The Crimson King

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1299632139' post='2657255'] I'm not upset at all. You're the ones who did yourselves in here. It wasn't even a surprise since I saw it coming for over a week. [/quote] Which is the other thing that is confusing then as to why you are acting all taken aback here. If you knew this was a possibility then clearly you were aware that they may be "misinterpreting" the terms you laid down in your eyes. So why not just query them and let them know before they declared war on your ally? This is an honest question by the way.

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1299630211' post='2657230'] I agree, it's far more likely they lose sleep when the time comes and they expect you to help them out. Might as well go ahead and buy them a chair in prior compensation, no one should have to wait so long without sitting. [/quote] Yes, cause NSO has a long and storied history of throwing their allies the finger when their help is requested right? I honestly have no idea what point you were trying to make here

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1299556302' post='2656164'] Anyway, I'm not going to sit here and debate you on this topic, as it's not really my place as somebody not party to the peace agreement. [/quote] Had you only realized this about 7 pages ago you would have saved a lot of people a lot of time in this thread.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1299555304' post='2656151'] I said they effectively DoW'd when they launched their first wave of sanctioned attacks, this isn't a hard concept. [/quote] No that isn't what you said, nor what you have been arguing in this thread for a few pages now. You seem to be banging the drum that CD was locked out of this front in an absolute sense, claiming that the first line of their terms regarding re-entry locked them out of coming back in on this front under any and all circumstances. Apparently this was the "spirit of the terms" in your eyes. If you are conceding that you were wrong here then you can just say that, and we can move on to your next argument

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1299554330' post='2656139'] We never DoW'd them, unless you count attacking their nations (which would "the equivalent"), and that was before the terms were signed. The only thing that happened after terms were signed is a NSO recognition of hostilities, which is not an MK declaration of war or equivalent. [/quote] The points I have made so far in this thread are 2 First off, had MK/Umb posted a DoW back when they claim to have recognized war against NSO (or even done a blanket DoW against all NPO allies who countered GOONS) then CD most certainly would not be in this war right now Second, CD did have the right, via their terms, to enter the war if/when an ally of theirs was declared on. As I said in the post you quoted, the argument of who was at war when with who is a bridge that cannot even be crossed yet until we at least all come to the consensus that CD did in fact ave the right to defend their allies from attack and were not locked out of the NPO front in absolute terms. IF we can concede these 2 points our e-lawyers can have a stimulating debate on the who has the authority to recognize war after being attacked and when such an attack constitutes a declaration of war and numerous other mind numbing topics. Unfortunately right now the leadership on your side still seems to be hung up on blatantly obvious fact that CD did in fact have the right to re-enter this front if and when an ally was declared on, and until we can move past that, the more stimulating intellectual debate must be put on hold. My main point still stands however. Had you wished to avoid this headache for your side, our side, and alliances no longer involved in this war, all you had to do is what everyone else has done since the beginning of time on this planet, and simply post a DoW on the alliances you declare war on. Your desire to blaze a new path here with your approach to declaring war is what has ultimately caused these issues. If you wanted no grey areas...make a post...end of story

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1299551804' post='2656111'] Yeah sorry, not buying it, NSO/MK is a part of NPO/DH. Any lawyering having to do with who posted what DoW or RoW when is just window dressing. The terms have been violated and a price will be paid. [/quote] What are you not buying exactly? The terms said if an ally was hit they could re-enter....the people who gave them these terms explained to not only them, but every AA taking this term, that this was what the terms meant. IN fact, as TFD pointed out already, the term was written for the express purpose of allowing re-entry in the case of a pile-on on a front that was active in the Polar war....so saying that the first sentence in those terms (regarding the polar and pacifica fronts) was an absolute, under no circumstances, term is clearly not the case. You can sit there and stick your fingers in your ears and yell lalalala as much as you want, but it does not change this.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1299539198' post='2655858'] The amount of twisting from people is disgusting. Everybody knew what the surrender term implied. Trying to pick it apart in some pedantic exercise will get none of you anywhere. Even if you didn't violate the letter of the term, you violated the spirit (what everybody knew it meant, no entry on any aspect of the NPO front, and this is an aspect of it), and will be punished for it. Nobody important on the side that matters is buying that this wasn't a violation. [/quote] What exactly did "Everyone" know it meant? It states that they cannot re-enter unless someone hits an ally of theirs after terms are signed. That is what it says. there is really not much there to interpret. It is also the same way that others who were in those peace talks and placed under these same terms were explained how the wording worked. You guys can argue who was and was not at war at what point in time before of after the terms were signed, but on the case of reentry in the defense of an ally the matter is pretty clear. As I said before if Umb and MK actually posted a DoW if/when they considered themselves at war with NSO then this would be a non issue right now.

[quote name='Epiphanus' timestamp='1299527574' post='2655675'] I find it humorous that the ~other side~ has deemed you intellectually capable enough to lead their coalition war effort. Really goes to show the sad state of affairs amongst the Pacifican heroes and their friends. [/quote] Congrats on the ad hominem, I can really see this conversation going places. Also it appears you are misinformed if you think I have sole control over the war effort on this side.

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1299526585' post='2655662'] No. What I said is that Umbrella signed those terms. In good faith. And certainly didn't expect CD (or anyone else for that matter) to try and wiggle their way into a war using the worst e-lawyering ever. But feel free to misread everything: I don't want to be the one to stop you from extrapolating. [/quote] In good faith that what?....they would hit a treaty partner of CD whom they had no previous wars with up until this point, and CD would sit back and ignore the clause that they wrote allowing them back into the conflict in this exact instance?

The fingerpointing in this thread is actually pretty funny. The ONLY reason CD is back in this war is because MK and Umb decided to hit a few nations in NSO's mid ranges that cycled out of PM onto a few goons targets. Had MK or Umb decided to post a DoW when they claim they initially considered themselves at war rather than expecting people to mindread, guess what....CD would still be out of the war....had MK and Umb decided to not engage targets they were not at war with officially...guess what...CD would still be out of the war. Had MK and Umb just decided to post a blanket DOW on everyone a month ago the first time this issue arose...you guess it...CD would still be out of the war. But instead here we are 6 weeks later still arguing over what does and does not constitute an act of war, who gets to define it, when it starts, and various other mind numbing e-lawyer hot topics, which all could have been easily avoided with a simple one line post by those declaring war saying they are actually declaring war. IF you decide to you want to be "edgy" and declare on anyone and everyone whenever you want without telling anyone, expect grey areas like this to be popping up. [quote name='potato' timestamp='1299521493' post='2655561'] Umbrella DID sign the surrender terms. And they see it as a breach, as Xavii and Roq pointed out. [/quote] Which makes it even worse than. What you are saying here, and Roq is so proudly trumpeting, is that he signed terms with an alliance allied to someone engaged on the front Umb was fighting.....allowed a term in the surrender document that will give that alliance the right to declare on anyone who hit their treaty partners down the line....and then went out and started attacking a treaty partner of the that alliance with whom they have never been at war with up to that point. So Umb was dumb enough to start attacking NSO with full knowledge of the terms CD had, and still did not take the 10 seconds to post a DoW, thus allowing CD's re-entry into the conflict through the same terms they drafted to keep them out. I appreciate the fact they keep pointing this out for everyone.

[quote name='Daikos' timestamp='1299184879' post='2651430'] Please try to keep up. When you have all of your upper tier cowering in peace mode and are fighting alliances with a large upper tier (Umbrella AVG NS: 80k for example) it becomse impossible for them to produce offensiev wars since hurr durr there are no targets in range. [/quote] UMb ans has nothing to do with it. There is a pool on nations in range on both sides that are capable of declaring wars on each other. Those stats reflect the total ammt of active wars currently going on within that pool of nations. It did not state how many wars are outgoing or incoming by aa. Just how many wars each aa is engaged in. This totals the wars for this side. If you did the same stats for the other side, and added them up, you would wind up with the same number. It is a simple sum of wars and it is an equation by which side A has to equate to side B.

[quote name='Daikos' timestamp='1299170571' post='2651193'] Nothing like pointing out just how pathetic your coalition is. To think that some of you actually claim to be winning. [/quote] Obviously you put zero thought into this gem of a post. That is the number of wars we are actively involved in both incoming and outgoing. Therefore what ever you think this says about our coalition, it says the exact same thing about the other side, since this is a contained conflict with everyone fighting each other.

This made we want to listen to Aqualung...

Most I had this war in one night was 10. Got hit on the 11th

Congrats to the newly appointed government members

[quote name='Greev' timestamp='1298993760' post='2648124'] Will they emit it? [/quote] Eye no KNOT.....

I am not sure what the OP thinks they are proving here. I sense you think you are on to something juicy but really you offered up nothing aside from the fact that NSO would have entered for STA if NPO was not preempted (something which was already known) and that TPF was requested to sit out by STA originally (again something everyone knew). IF the point was to show everyone that I was banging the drum for 4 days prior to the preempt that one was going to happen then you succeeded marvelously. IF on the other hand you are trying to prove that NPO was going to get into the war by showing that people wanted to keep them out of the war, then I would have to question how that logic works. Also as it has been pointed out in a thread apparently about npo/nso/polar/tpf you have logs of one ruler (Myself) containing all of 4 lines saying I told NPO to get ready for a preemptive strike, which also matches up to why they started beefing up on mil and heading to PM. So unless you got something from the other 3 emperors or something further from myself all you really managed to show was that I cautioned allies against a preempt before it happened, which is why NSO did not enter for STA. Bravo?

I seriously cannot believe peace mode is still being argued......

[quote name='Hidraca' timestamp='1297618101' post='2631233'] What language did I use to indicate that? Usually when a nation applies to an Alliance the alliance asks the nation, Do you have any enemies? If the nation is responsible they'll say yes. Said Alliance would then come to the offended party and ask the nature of the offence. I would say that if both the new Alliance and the offensive nation act respectfully in talks then both parties have nothing to worry about. Also as an aside, If we notice an EoG member moved to an alliance without telling them his status. We will take it on ourselves to speak with the new alliance. Again depending on how respectful this process is both parties can get a favorable outcome. [/quote] Except in the situation we are discussing the ruler in question was not on the EoG list and was in an alliance already. You still put him on the EoG list (for talking smack on the forums) and are now claiming that he is open to attacks Now granted, first off this serves zero purpose because you are already at war with NPO, so why you felt the need to single out an individual member to say he is open for attacks is beyond me, since it is a given since you are at war with his alliance. On the other hand this does say that he will be open to attacks even after his alliance peaces out this conflict (whenever that may be) unless he complies with further terms separate of those from his alliance, simply because he is speaking out in a time of war against the alliance that actually attacked his aa. This is what everyone is commenting on here. So yes, your reply regarding how alliance should not accept EoG members is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand

Let the Lord of Chaos Rule o/

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1297458402' post='2629612'] You know what, nevermind, welcome back to the EoG list. [/quote] Did you really just say you are placing a member in good standing of an alliance on the EoG list for something they said on the OWF. I believe brilliant political move would aptly apply here.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1297407796' post='2629078'] Your "top 200" statistic is flawed because they had more in peace mode at ranges smaller than that, in the top 50, top 100, etc. [/quote] They had 136 nations above 50k on the 25th. They have 52 now. As a percentage base naturally they had more as they went up (when you have one nation over 150k and he goes to PM it is easy to say ...look they have 100% over 150k in pm), I already agreed on this point. I am not sure why we are arguing it. [quote] The [i]intent[/i] was to send them to peace. [/quote] Their intent was also to sit out of the war, but that did not stop you from declaring on them and starting this war in the first place. [quote] One half fighting involuntarily doesn't excuse the other half. So not fighting because you're at a disadvantage isn't cowardice now? Running away from a fight is now "common sense"? I'm sorry if I disagree with that. And I don't think that's something that TPF would disagree with as well. [/quote] Nice try at spinning that but that is not even close to what I have been arguing in this thread. What I have said (and just about everyone agrees with except you) is that the nations are there right now for strategic reasons. That is a portion of the battlefield that they (we) cannot legitimately control at this time, so they are focusing their efforts on that which they can. They have no pressing need to release those forces from PM at this time. If there is no pressure driving the top tier from pm then they would either need something to change strategically for them to release the troops or they would need some sort of pressure from the enemy to yield the ground. As of right now the strategic outlook on that front has not changed, and the attempt that you have come up with to get them to yield the ground and send their troops into a suicide charge basically amounts to a 5 year old sticking their tongue out and yelling "na na na na na you are a wussy" So yes, ignoring your "callout" is most certainly common sense.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1297399230' post='2628895'] The percentage in peace mode got higher as you went, they had more than that at the top ranks. [/quote] I am not sure what you are trying to say here. I assume you mean that they had more nations in the top half of the aa in pm, which again is to be expected. Not sure why this is a revelation. [quote] More would have gotten to peace if we hadn't stopped the flight to peace mode short with our declaration. [/quote] What the hell does this have to do with anything? There are a lot of things they may have done if you did not declare on them when you did, but guess what, none of them have any bearing on this conversation since you did actually declare on them. [quote] "Only" keeping 50% of your high tier nations in peace mode is still cowardly. [/quote] when that top 50% contains 35 k nations who already got a round of war in, no it does not. You are the only person aside from the OP in this thread legitimately trying to play the coward card. See now here is the thing if they had started the war then realized they were not going to win and ran to PM you may have an argument. But you attacked them with a vastly outnumbered and superior upper tier, failed to set up the op in a fashion that kept them from getting to PM, and are now crying over your screw up. They are in a position where they hold no advantage in that range, thus why you are so eager to get them out in the open. What you are basically saying here is "Hey guys, once you drop PM we will take a minumum of 3 nations with substantially higher NS and tech levels and jump you cause we know you can't defend yourselves there....wait...you don't want to walk headlong into that....pfft cowards" Refusing to toss their upper tier on the fire for your entertainment after you started the war is simple common sense.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1297397688' post='2628867'] Yup. How on earth is a pre-emptive strike cowardly? Staying in peace mode is an effective (and accepted) strategy if you are using it for tactical reasons in a war. For example to use it as a reprieve to get out of anarchy and rebuild your nuclear stockpile and so you are ready to launch attacks and staggers when you get out. That isn't cowardly, and it's a common strategy. Using it as a way to avoid war entirely with no intention to ever come out until after the war is over IS cowardly. Y'all are doing the latter. [/quote] Quit being obtuse, you know damn well that their top 80 (or whatever number we are going for this war) are only the top 80 because the other nations that were there got beat down. They had less that 50% of their top 200 in PM when the war started. Over 100 nations in their top 3rd have taken a beating already. The number 80 nation in pm that you are calling out here is at 38k ns. Sorry but the cry to grab your torch and pitchforks and root out the NPO top tier for their crimes holds no weight here. And yes, holding back banks is also something that has been commonplace for a long period of time. Now we can debate the concept of using "bank nations" in this day and age, but regardless the idea of holding back a certain number of cash rich nations to help rebuild an aa after a long and drawn out conflict is not a new concept, nor is it cowardly. It is simple common sense.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1297396387' post='2628835'] Most of those nations hit peace mode BEFORE we declared. We moved up our declaration because of it, as lots of NPO were hitting peace. [/quote] Thus why I said: [quote] So the fact that there are 80 nations you want out of PM simply shows that there are either 80 nations you failed to do anything with in your initial blitz [b]or your opsec was not good enough before you hit, and NPO was tipped off and had time to get people to PM.[/b] [/quote] The point still stands, those nations are there due to your failure.