Ardus

You shouldn't have had to make this decision, but it is done nonetheless. I salute you.

NSO's disdain for Athens and CnG in general is well known. That you've proceeded to sign this treaty when all the world expects IRON to engage the group of alliances arraigned against the Phoenix Federation is blatant in its purpose and meaning, as I trust the word of NSO enough for this agreement to be sound. This puts your neighbors in Frostbite in the unexpected and undesirable position of seeing their allies diverge as conflict erupts, an implicit demand for them to choose. As I said, I should have expected this. It is what we should all expect of a Sith, no?

Can't say I'm surprised, really, but I do think this puts undue pressure on your closest allies in Frostbite. For every mistake or fumble you've made they've gone to bat for you, and still they stand by you, and will no doubt they will continue to stand by you. That you're willing to yet again take advantage of that friendship to slight Athens is really just... tragic.

We shank because we love. Keep up the work, there, Admin.

There's a reason why I put it in sig form.

Clearly it was NATO spying on RoK, as we must assume the elder to be the "original" and thus the beneficiary of acquired information.

Not really. Athens showed the concept processed through early implementation, expressing clear intent, and thus all that was necessary for justified war. I could respect the opposition's philosophical difference on the nature of warfare if they didn't spend every waking moment starting new threads about how Athens is so evil, incompetent, and just like them, rather than actually debating the merits of the two views as Srqt and I did some time ago.

I'll remind you that the use of Comic Sans is a valid CB.

This is turn-based warfare here. We keep waiting on them to go so we can get in our next attack, but they just keep staring at their list of spells.

Was it that old? I honestly am not aware of the multi's age. Regardless, I'd like to note that Ragnarok is less than 1200 days old.

He condemned it in this very thread. And you can't kick somebody out if you don't know he was doing something wrong until he was deleted for it.

1) TOP & Co. discover an ex-RoK member had multis, possibly spied. Demand Hoo condemn the individual's actions and ban him from their community in order to make evident that he did not support his efforts. 2) Hoo condemns the individual's actions and bans him from the RoK community, making evident that he did not support his efforts. 3) TOP decides that's not good enough. So am I reading you right?

Because absent us the thread would be flooded by posts of a similar nature from TPF's allies, automatically agreeing that the logs are real. We're keeping the balance. And thus the Prophet at Deltai was right.

You don't have to rise through the ranks to cause a major disturbance. A notable influx of members brings great joy, but the exodus of those same members say, two months later, can be crippling to an alliance's internal cohesion, especially if they all leave in a huff and stir things up on the way out.

Yep, though I'll admit to some minor formatting to make it fit as I wanted it to.

I also made my current sig.

And who are these individuals? I could just as easily state I've spoken with numerous members of alliances who would be obligated to defend TPF and found they believe the war to be just. I wasn't aware anybody had released a study of the CN population regarding opinions on the quality of the casus belli. Again, you're using a weasel word with no hard facts or numbers. Let's not. Let's actually have a quality debate over the deepest aspects of this conflict and maybe learn something about each other instead of jumping to a conclusion without any reasoning. If you don't want to participate, you don't have to.

No, they don't have to listen to any of us. They can declare all the wars they want on New Years Eve. They just also need to recognize the consequences of doing so.

Sometimes it's better to recognize the loyalty of your members and grant them mercy from the failure of a banner they cling to. Leaders are supposed to make the clear decisions that individual members may not be able to make, for whatever reason (emotion, lack of information, etc). And, ya know, its not like they're turning around and making a new alliance without all the tainted history of UED. Oh wait...

I for one am partial to long tons.

We're clearly all out to get them. Every. Single. One of us.

PLEASE VIRIDIA, DON'T BETRAY ATHENS

When I say "in Karma", I meant in the "Karma War", just to clarify. And I s'pose that depends on if TJO continued plotting after peace was signed between the warring parties. The TPF plot existed, unchanged, in that nice period between NPO's surrender and their own surrender, when it was in no way shape or form obligated to defend NPO any further. Furthermore, the plot imposed was, as has been stated, clearly a long term mission that could not have had an impact on a war that nobody intended to make permanent... except apparently mhawk.

That is a slippery slope. It's just that idea of war that enables large alliances to impose terms on their enemies through the smaller alliances that fight alongside them. LoSS's eviction from the black sphere at the end of GWIII is a case in point: GOONS demanded VE remove them from the sphere and there wasn't any other way to prevent it, so it happened. Great pains were taken in Karma, by both sides, to establish wars as specific and limited, not wide-reaching.

That does not matter. If I try to nuke you, after having been in no state of war with you or your alliance mates prior, your SDI stops it, and I offer peace, I'm still going to get ground to dust by the Jedi Order. No?