Hyperbad

[quote name='Sabertooth' timestamp='1281931090' post='2417463'] Yes, CN is slowly dying unfortunately. Without war the CN is dreadfully boring. Here is a list of the reasons I think CN is dying. 5. [b][u]Too Many Alliances[/u][/b] -- There is simply too many. We should declare war on them and make them disband.[/quote] Why would this be one of the reasons? [quote name='M6 Redneck' timestamp='1282007645' post='2418468'] [b]How can terms be the reason?[/b] If a beaten alliance doesnt want to pay them they cannot be forced to pay them. Obviously then they will get beaten down and lose infras. Say a little alliance gets beaten down, one of 80 nations. If half stay that is 40 nations with the correct statergies they will have the wonders/improvments to fight all their opponents lower ranks at a vast advantage. [b]It is infra hugging and the pride of alliance leaders, (coupled strongly with the NS=power myth), that prevent wars. [and of course the covention that reps follow war because "that is how things are done"][/b][/quote] You just answered your own question. To respond to the second line in your post though, not agreeing to reps andp refering none or lighter than the other side is willing to give means you could see yourself at war for up to or more than half a year all depending on how long the other side is willing to keep up their attacks. Not everyone wishes to fight a war that long.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282010007' post='2418528'] If that's the case, yes slight misunderstanding. For clarity; NSO has admitted the aid was a mistake. NSO has not admitted they were looking for a war. It is my contention that NSO was looking for a war because they sent aid against their own policy to a member who was at war, after having been warned that doing so would lead to war. When someone says "X would be an act of war" I believe that a conscious choice to preform action X is in effect going and picking a fight. [/quote] So would it be fair to say when you made the statement that they were looking for war you don't really care what NSO was really looking for but are merely refering to the end result?

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282009341' post='2418509'] Dammit. Now I'm gonna hafta read back, I swear I read that you had. [/quote] It was admitted that aid was a mistake. I think what Heft's disputing is the assertion that the Sith wanted war as they've stated multiple times they did not. [quote name='LokiLockpicker' timestamp='1282009318' post='2418507'] I was originally thinking that I would have handled this differently in the place of Ragnarok, but realized that I would have authorized the attacks that morning when I heard about the rogue (low probability of getting money for the injured nation being the main reason), probably wouldn't have looked again that day to see if he had joined an alliance (since I wouldn't have been planning on hitting him personally, I'd have no reason to look). When NSO came for discussions, my thought would have been, "sure, we'll send peace to him, as soon as the attacked nation gets money for his actions", and I would have had the same response to aiding a nation we were at war with. My reasoning and relative lack of caring about the rogue's wellbeing may have been different than Rok's (too tired to read minds today), but it's fairly easy to see a reasonable ruler or alliance proceeding in what would be the same path. [/quote] I'm not sure I'd agree that a reasonable ruler or alliance would show a distinct lack of care on whether a believed rogue joined an alliance.

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1282006963' post='2418454'] Well, certainly. And they would have the right to feel that way. But when you fall off your bike, refuse to get back on, and instead, sit there and throw a tantrum, it doesn't reflect on you very well, now does it?[/quote] Nope, it doesn't but I also wouldn't say they're throwing a tantrum because they enjoy doing so.

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281997392' post='2418313'] Are you seriously trying to convince me that DoWing without any criteria to stop the war, providing the CB and little else to show an attempt to avoid war, DoWing only 24 hours after the first and only diplomatic attempt was made, over something that most alliances can handle without DoWing at all, [b]ISN'T[/b] war-mongering?[/quote] The warmonger type would certainly capitalize on a situation like this but responding rashly isn't a typically considered a characteristic exclusive to the warmonger type. So I think the issue here is more one of semantics, connotation and how one reads into the tone and speed of action. Personally I think if Ragnarok wished to warmonger - as in war for the sake of war as I might define it - they wouldn't have given the New Sith Order an out and informed them that an aid drop would be perceived as an act of war. Rather, I get the impression Ragnarok felt hurt, offended, insulted, slighted, threatened, what ever, decided to act on those emotions and lashed out at the Sith via this war without much fore thought.

Quitting the game in 2007 after the Green Civil War out of disgust. The GCW was merely the last straw.

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1281914081' post='2417113'] Nifty chart but the ability to put ourselves where we please will result in a lot of people claiming to be -10,-10; 10, -10; etc. [/quote] Worry not my friend. I've already started working on questions to justify my ten in serious business.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281823910' post='2416046'] No we have one side trying to spin it that they had an act of war committed against them and another side who actually did. There is a difference here. NSO's argument consists of fairy dust and farts, while Rok actually has legitimate grievances.[/quote] People seem to believe that what's an act of war is an objective truth when really it's a matter of perspective all rooted in the philosophy one adheres to and what their experiences have been like. The problem comes in where these same people assert their view is the only valid one. When two sides of an issue feel wronged then whether you believe the reason for them to feel that way is valid or not is only relevant so far as you're willing to entertain it. The spin is all in either side saying they were wronged but the other wasn't. In doing so they're giving an entirely biased picture as to the inherent differences responsible for the split. [quote]If you want to go the route that Rok committed an act of war by attacking Sedrick after he was accepted into the NSO them you must also allow that NSO supported his attacks against TENE when they let him in and offered protection without first clearing him from his pre-existing wars. So which act of war do you want to go with? the aid to a nation at war? or taking in and supporting a nation at war there by joining him? Either way NSO messed up on a grand scale, and do so first. People keep trying to spin the conflict from one ignition point to another, trying to find a place where they can make it look like NSO was somehow wronged, but no matter what the conflict always starts with NSO interjecting it self into a pre-exiting conflict and choosing a side. When you join a pre-existing conflict on one side, the other side tends to attack you for it.[/quote] I have not claimed that either party did actually commit an act of war against the other. What I have stated is both sides feel as if one was committed against them and this developed until one alliance saw no turning back. I do not plan to become involved in debate over their merits. It's quite clear that both sides took their position from very different perspectives. Both acts which have been interpreted as acts of war were equally avoidable. [quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281823961' post='2416051'] And so therefore, we learn that before posting a DoW, make sure that you have all of your ducks in a row? You see, nearly the entirety of the cyberverse already knows this. You have nations that have been built up to support a DoW. These people spent months building up their nations so that when their leader calls them to war, they'll be ready. Don't you think that leaders in general, sorta owe enough care and consideration to their supporters to at least take some time to make sure their ducks are in a row prior to calling them to war? I do.[/quote] The cultural of an alliance dictates what these ducks are symbolic of but in short, yes.

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281822466' post='2416026'] Yep. You nailed it right on the head. Why would that be, you think? [/quote] Each new action, event or piece of information causes a re-evaluation of the situation, ones position and as a consequence their actions.

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281819495' post='2415993'] Well. That was very well thought-out and eloquently stated sir. And posts such as these always bring a glitter to my eye. However, if you're trying to say that RoK is too "soft" to handle what one leader from NSO did, well, you're just elaborating on my point. Emo central. Of course, we all know that RoK is stronger than that - this couldn't [i]possibly[/i] be what's going on here. Communications failure? Nope. Can't be that either. Hoo clearly stated his intentions to Heft. No need to read minds here.[/quote] What I was trying to say is how the evistance of a declaration of war only gives us the sentiments of an alliance at the point it has been posted and tells us little if anything about how they felt or thought prior to it.

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281818151' post='2415965'] Sure. If you're trying to prevent an all-out war, then posting a DoW probably isn't the best way to go about doing that imo. [/quote] The problem with the assertion that one wasn't trying to prevent all-out war is it can apply to the other party just the same and while it may well be true it doesn't take into account the considerations made. Taking half-measures in a compromise to how you really feel but in order to show some restraint, some willingness to work it out so it doesn't go to the next level is certainly a method of trying to avert war. So is using ones soft and hard strength to try and intimidate another. What's often forgotten in these debates is that not only does everyone have a point of no return where enough is enough but they also have specific things that they see as a most grievous offense. The New Sith Order here clearly failed to realize this was one of those areas with Ragnarok. Ragnarok also failed to see that the New Sith Order was taking a half-measure in aiding this new member instead of launching counter attacks themselves in order to help the targetted nation survive while not expanding the conflict thus giving an opportunity for talks to continue. Neither really was able to see beyond their own perspectives and philosophies. They just didn't seem to understand how the other thinks or operates and may not have even really cared to. This kind of thing does happen and will continue to happen for so long as we can't read each other's minds. There is nothing to really be ashamed of here for either party. There will always be that inner division for most between what's pragmatic and their own principles but it's still possible one can learn something from this and use that lesson to help defuse future situations even if one isn't always successful.

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281817869' post='2415960'] If that was the case, the OP wouldn't include a DoW, now would it? [/quote] I can see multiple ways which your statement could be intended. Please clarify.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281809163' post='2415863'] Rok did plenty to avoid this war, they told NSO exactly what would get a war, to avoid war all NSO had to do was not send aid, not commit an act of war after having been warning about it. NSO wanted to play chicken with Rok. Guess who didn't blink? Almost any action from NSO other than sending aid would have resulted in more talking. NSO picked the one thing (short of a preemptive strike) that would be sure to get them a war and you say Rok didn't do enough? what about NSO?[/quote] [quote name='Heft' timestamp='1281812457' post='2415896'] The conversations prior to the attacks ended with us asking that we be contacted with further evidence or claims prior to the attacks being launched, and rampage not disagreeing or giving any sign that this was an issue. The claim that you believed sedrick spied first wasn't even [i]mentioned[/i] until I went and asked why you were attacking him, and still remained little more than a presumption. You do understand that labeling an action as an act of war does not constitute trying to avoid war, correct? From the way the conversation was going, and the way things have gone since, I would certainly have to disagree with the idea that more talks would have been had if I had not authorized the aid. It was pretty clear, both from their actions and their words, that they had no interest in resolving the issue with us. Also, the aid was an alternative to a [i]retaliatory[/i] strike, not a pre-emptive strike.[/quote] So basically what we have here is both alliances conducting what's considered by the other as an act of war. Both likely knew it would force the other's hand in some way but I would wager they were also both hopeful they could prevent escalation into all-out war however things snowballed regardless of their desire.

So long as you don't give her a toothbrush you should be okay.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281740135' post='2414960'] NSO ended diplomacy when they committed an act of war after having specifically been warned against it. Its laughable that you would expect people to keep talking to you after a warning about war and after you spat in their face over it. When Hoo said sending aid would be an act of war, your answer should not have been "hurr we send anyway" if you wanted to seek a diplomatic solution, it should have been "well what gets him off your hitlist?" or at the very least "we'll have to get back to you after consulting the rest of government". That latter option by the way is a great way of saying nothing, admitting nothing, and conceding nothing, while buying you time to come up with a reasonable response without the hazards associated with provoking a war. The time for diplomacy past the instant NSO sent that aid. [/quote] Both sides dropped the ball in how this was handled. Hoo came off a bit abrasive and could have sent the evidence NSO required to release the concerned nation while not declaring new wars in order to avert an unnecessary alliance wide war. Heft also shouldn't have blurted the sending of aid out in the manner he did and aid certainly should not have been sent quite so soon in order to give diplomacy a bit more time. The request for evidence in the logs the former posted also seemed that the NSO was implying a request for evidence when the request should have been more explicitly stated. In the end both sides could have done more to avert open war and either through a lack of concern, misunderstanding or miscommunication (I find this to be the most damaging) here they are; at war. While the policy of accepting nations at war may be controversial, when one alliance has accepted a nation who is accused of some "crime" against another typically alliances require evidence to release them is the norm. Debate on the former should not have gotten in the way of the latter. From what I read while events were still developing the whole thing came about some dispute that escalated. Both parties were behaving in a provocative manner entertaining escalation. It should have been dropped as an issue early on and nipped in the butt but because they were going tit for tat I probably would have just sought status quo ante bellum via an immediate peacing out but then I don't know what was said between those affected parties prior to the RoK-NSO split happened. The whole thing feels like it's blown out of proportion to how severe the issue really is.

[quote name='Shellhound' timestamp='1281470249' post='2410065'] The game is suffering big time right now, I think the main reason for this is because you have a bunch of AA's that only have 20 members and that AA adds literally nothing to the game and very little on there forums, those AA's are what's ruining the game. If your a micro alliance but you add or attempt to add something to the game then I say go for it but if not then either disband, merge or provide tech raid targets for other members. The big neutral AA's like GPA at least give everyone a common enemy (although they aren't much better themselves). [/quote] Totally. Micros are the reason the game has stagnated and not MDPs+ being cheaper than toilet paper to get and neither is community standards in what's acceptable to start a war over. You hit the nail on the head. The micros are oppressing you. This to an extent goes for zzzptm as well but if you're suffering some how and the game's pretty boring maybe you should reconsider the way you're playing the game now as obviously that isn't working for you.

I think it's a list of sucky middles names that presidents have had. List should be longer.

Again?

[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1280703872' post='2397470'] Hindsight is a !@#$%* isnt it? Shouldve thought about this when you guys wrote the treaty up..though admittly not many people are surprised by this action [/quote] Indeed, they should have. They've learned the lesson now though and proceeded to do something with hindsight available to them. If the spirit and letter of the Harmlin accords were broken by either or both parties (I've seen claims elsewhere of this but can not verify it myself) then I don't what everyone's upset over in this treaty no longer being considered valid.

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1280623601' post='2396539'] I've read it all too. Can't say I retained it all, though. [/quote] Read it all, and retained it only because the same things were gone over, and [size=4]over[/size], and [size=5]over[/size]. Of course I read just about thread so long as it isn't a milestone. I wonder how the concerned parties will carry on from here with the knowledge gained and lessons learned. Will the Gramlins reinvent themselves after this and if so how? Time will tell. That was some massive drop of IRON's stats though when those who fought the crusade against unconditional surrender started leaving. [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1280635331' post='2396724'] i have also read every post in this thread. it was mind numbing. [/quote] Understatement of the thread. [quote name='Shan Revan' timestamp='1280636196' post='2396749'] For those of you who, like myself read the whole thread, I made this (admittedly crappy) campaign award.[/quote] It's fitting how this post would start a new page.

Old people, they never stay in bed like they're supposed to

The Greatest Generation with my first nation which was active until Jan 1 2007. http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/index.php?showuser=1872 Joined 7-April 06 Generation Pacifica/Pax Pacifica with my second nation. Generation Vox with this one.

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1280167103' post='2389838'] Okay i'm gonna be selfish for a minute here: Nations that can change their AA to "safe haven AA" are enlightened enough to know the basics around here. So what's stopping them from joining an alliance? And then i take it one step further, the haven AA will have no obligation to defend us while we would have one to defend them. Why should i agree to put R&R on the line for nations that don't wanna join us and will not do the same for us when needed? Now let's say that a group of raiding alliances (let's for arguments sake take the usual suspects \M/ and goons seeing they probably won't mind), would decide they don't see Haven as a valid alliance. now why would we act in defense of haven and probably start a war which would put us on the opposite sides of some of our allies while it has absolutely no benefit for us. The only way i see this work is if every alliance in the top 150 or so would agree with it and that will never happen. Edit: So for any final decisions i would have to discuss it with other gov. But i really don't see this work nor us supporting it actively. Although since we don't allow raiding anymore we won't do that either. [/quote] Any investment in this would never yield immediate returns for any alliance but it does still hold the potential for some. They might be in the form of applications directly from the AA or by some forming an alliance after having been protected and feeling a degree of loyalty or allegiance towards those who had previously acted as their protector. From the perspective of selfishness it could be used as a means around the generic recruitment messages in order to reach those that require said intimate relationship or that special feeling before comitting to any alliance. Ideally towards that end some programs to help these unaligned nations develop economically could be instituted by using it as a pool to obtain tech deals or complete a trade circle. The two most important questions that I can think of on this topic are with how much manpower and resources will need to be invested and not only what kind of returns one will see but how long it will take for them to materialize. Both of those have answers which could vary widely based upon what's done and how. There's the chance for no noticeable benefit while there's the chance for a significant one.

[quote name='Jakome' timestamp='1280029617' post='2387986'] So we raid a guy in a 4 man group. Said group then goes to war with our alliance in a valiant effort to defend their friend. This does not go well, leader comes to us for terms which are given. Leader then jumps ship, doesn't turn in peace terms on time or correctly. Now long term how would it look on us if we were to let this nation and his group off after that.[/quote] "Letting them off" from what exactly? [quote]Consistency in this area is one of GOONS strong suites and our fantastic Foreign Affairs group has done a splendid job at creating and maintaining relations with many strong alliances.[/quote] You say that and yet I haven't seen you explain how GOONS is consistent here. Would you be willing to elaborate? [quote]Its been a long summer, a little drama never hurt anyone.[/quote] You are of course correct in that it doesnt but if the purpose of said practice is to see some sort of profit then a group taking it as an act of war and responding as such should certainly see a speedy resolution in order for you to get back to said practice, no? [quote]I've thought of other explanation and possibilities, this is just the one I feel fits best with the sequence of events.[/quote] Why is that? [quote]Having a nation ride out the wars without actually becoming a member seems to me like the safest action to take for an alliance. This allows the nation to ride out the current wars without risk of new ones being started, while at the same time leaving your alliance in the clear should things escalate between the applicant and the warring party. Sure take diplomatic steps to try help the applicant but attempting to force a peace agreement is a tricky move that could easily backfire.[/quote] Oh it certainly could backfire but then again it could do so just the same if he was a member the entire time, from beginning to end.

[quote name='Jakome' timestamp='1280025517' post='2387929'] They should care because we're not going to them for peace they are coming to us. Sure we aren't your typical raiding alliance with our mercy board and such. But if you don't like it you can fight back and ride out the wars as best you can. No one is being forced to participate.[/quote] I was more thinking of a "down the road" as opposed to any immediate interest. If in the immediate circumstances you show a blatant disregard for their feels while at the same time propping up your own for being vitally important it sounds like an entirely one-sided thing which takes away from how serious others should take you. Consistency is important even if not as the primary concern. If you both feel insulted why not just call it even particularly when in this case one of your members would have been the first to do so? That isn't to say the other party should be excused for their slight afterwards but that it was an even exchange. It just strikes me as an unnecessary elongation of said war when you could move on from the drama and find a more profitable target. [quote]First off I said us when I should have said me. I do not speak for anyone except myself. I came to this conclusion because he came to us seeking peace. He received terms, did not complete them, then completely screwed the pooch when someone else did them for him. I can only assume that peace is not that important to him. Could I be wrong? Sure I'm just making an assumption, I honestly had no part in any of the events that took place I am just putting out what I saw and what I think.[/quote] Is that your first assumption or have you considered alternative explanations and possibilities? With regards to the sequence of quotes you've posted, if you're saying we should just fall in line because others are doing I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. Others doing it that way doesn't strike me as a sound basis for any policy being enacted anywhere particularly if there's no reason except that supporting it.