Kevin Cash

so, you took up a banner of a group you knew was actively harming your treaty partner in og. from the lux aeterna: karma 'intended to do harm' (well, duh, it is a war after all) to the alliances they were fighting, including old guard, and by taking up the 'karma' banner for yourself, you understood fully that you were explicitly joining a coalition which was causing direct harm to old guard. correct me if you think i am wrong, i am curious to see your stance on this before pressing this further.

i could not have stated it better myself.

the quoted was an older comment and i had since changed my stance regarding the citadel treaty, please read the entire thread before posting, or at least make a special note that you didn't

try reading the logs, it is abundantly clear that they were in prior communications, and from demeanors wording of 'i got that screenie for you' that sethb had previously requested it; if sethb had not, the context of the pronoun 'that' would be completely unknown and a flagrant violation of all english convention. furthermore, 'for you' indicates further that there were prior communications and that sethb was actively seeking this intelcome on this is not second grade english i should not have to break it down for you

your logic does not follow. you imply that it was impossible for a voluntary source to provide that knowledge, which is an obviously untrue statement, as people provide voluntary intel all the time

its funny that the few holes in my arguments are quickly filled in by those who are more knowledgeable than myself. thank you for your insight into the situation. i can now safely say that mha has nothing to stand on anymore with this revelation.

this is a weighted scenario that implies things which did not occur in the actual scenario.a more accurate comparison would be that a dude threatened my friend and my friend punched him, i didn't witness the dude threatening my friend but i will give my friend the trust that he is telling the truth and defend him, instead of letting him get killed while pondering whether or not his words were accurate and truthful, and certainly not joining in to help others beat up on my friend. those with friends on both sides, whose friends entered on opposite sides at about the same time, should have chosen neutrality and tried to break up the fight, not weigh that they care more about their friends on one side.

do you identify as a component of the conglomerate structure which self-identifies as 'karma?' serious question here

well i didnt consider myself a 'genius e-lawyer' but thanks for the compliment :0)also, i admitted that rather huge mistake i made, and noted that people generally dont talk about the charters of other alliances to such an extent, and in correcting my mistake analyzed the text of the lux aeterna, the actual citadel treaty, which i have referenced ever since i made my mistake. admit it, 'the codex' would have been a damn cool name for a treaty and im not an evil horrible person for making that mistake :|

you are quoting an older post, in another thread i believe it was where i analyzed lux aeterna and am in agreement with your stance, while making the note that your treaty is quite the labyrinth of logichowever, i feel that, although you had no legal obligation to defend old guard and indeed did not make a technical violation of the treaty, that you still left an alliance which can only be implied( by the lux aeterna and its context of coming into being) was a 'friend' of the gremlins and indeed the other signatories of the lux aeterna, you left this friend not only to die on one side, but it could be argued that by entering on the other side you further helped to ensure they lost this war by adding to the might of the other 'side' and indeed flying under the same banner as those set out to harm old guard (unless i am mistaken and no part of citadel identifies itself as a component of 'karma'), and in my opinion protecting your allies is more important than harming your enemies. i would have to read the treaty again to see if it is a technical violation in terms of 'indirect aggression' against old guard, a task i can't say will be a short one

you can support a friend without supporting their actions. this notion that they have to stop being friends because one made a mistake somewhere down the line is... well, its not right. sure you are going to come back and yell at the top of your lungs 'lol npo was nothing but mistakes and evil this and evil that blah blah blah' but i would beg to differ on that point.

extortion, plain and simple congrats on peace, i rather enjoyed the humor in the terms o/ tpf o/ nso o/ iom o/ tgr elements of karma could pick up a lesson in honor from you guys, this is a class act right here

ah perhaps i was quick to judge the writers... the word 'upon' clarifies the intent beyond the word 'initiated,' i missed that in my initial examination.so yeah, in other words citadel isnt a very powerful treaty unless you start a war against one of them out of the blue... however, i will note, the fact that not a single signatory of citadel opted to defend their 'ally' in og still says a lot about their character, even if i concede that there was no technical violation of the treaty. one can still make an argument about the spirit of the friendship that treaty is supposed to represent, but at that point, it becomes a rather ugly mess of opinions with no backing facts from either side... and i am not especially adept at that so i will refrain from exploring it any further. lets just agree that the lux aeterna is the most confounding treaty ever written, intentionally or not, and move on to another topic

but if you like lots of war, well, this is bad news, isnt it

lets be honest, a karma supporter views a 'hegemony' supporter with zero credibility and vice versa. lets not play games around that shall we?i am reading the letter of the treaties and making my judgment there. the fact is, your treaty is your word, and if you break your word you have broken the treaty. breaking one tiny clause in a treaty also is not grounds for the other party to ignore their obligations, unless it is stated so in the treaty, or the clause broken serves to greatly undermine the position of the other signatory (not informing the parties of war does not fall under that later stipulation, but depending on the treaty may fall under the former) i, my friend, am dealing in facts, and you cannot, no matter where you stand, disregard hard fact just because you dont like it. in this thread more than once i have had to suck it up and admit some of my points were wrong; however, many of them remain strong.

if i made it clear to someone irl that i was going to punch them in the face, it does not justify the act of then punching them in the face. mha was in the wrong to ignore its treaty obligations, and they have zero excuse for violating their written word.

ok, back, with a headache as well. i will agree that this does in fact justify the gremlins... but what about the other members of the citadel who did not defend old guard? they were not bound by gremlins charter as they were not members of the gremlins. for reference, from the lux aeterna (which actually is the citadel agreement) article 3 included to show that i am accounting for everything, the main focus is on article four unless og waived assistance (which is a possibility), umbrella, fcc, and top were obligated to defend og when they were attacked... but there is an issue, the treaty only covers for 'direct aggression' against old guard i draw you to the cornerstone of the whole debacle, a pivot in the confounding terms of the treaty: under the definition of 'direct aggression' subsection (ii), which provides a partial list of conditions which void the condition of 'direct aggression.' it reads: remove the sections not relevant to this scenario and replace terms with the relevant meanings to bring clarity: the one word to focus on is the word 'initiated' and although the writers of the lux aeterna made a commendable effort to avoid ambiguity, nobody is perfect. there are two possible interpretations of this clause: -old guard 'initiated' the individual conflict between itself and those whom it attacked; -old guard did not 'initiate' this global conflict (with that role being taken by the npo who 'initiated' hostilities against ov) ...so what do we make of this? we cant until a clear (and unbiased) interpretation of what exactly it means to 'initiate' this conflict. as i am not a signatory to this treaty, it is not my place to debate what i feel it means, but i think this issue should be addressed. a representative of the citadel is required to relay the results of such a decision. what i have established is that it is possible that some signatories violated their part of the treaty, but that we don't know for sure. ...uhhh, yeah, i had something going, then i read into it more, and then it got reeeeeally interesting. make of it what you will.

oh man am i an idiot, all this time i was thinking 'the codex' was 'the citadel' damn people since when do you talk about peoples charters like that? here i was assuming it was a treaty brb, banging head against wall

thank you, but may i have a link to that treaty? i find it curious that gremlins is singled out by name...

my apologies for that, i get a bit excited during full blown propaganda warscarry on

yet i constantly here, for example in the tsi/tp debacle, that 'karma representatives do not support this' and that pc and friends are 'not a part of karma' that they 'dont represent karma'so make up your mind please? do you have structure or are you a loose banner that anyone can insert themselves under? one thing i found about liars, is that they can only lie so far, and if you press them hard enough, their lies eventually come full circle and contradict one another. this is what i am starting to see from karma. ok i stole that one from 'phoenix wright: ace attorney' but its still true

wasnt the mistakes i was referring to that karma wont admit, but thanks for playing i guess?

so you accuse mha of dishonesty when they signed on to that treaty, which clearly and multiple times states its intent to last, and i quote, 'until the end of the universe'good to know... but i give mha more credit than that. not much more though.

well then i implore you to bring up the relevant sections of those treaties as well.

i apologize for my error. can you help me by pulling up the relevant treaties so i can make a proper judgment? thanks.(lo and behold, i, like other humans, am not perfect... cute attempt to 'use my own words against me' though, very cute. but unlike karma, i actually admit my screw-ups )