Tromp

Before I proceed, I want to thank all of you who commented on this, mostly in a well thought out manner too! That makes writing such a text worth it. Now, I will try to answer you all, but please forgive me if I forget you or don't answer directly as I will try to focus on the main counterpoints offered by people. Here goes. And you're not alone in that. Thank you for the compliment White Chocolate, but understand that provocation is necessary to spark debate. That's all true, we're limited in the way we can fight wars and rule our nations. For those who don't want to be involved in politics and war there are neutral alliances though, and I'm perfectly fine with that. It just means the rest of the story doesn't apply to you, since this was meant for those who do participate in politics on Bob. What is justice to you is injustice to someone else. I can understand that people hold other values then mine in high regard, and I certainly don't think I can say one is better then the other (or "good" or "evil"), but what I'm trying to say is that I don't believe that there is anything else besides the quest for power, even for the "moralists" among us, ingame. To quote myself from another topic on this issue: "Morality comes into play when one feels there's a need to appeal to the emotions of others. Moralists basically use the weakness of others to further their own political goals. They themselves think their cause is 'just', or even 'holy', but what moralists forget is that they, much like those who they are criticizing, are simply trying to make the rest of the world submit to their norms. Their method to gain power is thus simply more of a deceitful one." Alright, a couple of points to consider. The reason why war is inevitable for those who participate in politics (please keep this one condition in mind, because that's an important one that I included in the original text) is that politics is about wielding and increasing one's power. The probability that you'll go to war will only increase the longer you don't, as eventually your interests will clash with those of others. Only neutrals have no interests in the political game, and thus run the least of risk (yes, there still is a risk!) being dragged into a war. Furthermore, you have to disconnect justice from action. The point of this blog was to attack the idea that aggression equals injustice and is "bad", while defending equals justice and is "good". So I made the point that aggression is not per se war: it can be lots of things besides that. War only doesn't determine whether one is an aggressor or defender. This all means that there's also the possibility of justifiable aggression, and injustifiable defense. As to your example, since you declared war, they have everything to do with you. You simply skipped the diplomacy part, or more accurate, switched position of the two events in the timeline. But even before that, it holds true. It is simple, as an alliance you have to consider everyone not allied or befriended to you as hostile. The party you attacked in this case has failed to recognize a future threat to their alliance and act accordingly, so that means they have failed in their diplomacy and wielding their power. The statement stands. Yes, there are different standards as to what is a (legit) CB, not one that all can agree on. You just reinforced my point. Because of this fact, it means that there isn't something like "good or evil" that one can objectively labeled as, or a particular action that can objectively been seen as either "aggressive or defensive". We only have perception. Aggression does make the politics go round, remember the one condition I told you of earlier? In politics, it is impossible to be all defensive because you have interests you want to look after. This by definition will obstruct others in their abilities and interests, and thus is aggressive to them. Arguing is a kind of warfare. You try to master your opponent, and convince him to agree with you. For the first point, see my reply to Haf. Second, I think that isn't a wrong comparison to be quite honest, but even during musical chairs you have to put in some effort to gain what you want. You can't expect to be granted a seat don't you agree? I wouldn't argue this myself in this specific case (DH-NPO), but I think it's important to note that if you accept that previous history counts, then that's enough to say the attack wasn't "unprovoked". Third, you are making the same mistake White_chocolate did. Aggression does not equal solely violence, does not equal war. See my reply to her (I assume W_C is female). I will agree with you however that the bad label it now has is because of the history and tradition on Planet Bob. Personally, I hope that'll change, that we'll get rid of that taboo. I hear you. Unfortunately I have only experienced the Karma war of those you mentioned, but it was possibly the best time I have ever had in this game. The whole lead up to it and the climax, it simply had everything I think what makes CN the unique game it can be.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296966732' post='2621290'] one point- TOP/IRON came to Grub already wanting to hit CnG. Grub never pointed TOP/IRON towards MK or CnG. Nor did Grub force TOP/IRON to hit MK/CnG. in fact, TOP/IRON and co already fessed up to having the idea themselves and only going to Grub to see if Polaris would defend MK. so, that whole bit is just plain false mate. so, Polaris never forced TOP/co to slam MK in the face, as you put it. [/quote] Isn't it common knowledge by now that TOP/IRON wouldn't have attacked without Grub's approval? This was what I was getting at, so yes Polaris did "point at" and encouraged the attack. [quote] which brings me to a third point regarding the other treaty partners, including your own alliance bit- would you say then that you don't care about MK since you went in via treaty obligation? i mean it makes no sense to accuse Polaris of only defending MK due to a treaty, when that is why your own alliance did so... so if your alliance cared about MK, then it is easy to say the same of Polaris. [/quote] No, I would not. I was pointing out to you how your argument was !@#$%^&*, as Polaris wasn't caring more then anyone else about MK when they did send some nations in. You're turning the argument upside down. Take a look at my post which you replied to [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97242&st=240&p=2620913&#entry2620913]here[/url] again. My comment wasn't one of praise, rather it was sarcasm.

!@#$, you stole my thunder Schatt. I was going to write a blog on multipolarity, with this point as the central argument. edit: my arguments are somewhat different from Triyun's and yours though. I might just do it anyway.

[quote name='BamaBuc' timestamp='1296948953' post='2621091'] I don't think you know what a false-flag operation is. [/quote] Nah, I do. But you are correct, I thought of something else, simply used the wrong terminology. As for the point of intent, consider it dropped. Two mistakes in one thread, It's clearly not my day.

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1296947193' post='2621053'] For those who can't read more than one post back, I was sympathizing with z3's position. [/quote] Yeah, and now explain the paranoia bit please.

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1296943178' post='2620988'] [b]Paranoia[/b] appears to be a communicable disease nowadays. [/quote] What? You're not making sense. Also Zoomx3, I'll send you a PM.

Sometimes when there's a war going on I wonder where all the warmongers went to. Whenever there's peace, you see people complaining of boredom, stagnation and more of that jazz, but as soon as a war starts most everyone turns around and becomes a critic. No reason cited is good enough to start a war, even though admin has provided us with little to work with. Isn't that odd? Really, people should accept that the game itself will not give us a lot of causes for war, and that some roleplay simply is necessary to keep everyone interested. For those who want to simulate politics, social interaction is a vital aspect of this game. There is a need for diversity, not just in emotions and morality, but also in actual behaviour and positioning. Too often we see people parrotting each other, without putting in some effort to reach an own conclusion and act accordingly, or you see people being influenced because of peer pressure. I'd like to tackle one issue which has been annoying to me personally, and that is the idea that (a war of) agression is a crime. Purely seen from an OOC viewpoint: I literally can't think of any reason why one would want a world in which there is no conflict, other then statcollecting. If that's what CN was supposed to be or become, I'm glad it nowadays isn't, because it certainly isn't my idea of fun. Perhaps there's more to it, who would care to enlighten me on that point? So yeah, I'm simply not seeing why war in general should be regarded as something bad in a world with infinite resources, where nations can't be exterminated and where there is no nor will there be an 'end'. Those who think war is bad, that aggression is bad, are carrying real life values over into a nationsimulator that is significantly different from the world we know and thus should be treated differently. I contend that war, that being the result of competition, of strife, of conflict, is good. Anything a person does, who is not a neutral, is something that contributes to the eventual outcome of every form politicking, namely war. It is, ultimately, your destiny to be fighting wars, be they mentally via diplomacy, or be they physically via the destruction of pixels. To object to war is to say essentially that you don't like the eventual outcome of said war. It is true, morality and the quest for what people perceive to be justice in general is little more then a cover up for weakness, and is meant to give the selfappointed victim a boost in selfesteem. Additional effects this may have are, among others, pity and hatred for victim and perpetrator. All of this is part of the greater struggle for power in this world, to say otherwise would be a lie. Since war is inevitable on Bob, there is always some alliance that is going to make the first shot. Before I move on, I want to make a minor point. What precedes this first shot is always the interbellum, a period in which all alliances enjoy (relative) peace to prepare for the next war. Most often during these periods of peace, acts of aggression do occur, yet they are not being responded to with force. Aggressiveness is thus not limited to war only. Now, I'm not going into full detail of what an alliance does or should do at such a point in time, the only point I wanted to make for now is that an alliance who sits still and does little to improve its position is simply asking for trouble, in the same way as an alliance that does too much is asking for trouble, as we are in a world that is characterized by hostility towards one another. Anyway, to fire the first shot doesn't necessarily mean it makes you the aggressor and thus 'wrong' by default. As mentioned earlier there is always a larger context in which that first shot must be placed, but the focus of people on that first shot while at the same time disregarding the context creates a narrowminded worldview in which little makes sense anymore; where wars are being fought over seemingly next to nothing. However, it is actually very rare that a war is being fought over nothing, even though it appears some people think this is happening, or even would like to see it happen. In reality, war is diplomacy by other means, so when it comes to the point of war this is merely a sign that two parties have conducted diplomacy, and eventually clashed so hard when wielding their power, that they both failed to preserve the peace, not just one of them. Whether one should label the alliance firing the first shot as "aggressor" is depending on your perspective, in the same way the "justness" of a war is mostly in the eye of the beholder. I have not seen or experienced a universally accepted standard as to what constitutes a legit CB, there will simply always be people who disagree. The question which side is "just" usually shifts to who is winning, be it the perceived defender or be it the aggressor, furthermore an indication that objective justice does not exist. And these positions of aggressor and defender may change over the course of a war, the most notable examples of this being the Karma war and the BiPolar war, where the initial attackers ("aggressors") became defenders later on and vice versa. What can be concluded from this all is that aggression is not a crime and most importantly, that a defender isn't in the right by default either. Unless there is an effort to establish a universal standard for CBs that succeeds, I don't see a future in which anyone can claim the objective moral high ground, or justness of a cause. The only thing I am damn sure of is that aggression is what makes this world go round. Luckely. === I feel like I should elaborate on some points, such as the Interbellum and Just War tradition, but these are subjects that deserve their own blog. Maybe I'll get to it some time. For now, I just wanted to offer an expantion to the argument Azaghul made here under "What's wrong now". To those who have read this, I hope you enjoyed it and will share your thoughts.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296938276' post='2620899'] that happens in almost every war. it happened in this war. [...] [/quote] True, it happens almost every war, although I'm not sure to the extent of that particular situation. Still, I do think it is a legit reason to feel at least unhappy with your ally who does it to you. [quote] where did i make NpO look like an angel? i have brought up their mistakes (such as Grub/Polaris breaking their word to TOP/co and betraying NSO). hell, i even agreed with you that a good portion of their motive in screwing over TOP was to see TOP burn. so please do tell me, where i made NpO look like an angel? again with the lack of objectivity. [/quote] That's what I read in the part of the post I quoted initially (although the rest of that post is fine to point at as well): "[MK] then went about allowing them to be destroyed after Polaris risked everything [b]to ensure MK was not destroyed[/b]. " This seems horribly inaccurate to me (Grub even pointed TOP/IRON at MK/CnG), but yes, indeed you even admit yourself that Polaris certainly didn't switch sides mainly out of love for MK. I'll drop that point, although I'm not willing to buy Grub cared one single !@#$@#$ bit about MK there, no matter what you say, sorry. Also, I never made the objectivity argument. [quote] where did i state that Polaris hit TOP all that hard? i stated that they hit TOP. most of my comment was directed towards Polaris burning up much, if not all, of their political capital that sits with them to this day. All that in order to help MK out. Polaris got slammed by FOK and PC iirc amongst other alliances prior to declaring war on TOP. i don't recall if any other alliance in TFIDTT declared on Polaris or not though. [/quote] What I was saying is that I don't believe you can say that because they committed a couple of nations to the overall wareffort Polaris cared about MK, which is what you claimed. One can also ask himself whether one should want to accept the help of someone who caused you harm. That's the main issue I think here. You can't expect someone to be thankful for providing help after he made another guy slam you in the face. [quote] for one, i have not spouted any such "Polar was all good, just and hole" bs. i have spouted that Polaris defended MK and burnt all their political capital up [b]for MK[/b] (though Polaris was screwed either way really. if they did not defend MK, then they would not be honoring a treaty and allowing an ally to be hit and thus would lose much of their political capital regardless). [/quote] Hey, you're doing it again! I object to the bolded part, that should be clear by now. I insist that Polar did it not for MK, and that their behaviour in that war allows for no excuse, no matter how you sugercoat it. [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296938961' post='2620913'] no, i stated they defended MK. taking nukes after already getting hit hard hurts. anyone knows this. they may have had limited engagement on the TOP front but considering TOP's nations usually had much more tech along with WRCs will hurt. [/quote] But that's not excuse when you make the argument that Polar defended MK because of treaty obligations, because all treatypartners of MK, including my own alliance, were hurting from it. [quote][...] as for my statement of Polaris risking everything- see the political fallout. risking everything does not simply mean infra. Polaris kind of threw NSO under the bus for MK, despite NSO supporting Polaris far more than MK (during the Bi-Polar war) did. and again, Polaris threw away basically all of their political capital in order to honor a treaty with MK. [...] [/quote] Why should I feel sorry for Polaris? They did this out of their own accord, yes even created that war and various events in it. The sympathy-card doesn't work here, sorry to disappoint.

[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1296937303' post='2620877'] Well, considering that TOP had what... 200 or so nations, and aside from declaring war on MK, were countered by a !@#$ ton of other alliances, I don't think any single alliance can say they took a lion's share, except maybe MK due to TOP actually hitting them first. [/quote] That's a fair point. Still, if we were to believe Doch Polar put all their effort into defending MK, even taking "dozens of TOP nukes". Truly this is a sign of commitment!

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1296934399' post='2620799'] [...] Yes Im serious. [/quote] Then there's no talking to you, as you don't understand simple and basic rules of law. I have given you the answer in my first reply, and that's all you're going to get. Good day.

My god! You really want that public DoW badly don't you?

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1296933351' post='2620764'] The NPO-DH war is a seperate war not another front. Does this ban have an expirey date? You could turn around in 18 months and come up with another bogus CB to restart the war or just hit them again and call it the same war much like you are calling 2 different wars the same war now. If ARES then entered that war on a MDP you could claim breach or surrender terms. [/quote] Wow, are you serious? ... Please tell me you're joking. [sub]Also, when the war is concluded, all terms alliances accepted are void. Simple as that.[/sub]

This is good to see. Thanks for the fun everybody, and good luck rebuilding. And a special shoutout from me to empirica!

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1296931420' post='2620717'] We didn't fight a lot of Polaris nations. They comprised a part of the one of the many waves against us, and that's about it. [/quote] Yeah, thought so. But I'll withhold judgement for now since you're TOP, and wait for someone else to comment on this, Doch may get furious with me you know.

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1296931794' post='2620723'] I agreed with Fark's attack on NEW in that war. It was a curbstomp. IMO it was a justified curbstomp. [/quote] Right, it seems we have little to argue about. Also, read my reply to Zx3. [quote] Nevertheless, to attempt to set the precedent as Fark is trying to do in this DoW that alliances [...] may not recruit members while at war is a pretty scary idea [...]. [/quote] If you excuse me, I have 'fixed' your quote to filter out the propaganda and bias. To be honest I wouldn't enforce such a policy myself, as I've said earlier, but discouraging false flag operations isn't a bad thing in my opinion. And that's basically what this amounts to.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296928968' post='2620650'] Oh no doubt a good portion of the motive was to see TOP burn but from what i heard during that time and prior, Polaris very much liked MK. the run up to the war- really, if anyone has any room to !@#$%* it is Ragnarok. MK has none. MK was not allied to anyone but possibly GOONS who was not hit.[/quote] To say MK had 'none' is pretty ignorant to be honest, unless you disregard the fact that MK had plenty of allies that would be facing each other should NpO push through. (Which they did.) Also, anyone remember the "not appropriate vs wrong" issue? [quote] the only alliance who can claim betrayal by Polaris is NSO. the fact that ya'll trying to make MK out to be some sort of victim is friggin hilarious here. seriously. it is totally hilarious. i remember being in IAA and hearing bout how if not for Athens/GR/LOST not dropping IAA, MK would have rolled out a couple of times. so MK has no room to talk about others wanting to hit their allies. [/quote] I wasn't really talking of betrayal, I was criticizing you for making NpO look like an angel. Because they're not. Way to bring up irrelevant stuff I guess. [quote] if Polaris did not care for MK, they could have easily allowed MK to get hit and peace out \m/ and then sit back and watch TOP/co trounce MK. TOP would have still gotten hit hard and Polaris could have rebuilt instead of taking dozens of TOP nukes. but yes, Polaris was purely selfish in wanting to see TOP burn, so selfish that Polaris ended up burning as well and not just infra but political. yep, i can totally see the selfishness there. [/quote] What I remember is that Polaris didn't actually make a lot of their nations fight TOP. I might be mistaken ofcourse, if there's anyone who can clarify on this other then Doch ( ) that would be appreciated. And yes, it was selfishness, so much even that they are still defending that crap. Sorry, no one is going to buy the "Polar was all good, just and holy" line. Actions speak louder then words, I'm sure you're aware of that. [quote] and people say i have issues being objective. Tromp's post was pure crap right there. [/quote] Wow, what a staggering amount of hostility for asking one question to you. Did I really deserve that? But anyway, I can take it, don't you worry.

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1296928388' post='2620635'] Fixed that for you. [/quote] Seems to me you broke it rather then fix it, but alright. I think we should get rid of the notion that the assumed defender (lol @ the idea that NEW was the initial defender here) is always right. Same for the curbstomp comment. And even if you think this should classified as a curbstomp, don't you think they walked right into that one?

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1296924214' post='2620566'] Nobody joined to take a shot at FARK. We joined to defend our friend and ally. [/quote] Meh. You see it that way, Fark probably doesn't. I don't really care personally, just saying why I think Fark included this warning in their announcement.

[quote name='aboooe' timestamp='1296921174' post='2620528'] Since when did you guys dictate who could join an alliance.. The hypocrisy of this announcement is terrible, it happens on both sides.. [/quote] They can, if they're victorious. And this probably is a result of their war with NEW, where mercenaries joined that alliance to take a shot at Fark. So if anything, it is meant to discourage such behavior, little else.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296879023' post='2619835'] unfortunately for Polaris; those same friends, the ones who Polaris threw away their entire political capital and much of their NS, decided to turn around and !@#$ on them hardcore. Not only did MK throw Polaris away, MK signed a treaty with TOP and then went about allowing them to be destroyed after Polaris risked everything to ensure MK was not destroyed. [/quote] Just a thought... Wasn't the motive of Polaris more of a selfish one? That being, to see TOP burn? If you look at the run up to that war, I really doubt Polaris cared that much for MK. Even their wareffort was not something to be proud of.

Welcome to the party guys!

[quote name='Rebounder' timestamp='1296872506' post='2619741'] [...] [/quote] You, Sir, are not fully understanding what a multipolar world is. If you had, you would have supported Duckroll, who chose [i]no side[/i], but their own. It is contradictory to what you claim to fight for to hold it against them that they don't want to be a party in this madness.

No. The RoH was posted because ML insisted that the Umb/MK nations were going to be treated as rogues, whereas Umb/MK made clear those attacks were government sanctioned, and that attacks on Umb/MK by ML would be treated as an alliance wide war. ML decided to go with it anyway, as is their right ofcourse. Come on, it isn't that hard to read the OP of that thread. As for the "H" word, hollow maybe?

It is, actually. Posting a DoW is nothing more then a formality, maybe even a gesture to the other party and the onlooking world as a whole. Ofcourse this comes from traditions and the law of war in real life, but most people wouldn't know what that even is, so why bother.

To be honest Schatt, most of the traditions here on Bob make zero sense. It takes a lot of creativity to go with the rules as they are established here. For one, these kind of things have always occurred during war. Second, I doubt they are really in need for anyones sympathy, let alone they need to portray themselves as the defender.