Hyperbad

After rereading our exchange I think I see where the confusion came in. I was using the statement I originally quoted as a transition into your earlier assertions that they could have put up a more effective fight had they declared earlier out of your belief that because they had a mass of nations in peace mode that automatically equates to high member activity. I apologize for not being clear enough earlier. I should have quoted the earlier comments you made that I was more directly responding to rather then merely using the transition straight away. I felt at the time though that through the content of my post and how it was phrased, with your earlier assertions, and my later clarifications as to what was my point of contention it was perfectly clear what I was actually responding to. At no point did I see a problem with the view that there was an apparent failure in the CC carrying out their plans when they decided to go through with them. With this now clarified I hope we are now on the same page and can move on in our discussion. As such I shall remove the portions relevant to this confusion out of the rest of your response unless you wish to formulate a new. I apologize for the confusion.

The rebuttal was in post #207. Post #211 was nothing more then a brief explanation as to the relevance that way you might go back to the original post and respond to it as appropriate. It's been questioned how many actually went into peace mode after hostilities commenced; the time frame which those that went into peace mode after they commenced; and how active they were outside of that. I've raised questions relevant to the statistics you use to support your argument, thus the foundation of it. Restating your position without addressing them does nothing to further this discussion. You're right, I misread your previous statement. They apparently did believe their members could make an adequate follow-up to the official statements and apparently they were wrong. I do not see what relevance this has or how it supports you however with regards to your asserting they could have made an effective war effort if they had declared sooner. Again, you're making assumptions as to their level and type of activity the alliances in question experienced. I've brought up the question of how quickly their membership switched to peace mode as a legitimate question in illustrating how active their membership was but it also provides a potential explanation as to how many of them could have declared. Being that your life on Bob has been so long I'm most certain you are a ware of the 5 day delay in switching between the war and peace modes. As such I expect that you woudl recognize the potential delay in switching to peace mode, if more then 3 days, would also delay their declarations when the time was right. Being that as it may, those who didn't switch out of war mode conceivably have been inactive for the holidays and those active would be the more likely to be in peace mode. The CC potentially shot themselves in the foot depending upon how many returned from their holiday vacations immediately before their counter declarations to make the jump into peace mode. I don't have the raw data therefore these are just things I have thought up which could significantly impact the picture and have nothing to do with your assertion that they could have put up an effective war effort if they declared almost immediately. This only concerns the effectiveness of their counter attacks as they happened. I have looked at the information presented to me and nothing of it deals with any of the points made in post #207, my first post in this thread. The response I received to my counter points was a questioning of their relevance. Upon clarification there was no further response from you except in restating your position without further details and discussing events as they turned out rather then how effective a war effort started earlier by them would have been. This all is moot. I had put forward a few thoughts which might explain why a few players didn't declare but am not arguing events as they went. I'm arguing your assertion that they could have put together an effective war effort from the start. None of the information presented thus far paints such a picture.

You've asserted previously in this thread that based upon the percentage of their nations in peace mode they could have instead gone to war due to member activity or attentiveness being relatively high. Said assertion was supported by certain alliances having upwards of half their membership in peace mode. If a large portion of those members were in peace mode prior to the commencement of hostilities or stretched out over the period of time leading up to the CC's direct involvement then it removes the ratio of nations in peace mode as evidence of their being capable of maintaining an effective war effort at that time. I've already challenged the legitimacy of this assertion with regards to how accurate it is. Please address the rebuttal previously posted. I find it ironic that you would assert with the number of nations in peace mode they could have maintained an effective war effort with one-third of the alliances participating when with what happened you clearly display contempt for a "pathetic" showing. One would think if their members were active like you suggest then they would have declared more then a mere 24 wars. Please note that I'm not judging anyone on their willingness or lack there of with regards to being "pummeled". I'm merely discussing the merits in the assertion that a percentage of nations in peace mode at a later date in time gives any sort of indication as to an alliance's readiness with two holidays around the moment open hostilities commence. Such is as far as my interests in this thread go.

Is it reasonable for one to expect better with about one-third of the alliances involved and it occurring between two big holidays occuring a week from each other? The 24 declarations was after approximately a week of common knowledge that war was imminent after all. Overall it was a less than ideal situation for anyone and I do believe the indecisiveness of the CC played a central role in later guaranteeing that they would lack the member response they sought. It is theoretically possible that more declarations would have been made if there wasn't a wait but we have insufficient information at this time to make any sort of definitate judgement. All we have that's posted though is a general peace mode ratio and no idea how many were in it prior to war breaking out. Otherwise is it logical to expect that some may not log in daily due to the period of time in question but sat in war mode? It would make delaying an entry into war the preferable choice rather then having nations sit idle or inactive with declared wars. How long did it take the stated alliances to reach their peace mode ratios after the alert or order was put out? Really it's a question of activity seen in TPF's attackers and their supporters vs. activity in your own alliances and your supporters. Seeing as how each alliance is a community in itself it is quite possible to see different levels or types of activity or inactivity between them.

Same flag + name =/= same alliance Also calling them the oldest alliances and adding reformed ones is misleading. I suggest adding disbandment dates for the original versions. Otherwise you could say for example that one which formed so long ago and disbanded after a months time, but reformed present day could be added to the list of oldest alliances. Really it wouldn't be considered amongst the oldest because it would have only existed as an entity for a month. That isn't to say those listed are subject to as ridiculously large gaps of time however it makes the picture more clear as to what their age truly is. tl;dr add disband dates for those which were reformed

That peace was achieved rather then this war caused by misunderstanding was not enlarged and lengthened needlessly is a good thing. Hopefully now that a small amount of insight is available as to the feelings and views of the concerned parties it might be avoided in the future instead. Packs his popcorn away Edit to rephrase for a clearer read. Irony

It allows for the potential of manipulating the "chains" by guiding additional declarations potentially allowing Polaris to be lined up against equal or greater power(s). Additionally it delays their entry into the war by at least one link thereby buying the CC more time to gather support. If they manage to guide the declarations well enough then I'm sure we'll see some other AAs fighting Ragnarok much sooner. Otherwise they'll probably knock down the ones they're already at war with by a peg before going for Ragnarok and any of its allies not already involved. I'm sure they all see this however and are preparing to minimize such an effect thus how things will turn out is yet to be seen.

You can take it a step further by deducing that TPF's allies join to defend TPF, not attack Athens, and the way to minimize damage to the TPF and its allies is to make Athens & Co divert some of their forces to a home front. The problem isn't the type of treaty but the wording. Change the phrasing of treaties and you can avoid these specific topics to e-lawyer about. Instead of putting Defense alone put war after it so it's clear the treaty isn't refering to being on the defensive in just a front in the war. Instead of saying "if they're attacked its an attack on us" perhaps say if they're declared war on or attacked and such is unrelated to a war of aggression or otherwise act of aggression. There are a myriad of possibilities to avoid such vague and easily misunderstood or disagreeable treaties. That or just do away with treaties altogether and if you're real friends what's it matter anyway, join regardless.

Use of the word "trying" as opposed to "tried" suggests they're still doing it. With what basis are you making that claim?

You missed the huge gap on how not committing shows MASH in fact leaked the logs. Ignoring that the logs as he posted suggests they never were actually on your side in order to become turncoats, you're ignoring the possibility someone in an alliance that is lined up to participate may disagree with this war or have had a casual chat thus leaking the information. There is hardly anything obvious here for friends do exist outside of ones own alliance or something may have otherwise tipped TPF off of an activity sort. There are possibilities which exist other then MASH leaking it thus nothing is obvious.

Not enough information is available yet to make a proper judgement. Just some thoughts thus far. Notifying your generals isn't quite the same thing as saying you'll go to war. Rather it's a precautionary measure to be taken to prepare your alliance in the event that a decision is made to enter the war so that you are going to be as effective as practically possible. If this is indeed what was meant then communication was poor. Personally, I'm not certain what is the case yet as the logs look chopped up a bit. It really can go either way with what was posted thus far though is probable that this interpetation of yours is accurate. MASH apparently disagrees with such an interpretation as the one you are stating. Apparently they feel that the Defense portion refers to the type of war fought as opposed to if anyone just attacks you causing you to jump right in. If the entire story on this has been posted and MASH was notified at the same time as other Athens allies then you can play the suspicion card against any or all of them.

I do love selective reading. So, should we take this as your endorsing the destruction of an alliance and its community because of a plan which was never followed through on?

Indeed, and so neglecting my not wanting a part in such operations outside of this, that would only guarantee my refusal and potential departure over it. Of course the costs for peace for themselves or allies could be argued from their perspective as a danger to their community. Would I agree with it? Not at all and I'm ignorant as to the depth of the NPO and TPFs relationship with regards to how integrated their communities were or are thus would be ill prepared to play a devils argument here. It could be a valid concern. There is a difference between finding something acceptable yet still not wanting to work along those lines. It's simply a matter of preference. I also see nothing inherently wrong with doing so through means of their nations. The only difference between the two is method. Would I do it? Highly unlikely even in the darkest of times [OOC: Unless I wished to RP someone sinister]. I might argue however an alliance is nothing but a group of people agreeing to assist each other and if a community dies because the alliance has a split within it, then it is at the fault of those within the community for not dealing with the challenges in a way so as to ensure its continued existance. Fracturing membership in their views so as to prevent a "united front" is a valid strategy.

Assuming such is directed at me, I would have to say I support them only so far as being a viable option when one has a reasonable fear that the destruction of your own alliance or community is at stake. I see this spy operation as being no different then any number of other possible actions where the same goal could be achieved. The way to invalidate the second point is to show that this sort of merged or overlapping sovereignty doesn't equate to a declaration on both. The argument is whether the TPF was at war with Athens. The only relevance the NPO has is with what kind of war was being fought, and the circumstances with which the TPF joined the war. Once the TPF is in a war when the NPO gets peace is irrelevant as the former party is still in conflict.

Terms of Surrender suggest they were. Also depending upon how one wishes to take the treaties the NPO-TPF shared one could argue that those alliances which declared on the NPO or merely attacked them did so with full public knowledge available (the treaties) that it would be taken much the same as if it were done on the other signatorie. Likewise with acting aggressively against a threat, the threat is considered shared. There is potential for Contiuum being gone around if TPF deemed the war an offensive military action as opposed to an act of defense against spying however their shared MADP would have come into play which was re-signed prior to the official declaration of TPF's involvement. The post officially announcing the withdrawl from the MADP was made approximately one hour after Athen's declaration. It is actually quite reasonable to say they were at war whether or not they officially stated a recognition of it or engaged in overt operations. Essentially, if you're attacking an alliance with a pact to a second alliance and that pact states any threat or attack is treated as one on both, then you're basically declaring open hostilities in the form of war on both. You're conducting an act of war on both signatories. Contiuum III. Defense and War A – In the event that any signatory comes under attack, it is compulsory that all other signatories will come to the assistance of the attacked party. B – An attack on one signatory shall be considered an attack on all signatories and will be met in defense by all other signatories with all means of assistance available. This assistance is mandatory and may not be overridden or mitigated by any means, including but not limited to conflicting agreements. C – Assistance is defined as military, economic, intelligence, diplomatic, and all other forms of aid the signatories are able to provide. D – Signatories shall have the option, but not the obligation, to engage in offensive warfare alongside other signatories or to aid those signatories in ways economic or otherwise. E – Notice of offensive military action by any signatory must be given to other signatories no less than 72 hours prior to the commencement of hostilities. This time period will be used for the consideration of whether to undertake supportive offensive action. TPF-NPO MADP ARTICLE III - Defense TPF and NPO recognize that should an armed attack on either party’s nations and/or territories under administrative authority, at the time of the attack, is dangerous to the peace of both alliances. The assisting party will act to meet the common danger in accordance to its charter/constitutional process. Said parties should maintain open communication with one another to decide the best suitable action to take when the defense of one of the parties is in dire need of assistance. ARTICLE IV - Aggression Whenever any nation, alliance, or union of alliances poses a clear and present danger to the signatories of this pact and is designated a threat by leadership of the signatories, all members of the signatory alliances—unless bound by treaty to non-aggression or neutrality—shall jointly respond. Such response shall only be sufficient to contain and eliminate the perceived threat and deter future threats.

So basically you're advocating a war time strategy, operation, being used as a strong standing casus belli in a new conflict, correct? Feeling it's justifiable, why would they feel the need to?

That pact was however re-signed it and in the same thread announced their entry. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54989 I suppose we can speak on hypotheticals on the use of either or both but I would want to see the wording of that other treaty.

I thought they went in on an independant treaty? ugh, my mind is fried.

I hadn't commented on the attempted part here however I did elsewhere. The case isn't one of attempted anything but more of the sort of conspiracy to. They never got to the point where they could attempt a destruction of Athens & Co. from within thus the analogy people are using faills flat. Conspiracy to commit murder would be planning to do so. Attempted murder is when you actually shot the gun to take that life but failed. However my response wasn't about that either. Rather it was a line of argument ending up with who the responsibility falls with in ensuring Athens' interests are protected. The crime talk was merely my response to the spin placed on this whole mess with connotations of it being illegal by some codex refered to by all. It originated from the question of ways in which Athens can defend against such an operation or know if TPF wasn't continuing with them. Edit I'm having trouble finding the text for the treaty TPF joined the Karma war on. How do you google search the old forums? Hyperbad is sleepy thus can't figure stuff out for squat

I apparently missed this portion in a previous reply and seeing as how a number of others have posted since then, I decided not to edit my previous post. The use of the word crime is a very wise choice for putting a much more negative spin on their act. Unfortunately it doesn't fit the situation for there is no actual code of criminal conduct. Everything is done by the hip. I suppose it is a crime in Athens' eyes though. I also dislike the term "should" as its use is always with the presumption of something. I'll give it a try though. Should any alliance rely on others to behave in a way that most benefits them when the two parties are on opposing sides of a war? Edit: Leaving work, on the way home.

Or cause mass defections resulting in a greatly reduced capacity for war.

This war so far as I see it only inhibits TPF's ability to make war itself, not conduct covert activities. How will this war prohibit TPF from committing acts of sabotage against Athen's through use of covert operatives? The mechanics are different but principle remains the same. An act of war conducted during a war being used to start another war. This is the sort of logic used to justify keeping people under PZI or EZI. Once a threat, once they do something which might threaten then they're always a threat regardless of if that same act is even being considered for use again. By "current war" are you refering to the Karma war or this one now? Either way please, explain why you say that. (I get the feeling I'm missing a log or something) The burden of proof really is on Athens for all they have is information that something once was considered but never gone through with to a depth where it posed any real credible danger. They're making the claim there is still a danger from a long defunct operation. Then by all means I'd appreciate for them to come out and say that. I find a pattern of behavior far more damning then a one time plan terminated for what ever reason before the war it was devised in months ago was ended. However to say that an operation all we know about is it's long since been abandoned is a threat to their security at this date in time is nothing short of laughable without evidence to suggest that they are at the least considering conducting such operations on someone else recently or right now.

That would only be proper if the burglar (ZH) got into the house (Athens) which clearly did not happen. In fact they still have yet to merge. Also the analogy is inaccurate because a burglar is there without permission however the point of the operation was to gain Athen's trust.

That's a way to interpret it. Myself, I see it as a recognition of ones limits. TPF couldn't take on all of those hitting the NPO + their allies with how people view their treaties. Thus such a plan as this can be an effective counter when outnumbered to such an extreme. You're committing a minimum of forces to an act with potential for maximum effect.

It doesn't mean that however for you can end hostile actions without telling them what hostile actions you were conducting. There is a way to gauge the probability of such plans by taking into consideration the interaction you have with them in the lead up to the war, during it and after. Further still, it is always possible to put out feelers for information or send spies to get such information for you. Otherwise you can take preventive steps to insure it doesn't happen, ones which should be done anyway such as doing a history of organizations you consider proposing a merger to, offering protectorates or upgrades to and things of the kind. All we know thus far is that the plans were put in place during a war and ended just before terms were signed and made official. To take acts of war during a war and suggest they could still be doing it really just means you can take attacks made on you, spy operations on your nations and every thing else then say "what if they do it again" then attack them once more for doing something which might have hurt you in that past war. It doesn't make any sense and acts of war during a war give no indication what so ever on their own that they are going to be pursued after the war has concluded.