-war state when we often see the setup for the next war coming on. The people who cry about it during the course, especially in the opening phases, should probably be saving their collective breathe for when they can use their words more effectively. [quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1287087721' post='2484647'] I'm assuming that people who post on OWF also fight. It's not an either or thing.[/quote] Eh, that's not always the case, and as Stilcho has indicated there's a lot of talking done by those uninvolved. [quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1287087721' post='2484647'] So, is your OP really about wars for technology (i.e. tech raids) because if so, THAT is a discussion I'm actually rather tired of arguing. I am looking at your argument from the perspective of declared alliance wars. If it's about tech only - I'll just and move on. [/quote] No. The debate of tech raids is tired, old and pointless and something I have no intention of entertaining. This sort of thing just turns into more of the GOONS garbage that floats around these days. [quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1287111816' post='2484958'] See, I disagree. Certainly, the [i]casus belli[/i] has no significance in how the war goes: if you're on the defending side, chances are you're weaker than the offensive side, and are going to be crushed either way. But [i]every[/i] war has two fronts: one is fought with guns on the battlefield, and one is fought with propaganda in the media. And just because you lose a war militarily does not mean you lose it in the minds of those watching.[/quote] I'll stipulate to the propaganda value of framing the aggressor with having poor reasons, but there's a difference between providing a well-reasoned response and just scrambling hordes of persons into these halls to bay like a mob. There seems to be a persistent need to start up the howling as soon as the declarations hit the floor rather than provide a measured and mature response to developing events. [quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1287111816' post='2484958'] Mushroom Kingdom proves itself an excellent example of this. Despite militarily losing both Great War IV and the War of the Coalition, it [url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/MK#Notes]considers these victories[/url]. Part of this is because, as stated, they managed to survive the wars as an alliance. However, one can look at it another way as well: they were victorious in those wars in terms of the image that those wars helped to paint of their adversaries, which it is by no means a stretch to say culminated in the world turning against the Continuum and One Vision in the Karma War.[/quote] History being written by the current victors, etc. [quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1287111816' post='2484958'] So as much as all the arguing over a [i]casus belli[/i] (or lack thereof) may seem like contentless drivel, it serves a purpose: perhaps not militarily, but it can and does influence how the watching world sees the involved parties.[/quote] The manner in which the debate goes on is the important bit, which is what I was driving toward. Unfortunately I think I did a poor job of illuminating that point. [b]Edit:[/b] Incorrect formatting.

I don't understand why there is/was a need for this to be posted. Polaris may not exactly be the most-liked alliance around, but I don't think you're going to see any other alliances taking casual potshots at them because they might have been thinking bad thoughts about stuff. It's been pretty clearly stated by several members of the Box Bloc that you guys will probably be viewed with suspicion, but beyond that exactly diddly is going to get done. On that note, I'd recommend all of Polaris start acting suspiciously. Very suspiciously.

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1287038306' post='2484315'] I've put forth the same point in regards to waiting for standing before making a complaint on multiple occasions, however it never seems to make any difference. Well said, though. [/quote] Thank you. [quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1287039497' post='2484325'] A good CB pulls the fence sitters in this war or the next. It depends on how eager the fence sitters are on the war. A good CB actually keeps a war going long after it should. If the CB is simply "defending an ally", you can expect the war to be kept as short as possible. If it is on something else, like spies or unwanted aggression, it could end up bloodier than most. But from what I've seen, it normally doesn't matter. Most "fence sitters" eager to jump on one side or another are usually small, maneuverable alliances, similar to the ones fighting GOONS in the current "Roguefest". If you have a particularly bad CB, you might get unlucky and have someone like NpO turn on you, but even then, those people will take the risk of having bad CBs of their own. It's not something to be neglected, but you're right, too much effort is spent on it. But hey, that's what politicians do [/quote] Certainly, there's something to be said about having a [i]popular[/i] reason for going to war with another nation / alliance / bloc. However, fundamentally, whatever the reason may be doesn't change the fact that ruler can (and do) declare war on each other and, after this is done, both sides start screaming bloody murder about whether or not the other side was correct to do so in the first place. Let's get something on the table here - I personally view the phrase "valid CB" as being as ridiculous as the "morality" garbage that goes on around these forums. Being right and being wrong is entirely a matter of perspective and has absolutely zero basis in fact - it is the height of relativity. Once not so long ago the Viridians were the crusading heros of the 'verse, out to rid us of terrible evil Pacifica who, in turn, had once been out to rid us all of the terrible Polaris, etc. Again, right and wrong does not matter one bit when the enemy is on the doorstep lobbing grenades through your windows. I'm suggesting doing the better thing - get your guns, hide your kids, start blasting the loudest patriotic music you can find and make the enemy pay for every single inch. If you make a good stand and show everyone else you have guts, you're probably going to make more friends than if you cry and whine about how valid it is for another ruler to send his troops to raid your technology development centers and steal your crops. [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1287039708' post='2484326'] I think you are mistaken, the PR war is almost as important as the actual war. It allows you to sway undecided's and independents to your side. Almost 400 million NS fought in Karma, less than half of that (for each side) was formalized into things like blocs. While its true that a PR victory cannot turn a curb stomp into a fair fight, it could be the difference between victory and defeat in a close fight. If someone sitting on the fence is faced with a choice of sides, they will usually go with the one they think to be in the right. Securing that support can be essential. [/quote] The public relations conflict tends to turn into a long-term game, one which extends well past the end of the war and usually only produces fruits after the shooting has stopped. If you're looking for a good example, I'd suggest the FAN-WUT War (or, as the partisan term goes, VietFAN). Yes, it's always good to get a good diplomatic effort going, especially if you have well-spoken persons and excellent artists on your side. I actually advocate as much. What I don't advocate is the mindless, senseless back-and-forth with one side saying "We're right!" and the other side saying "No, you're not!" with absolutely nothing else to contribute aside from nasty little shots taken at people's egos. Unless you're willing to wade through page after page after page of sniping you're not going to be paying attention to that garbage anyway, so it's all wasted time. [quote name='Karolina' timestamp='1287039779' post='2484328'] War can easily be swung in favour of one side, over another, because of the depth, or validity of a CB, because of neutrals. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to, at the very least, ensure those neutral do not join in the war against you, and at the most, have them helping you out. [/quote] Considering most wars have been curbstomps from the get-go, I don't agree with this position. Also, please see above for my opinion on words like "validity". [quote name='R3nowned' timestamp='1287048268' post='2484363'] The propaganda during a war is a battle in itself. A good CB is a must in the current Bobian political climate. Without a good CB, you'll eventually garner enough hate to bring yourself down. See the fate of Pacifica last year. So much hate was directed at them from around the treaty web on all sides, that when time came, even their closest treaty partners dropped them (coalition of cowards was their given name). The reasons for the cancellation was a direct protest of the CB used, from what I remember. tl;dr have a good cb or you'll only screw yourself [/quote] Using Pacifica as an example of what happens when you have a "bad" CB (see above for my opinion on relative adjectives) is a messy affair, as the Karma War and the reasons for it were as varied as the alliances who took part. Many of the wars that have taken place have begun more over objections to the aims and/or policies of the targets as well as their historical records (I cite the Continuum-NoV War, Coalition War and Karma War as ones from my personal experience) than over "your previous CB sucked so I'm attacking you". If that were the case, the GOONS would be a smoking hole in the ground right now from the look of people's opinions on their raiding policies. Wars start because one side senses opportunity to advance, has the firepower to give it a decent shot and the fortitude to see it through to the end. Wars end because both sides agree that the cost to continue is unacceptable to one or both sides. Additions of things like admission-of-guilt clauses is a nice little stab, but doesn't really have a damned bit of impact on the rest of the affair. And no, if your reason for war isn't popularly viewed, you're not "screwing yourself". So what if you lose a war? Last I checked, Pacifica was the big loser of the Karma War and currently sits pretty in the number-two slot. Polaris got beaten and isn't too shabby an enterprise. Athens took a beating before and came out shiny. The Kingdom got its castles back. If you think the war is warranted, then you're going to declare it and pursue it. If it's being declared on you, you best fight back and behave while doing so because you have the chance of impressing your peers with your poise and determination. My verbal offensive is against the person(s) who like to yell and whine about why they're getting attacked like a bunch of pants-wetting toddlers than actually toughen up, get some grit and fight their damned wars like the rulers they want so badly to be.

[quote name='Megamickel' timestamp='1287037271' post='2484300'] But if we declared war on you right now, would you be so quick to say "the CB doesn't matter", even if our only reason was "your alliance name is distasteful to our tongues"? [/quote] I might not like it, but that wouldn't affect the outcome. My time would be better spent fighting the war and attempting a diplomatic solution and yelling and screaming "You can't declare on me, you don't have a valid reason!"

Or not. Fellow national rulers, One topic which seems to be coming up repetatively to the point of outdoing reruns of the fine Zoican telvision series MASH (Monstrous Androids Stalking Humans, on channel 92 if you're interested) is the cassus belli, also known as the CB or justification to go to war. Endless run-arounds have been had about when it's ok to go to war, when it isn't, what gives foundation to a conflict and all that jazz. Now, I'm going to take a real leap here and say something which has occured to no one* before now. [i]Once the war has started the cause doesn't matter anymore![/i] Simply put, when the enemy has tanks rolling down your streets and their soldiers are in the homes of your citizenry looting and pillaging at will, the reason that they have arrived does not matter one bit anymore. Attempting to wave around the unjust cause of the other party as some sort of defense is akin to standing in front of an advancing armored formation with your hand raised in an effort to stop them. And no, harsh language is not armor-piercing. For all the boasting, crying, screaming and yelling that goes on, once the war has started posturing does not matter one bit. If it did, the Gramlins would have had their war with IRON and DAWN wrapped up in about thirty seconds. Thus, I fail to understand why all the arguing exists. So what if people have been talking nonsense about you / your alliance / your bloc? If you think you have cause to nail them to the wall with nuclear force, do it. If you don't or you simply don't care, then leave it alone. On the other side, if someone has attacked you they probably have a reason for having made the declaration otherwise they would not have done it, even if it is something so simple as "I don't like you" (as a side note, nobody declares war on someone because they like them, unless it's some sort of jousting match). Thus, stop complaining and just fight the war or don't. Recent events have established that most alliances are going to attempt to pursue a total war policy including the use of nuclear weapons and sanctions, so fancy language doesn't really serve a purpose besides keeping things light and fun. The propaganda is cool, the verbal sparring can be a lot of fun (assuming people are speaking intelligently) and the diplomacy adds real depth to any conflict. But the pointless end-run back-and-forth about why someone is wrong for having attacked / been attacked / defended / whatever doesn't mean a damn thing at the end of the day. My parting thought? Stop wasting your time, my time and everyone else's time and switch onto something more productive if possible.** Or, if you want to hem and haw, at least take it somewhere else other than the main discussion line and leave it for those who have a vested interest in intelligent verbal intercourse. Sniping and making crafty and/or witty little remarks that contribute absolutely nothing is awesome, but also helps create an absolutely vacuum of substance. As always, [i]intelligent[/i] and [i]substantive[/i] commentary is welcome, though I'm sure someone will disappoint me. * Everyone ** Unlike what I'm doing here, which is probably a total waste of everyone's time anyway.

[quote name='King Chill I' timestamp='1286981354' post='2483606'] Oh stop it you. What else is there to whine about right now. This place wouldnt be itself if we didnt have whiny nutjobs (who were actually involved in [noobishly] plotting a war) running around crying conspiracy and oppression by a group that has yet to do anything and has actually passed on one of the best CBs i have seen in my years on Planet Bob.[/quote] I know, I'm taking the fire right out of people's good time cookout here. How dare I. [/sarcasm] In seriousness, though, I really just don't get it. Let something happen first, [i]then[/i] yell about it. This tactic tends to make arguments actually have substance to them. [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1286995741' post='2483742'] Well according to the massive log dump, thats pretty much exactly what everybody is shaking in their booties over. GOONS in a bloc is apparently so terrifying they need to get together to try and kill it preemptively.[/quote] I haven't seen the logs and, frankly, don't really care to (if they're in here somewhere, I can't be bothered to look). If anything, they fall under the same argument I'm making. Nothing has actually happened, people are just running their mouths. If there really is something going on, sure, bring it out and make your case(s) on the forum but until it does everyone is just slinging words. Welcome to the oft-referred to issue of stagnation where everyone wants to use fancy language and boast big but not actually take a step. Hell, if Pandora's Box actually goes out and accomplishes something beyond NS pumping I'll be right there applauding the bravado shown. Sure, it'll prompt the inane "you're as bad / worse than (insert group name here)" but that's only because those group(s) actually got off their collective asses and made an impact.

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1287011467' post='2483936'] Like when TIO wanted to start a war over a "your mom" joke? Yeah, you don't have any room to call Octava Orden a bad alliance or to call Ezequiel a bad leader after stupid stunts like that one. [/quote] That was one instance, and as I recall war was offered by Octava Orden backed down once it became clear they'd be on the losing end. Argue with the CB all you like, but when an alliance places itself into the line of fire, acts like a bunch of immature kids and then runs crying when the hammer is about to fall, nevermind a consistent trend of behavior to that effect, you can't really hold up one occasion on the part of another alliance and play the "you're just as bad as them" card. As Skippy noted before, it was an error, and one that was certainly the exception and not the rule.

Being normal is terrible. Like Skippy.

Why attempt to resurrect something when you can make something new, free from prior associations?

Through it all, I fail to understand why the formation of this bloc is such a big deal. Alright, so some alliances got together and formed a non-chaining defensive pact with a nifty theme, rules of internal conduct and the like. Woohoo. It's another bloc. Unless they go out and start swinging their weight like the Continuum did and actually making things happen rather than sit pretty and bulk up in the never-ending cold war that happens around here, not a thing has really occurred. Cool them, interesting grouping and certainly some possibilities for some stuff to go down in a new direction but until something [i]actually[/i] happens it's a lot of screaming about nothing.

[quote name='Ezequiel' timestamp='1286940349' post='2483161'] Why would that be unwise exactly?[/quote] Because, historically, you have a particular talent with getting yourself and those around you into troublesome situations which requires bailouts to occur. Anyone, rulers or alliances, tied to you will inevitably be dragged along for the ride. I'll happily be proven wrong, but I don't expect that will be the case. And, if it isn't, it's the basis for some good ol' micro drama that everyone loves to see. [quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1286944414' post='2483252'] [color="#FF0000"]Haters gotta hate. The more haters, and the more deranged they are, the more likely you are doing something right.[/color] [/quote] I don't see much "deranged" hating here, but whatever makes you happy, you know?