Hyperbad

On the contrary, we don't know if the TPF ever gave up on the plans because ZH ended it before they could. However, since nothing has been posted in the forms of claims or evidence suggesting TPF has continued to go about ways to try and make those former plans a reality, the question of if a credible threat exists any more gets raised. Some may feel there is and others may not. Rather then taking this one incident as proof the way to go about making a valid CB is to show that there's a pattern of hostility and active efforts to undermine the formerly targetted alliances by means other then the typical political movements and speech. Then I would see some weight to it but not as it's been presented thus far. Rather what we have here it's a bunch of hysteria over hypotheticals. I would consider this more akin to a con artists gaining your trust with the eventual plan of blowing up your home but deciding against it before even stepping foot inside. Edit to add the bolded, bolded not for emphasis

I find the focus in the community on war declarations to be peculiar when so many treaties state "an attack on one is an attack on both" and they have mandatory aggression clauses. If the TPF and NPO shared any such treaties then regardless of whether or not they made an announcement, the TPF was defacto a party in the NPO -Athen's (et al) frontof the war. That they merely wished to minimize damage received to themselves by manipulation and public manuevers and didn't actively engage any of them is moot for those who declare on the NPO are declaring on TPF by their contractual agreement. Edit to add bolded, bolded not for emphasis.

Which not only hasn't materialized but no evidence or even claims that such efforts are still under way has been made. Thus I ask: So what?

My friends and I insult each other all the time and we don't even take it personally but are more understanding. I suppose the friendships that don't run deep are more likely to be terminated after a single insult but if you're as good a friends as people are talking about you don't let one such as this come between you. Of course this isn't what RoK is feeling, but rather a breach of trust so this all is moot.

The defensive portion doesn't say in case of aggressive actions but in case of having been attacked. Those are two very different things. You can be aggressive or take aggressive action without actually attacking. The question becomes is if (conspiring or organizing to) spying is considered a form of attack.

Seeing the logs Van Hoo posted, if ADI confirms he stated that I wish to retract my bolded statement.

Oh no, that's where the failure to properly communicate comes in for you assumed it would be no matter what and they gave such an impression by the apparent phrasing of their support. Personally, I would think an interest in if their treaty partners will be involved is indication enough that their support isn't unwavering. I do agree their bringing it here for statement before to RoK in private (and then waiting to see how events unfolded) is in poor taste. Ignorance itself might very well be applicable however my response was more tailored to my reading your post as suggesting there's only one way to do things on Bob. If that wasn't your intention and I misunderstood your post then I fully apologize.

The spying operation was an act with malicious intent which never got to the part of causing damage. In essence they were preparing to attack through such means but never did. Thus the defensive portion doesn't apply for it specifies the attack having been gone through with and not conspiracy to do so. We can go back and forth with this all night probably and we have yet to bring up the question of if the act of spying in question is to be considered a part of the Karma war. [OOC: That's rather easy to do in real life however in Bob, at best you can only give someone a hand slap in private.]

I don't really buy that the war is defensive seeing as how the operation hasn't been under way for a number of months resulting in the question of whether there is an immediate danger is under question. What exactly are they defending themselves from?

I know, but my own take on it is, sometimes a friend or family member deserves to get their $@! kicked and it'll do them some good reminding them of the limits, who they are, etc.

Thank you very much wickedj. Who knew, doing things differently from how others want you to do it is ignorance. Doing things differently however certainly necessitates higher levels of communication then appears to have occurred here. One should also state the reasons for their support to make sure they're on the same page and it should be understood that things can change depending upon future information. Communication would be their fault here, not the decision itself. They do however reserve the right whether to join an offensive war or not. Family Togetherness: If either Ragnarok or ADI/AzN wants to go bust some heads, and the other likes the idea, they may also join. They can, but they don't have to. It boils down once again to differences of interpretation due to writing up a !@#$%* treaty. That's the problem with "for the lulz" or brief documents because people don't have the attention span - a lack of clarity develops where it can be taken in a number of different ways in the same situation. Neither RoK or ADI are in the wrong here for taking it as they do but rather they're both at fault for not clarifying what it means prior to signing it thus allowing for these different interpretations to exist. People [general statements following, not specific here as my history on RoK and ADI isn't up to speed] need to quit assuming you're on the same page and always will be and ensure the document shows you are. Continuing to make such treaties really only says to me after an initial split in interpretation is known that you're fully aware of the potential and merely wish to exploit it yourself thus removing any basis for an argument that you were wronged. You got what was coming to you.

I've tried searching for the treaty announcement thread but fail so is anyone else able to pull it up for me? The wiki is blocked here at work and my curiosity is growing as to what the wording actually is. With the typical CN treaty (and I've rarely ever seen a treaty in this game which isn't total trash), there's at least half a dozen ways to take each clause or the treaty as a whole which always leads to these back and forth "no u" arguments. Sounds more like a family relationship then friendship to me. Even then, I wouldn't condone a friend or family member's stupidity or recklessness. Rather the blind loyalty of an active kind causes more harm to friends and family some times then openly opposing them and refusing to go along would. It keeps them sheltered and unaware of the consequences. I suppose I'm different but I'd also want friends with minds of their own that act as things other then yes men. Followers just because are of no use to me.

The only reason I would add non-chaining clauses is because a majority appear to assume they chain and I would wish to avoid confusion and false claims one way or another. Whether treaties chain isn't dependant on clauses stating they don't but rather on the wording used in the document itself.

Funny, I always saw people claiming treaties chain unless there's a clause stating they don't as being scared themselves of being left exposed from having too few people coming to help them. What's present is a difference of interpretation and their perspective is about as valid as your own. Edit Typo fix claining = claiming

I stayed up a bit late for it all but rather expected nothing to happen. There's not much of a question who is telling the truth. It's the conclusions people are drawing from the information that causes the fracture. It all depends upon how you interpret it really. Some believe you need to declare on each participant to actually be at war with them while others feel you need not when it's a war of such magnitude. Frankly, I see the spying operation as just an extension of the Karma war. The plan went sour and never was pushed forward to infiltrating the targetted alliances let alone the most advanced stage of actually destroying them internally. Additionally the length of time in the past with which this was planned and subsequently abandoned I see nothing that suggests an immediate threat. Of course I don't really see this war as actually accomplishing anything if there was seeing as how TPF wasn't going to attack but make you break up internally thus what is the point in rolling them? I'll find it humorous if this turns into a self-fullfilling prophesy because of brewing resentment causing them to pursue it though. For an OOC comparison it's more like they're guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. They didn't actually get far enough in their plans to attempt the act of destroying them from the inside; something which "attempted murder" charges would require. Such is a viable strategy and though I would never condone it [OOC: Not in the role of this character anyway but if you do it, pick people that don't care or like the game and bribe them in other games to carry out the act] I consider this more a question of if this happened so many months ago and all you have is that they stopped with the plan for what ever reason, where's the threat? Having conducted the act once doesn't establish a pattern. Frankly, I think people just see the original plan and think that's good enough for them (spies tend to get people riled up no matter what the case - big taboo) because they're bored and want a war.

Ruler & Nation For several years I played nation sim & rpgs on forums, typically a hybrid of the two. In one game about 5 years ago I was playing India and was designing an aircraft carrier. I was trying to think of a name for it that won't be seen as too unrelated to India yet one also that would give a feeling of power along with quick response times thus Hyderabad became Hyperbad. I decided to choose it for my nation because it just sounded better then a number of names or designations I had for a multitude of other designs. Capital I was playing WoW some time after I got WotLK and was creating a Death Knight. I don't normally like naming characters after any real life places or people and so I sat around sounding out various letter combinations. I try to steer clear of sounds that are the most common and vary - not sounding like they're all a part of the same culture. The selection here came about because I played my other characters too much and thus was just tired of seeing their names. I figured it's faster to just rip a name off one I'm using else where then just create a new one altogether.

Yeah but this time it was sarcasm.

I'm guessing he was being sarcastic.

Wrong type of conflict. No in-fighting.

I don't care no matter the size of an alliance. I read what's going on and contemplate the situation. I typically write up a reply regarding what has transpired but then delete it as I wonder why I'm even bothering. Any drama can easily be cleared up if the parties desire it and anyone can tech trade. The doom of one does not equate to the doom of all. [OOC: Interests aren't represented in the game proper thus I have no reason to care about anyone else. The only thing which has me 'care' is my desire to roleplay somewhat of a benevolent ruler and then it's about the actions taken, principles of any matter as opposed to who takes them. In a more devious mood or mindset or with differing game mechanics I'll instead care to the point of how useful they are in dooming others.] Maybe I'll care when I see an alliance that stands out as exceptional but I've yet to see one. It's always possible that I just haven't seen them much here of course.

I actually figured that before I went to the link. When the !@#$%* link was posted I just began to think "I wonder when someone will upload several fake logs that will cause a global war".

Was it really that simple? One thing I wonder is if the rogue and these 4 knew each other. Otherwise are the 4 relative newbies and rather inactive? Those new to online gaming are really the only new sort of player I could see making this mistake. Friends however I can see doing this much more easily.

It's certainly possible. I don't mean to suggest otherwise but I'm wondering if there's more to it then this person simply being a generic rogue. I'm pondering if these is a symptom of something other then rules within the alliance.

Truthfully it wouldn't really matter if an alliance did have such a rule. Members still can act contrary to them and the only thing their alliance can do is either tell them to stop, eject them or target them themselves. It's been established that KDII didn't order this nor did anyone else in his government. The only thing left to be seen is what will be UED's actions internally with regards to these members or perhaps establishing such rules for greater clarity within the alliance -- if that's where the issue originated as you seem to suggest -- then what WF and its allies response will be to the whole mess.

It would depend largely the following: Why they went rogue How likely are they to go rogue again The method chosen in going rogue I would make inquiries to the targetted alliance(s) and any former alliances the rogue was in then base my decision on all of that. I wouldn't really care what other alliances think of it but rather I want information from multiple sources so I could make my own determination as to what happened and what I should expect from the person in question from that point on. This all is along side the typical recruitment questions of course.