Phetion

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1293137607' post='2551886'] Except they didn't, as others in this very thread have said. [/quote] So the 'NpOloand' jokes etc weren't really aimed at NpO? It was [i]just[/i] a coincidence heh.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1293128461' post='2551758'] What I don't get about this is that Xiph is allowed to trust Polar because of months of interaction with them, but MK isn't allowed to trust TOP because of our months of interaction with TOP? [/quote] I think it's more the fact that MK et al are so blatantly out to roll Polar, for what reason exactly? TOP falls straight into that category too. GOD aren't allying Polar to, essentially, bully another alliance. MK have done. At least that's the way I look at it, and I was probably the most pissed off when I found out this had actually happened.

[quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1292877457' post='2546947'] Easy there genius, the issue isn't the practice of calling in friends, it's that not long ago GOONS were weak for Umbrella and MK protecting them against the Ninjas and hence is only natural that those who were called out for that practice fire a few shots back when someone else does it. [/quote] Yeah, I took a few nukes for GOONS too during that, btb. Though it was shortly before, I had a UOKMB target. Hell I think I was the first non-GOON to defend them during that.

[quote name='Vespassianus' timestamp='1292842491' post='2546345'] Int and TPE would outnumber NEW alone, but you wanted a curbstomp huh? [/quote] [quote name='Vespassianus' timestamp='1292843457' post='2546357'] I was talking about NS. 3,5+2 vs 4,7, probably higher avg for Int and TPE too. I guess with lots of peace mode from NEW war mode nation number is in favor of the other side. [/quote] Are you really that dense? Let's say you get hit by a rogue at the same NS as you. Are you going to fight him on your own for the next few months as you both fall together at a roughly equal rate, or are you going to have your alliance mates and friends help you out? Heh. Perhaps you like to lose.

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1292307868' post='2539311'] This. It was a damn shame it turned out like it did. We'd have won that war which would have prevented the BiPolar (or whatever it's being called) War. [/quote] You're damn right about that. It was a shame Crymson acted on his own accord and secured a deal without any of our permissions, never mind going completely against his own GM's orders. I remember pushing so hard in the negotiations with Polar and STA to try and leave them with no option but to declare on us, it was a shame that deal had been made prior to these talks. Unfortunately they were happy with the 3 or 6 million they got before we stopped Crymson and OBR. Kronos never forgave TOP for that, and it was the turning point away from you, and that 'side' of things. I almost fondly remember my drunken cancellation notice to TOP. (That didn't go down too well at all, but only one member of Kronos was mad at me for the way I cancelled it, I guess that shows how far relations had fallen since Crymson). Shout out to Valhalla throughout that though, even before they knew it was STA we were bumping heads with.

[quote name='Skippy' timestamp='1288912437' post='2502304'] Wasn't too impressed from what I saw when I was in STA in contact with you, but it is sad to see alliances disband. Good luck wherever you all go. [/quote] It wasn't our fault we were dealing with dicks with raging ego hard ons for a large part of it. Would have been the icing on the cake if you were ever relevant enough to have been involved Skippy. I had some great times in Kronos from helping founding them (yeah, thanks for forgetting me on that list btb), running as a fairly long term government member and working with some fantastic allies. Shout out to Valhalla, Umbrella and GOD for that. While some of my best friends floated in and out of that alliance and some remained there until the end, it's a crying shame things did not work out in the end. Best of luck to those Kronos nations seeking new homes, and may Kronos rest in peace. (Ironic really, considering it's knack for finding and creating war freaks).

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1286829762' post='2481767'] I was always kinda impressed that GOLD gave people @[gold's URL].com email addresses. [/quote] The Order of Halsa did that for a while too.

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1285870518' post='2469966'] VE's history of treaties is based solely on survival and not friendship. [/quote] I think we can safely say that the GOD treaty is based quite firmly on friendship . I'd love to see you argue otherwise.

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1285869294' post='2469935'] If they dont want to pay they will suffer GOONS concenceques. No one has a gun to GOONS head forcing them to fight on until these alliances cease to exist. [/quote] And quite frankly, that's no less than they deserve. They should be expected to pay reparations for their actions. Also, you don't attack GOONS and expect to get away without paying reps, that's not how it works. Anybody who has watched the OWF for the last few weeks can tell that. I can only imagine a few people to be so stupid to expect anything less. Hint: I don't think FnKa are one to fall in this category. Tell me this Alterego: Is it acceptable for an alliance to attack another alliance with the stated intention to change their charter?

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1285867333' post='2469895'] Of course GOONS can demand whatever they want, I didn't said otherwise, what I said was that some of their demands may not work very well for them in the long run. [/quote] Alright, I get that. I don't agree however that you can compare the situations in all honesty, largely because GOONS are the defending party. If it were literally any other alliance, particularly those out of the limelight, the masses would be sympathetic towards the defenders. Take for instance, when FreakSafari declared on FACE, somewhat akin to this. (I'm not comparing it by their CB's, merely the fact it appears there is the similar contributing factor that GOONS had a few ex-tR members, that had had a disagreement of some sort with other ex-tR members who are in FnKa. Though I don't want to pretend I know the ins and outs of that.)

Are you really that incredibly dense? He never stated that their intention was that they would disband them. Point me to where he explicitly says that "We will disband FnKa". That's not the case. At all. Sometimes I wonder if you do this on purpose. He clearly says, if they don't want to pay for their transgressions, then they will suffer their own consequences. Eugh, I don't get how you can be this stupid. If this is all you've got, clutching at straws, then I guess we have nothing to worry about. I tell you what, if you ever attack GOD citing a CB to change our charter, then we will disband you. What do you say to that?

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1285866134' post='2469865'] Yeah, because eternal wars always worked very well for those who impose that in cyberverse, see GOONS vs FARK, NPO vs FAN and Recently GRE vs IRON. You're a smart person and knows that history usually repeats itself so beware... [/quote] Entirely different situations. In this situation FnKa declared on GOONS - granted, they were in the weaker position (nothing should be held against them for that) with the intention of imposing a change on the charter of GOONS. Quite frankly, GOONS can demand whatever they like with some modicum of rationale. If GOONS had declared on them, that would be an entirely different story.

[quote name='Drizuz' timestamp='1285760533' post='2468174'] Then why is AntiVietCong still untouched???? but one of non-attacking 30k NS get's attacked by one GOONS + allies. Maybe GOONS should send that "help" towards where it's needed in the upper Tier not our lower ones (specially versus The Ninja in lower tier that didn't even attack GOONS) [/quote] He'll be attacked in due course I imagine. Most of the nations below him have been attacked by GOONS/GOONS allies, and they're much more of a direct threat as they are actually engaging GOONS nations. Right now he can only declare on one GOONS nation by the looks of it, (I'm not sure how far the ranges are now-a-days, it's been a while since my nation was that large) whereas the rest can declare on more nations. Priorities. Whilst it would be ideal to anarchy him before he can declare anywhere, as I discuss in the next paragraph, their may not be nations available right now to attack. That, and their allies may not have a nation ready only 6 hours after the attack, or perhaps they're waiting to coordinate at update, y'know since, he is a large nation and all. Also, this time of day isn't exactly ideal for the average ruler. There's many valid reasons why they could be waiting, or preparing.

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1285758679' post='2468163'] The use of the word "rogue" has been incorrect in this case. Much like the rest of your post. This post is even funnier in light of the whole "GOONS didn't make TN attack them" argument. Now it's GOONS who didn't have a choice, right? *eyeroll* Neither is true of course, the truth is this: GOONS asked TN to attack them. TN did. GOONS's allies are now jumping in for the curbstomp. No roguing involved, so stuff that tripe. The e-lawyering claim is silly, no such thing here. I'm calling the people who masquerade curbstomps as honorable defenses, cowards. It's pretty straight up. GOONS can fight their own battles, especially the ones they ask for. Sureeee you can the excuse that you're "defending an ally" even though it's one who hardly needed it. The truth is you just wanted to get in a nice curbstomp. Which part is confusing you, or was that image too strong for you? Basically, I find the notion of a curbstomp to be [s]equally ludicrous[/s] cowardly. Especially in circumstances where the stompers asked for a war from the stompees. Quit trying to make it more complex than that. [/quote] Why on earth would you not maximise your defensive capabilities? It makes literally no sense not to take any help offered, never mind help that is technically obligated. Tell me, if 11 nations hit your alliance and they were all above 30k NS, would you not call your allies in to help deal with them? (disregarding the fact that GOONS never had to ask, and likely never will have to ask with the allies they've chosen). It's common sense to utilise what you've got, you'd be letting your alliance and your allies down by not doing so.

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1285450295' post='2464574'] If your assisting an alliance already engaged in an alliance war and its an action condoned by that alliance, then its not a rogue action and part of that alliance war. I recognized his entry into the war as valid, as well as the aid sent. That put him on my side of the war against GOONS regardless of how GOONS want to view it, but he wasn't going rogue in any sense of the word. AA switching is a common tactic I've seen used in wars before, so what his AA was at any given time shouldn't matter. [/quote] So, The Rebel or whoever, and whoever it was in NSO who aided you (pretty sure it was gov) were members of your alliance too?

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1285449956' post='2464568'] He's not a rogue, he was assisting our alliance. [/quote] I know you can't speak for NPO, but just to show you how pathetic that argument is: Let's say I attack an NPO nation, and then change my alliance affiliation to "Hot Pointy Noses" and join Salmacis. Does that make me a rogue, or does that mean I'm assisting Salmacis's alliance and therefore void the normal protocol of 'how to deal with a rogue'?

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1285449830' post='2464564'] He's a member of KN. [/quote] So why, when he attacked GOONS was he not flying your AA? Because he wasn't a member. He was a rogue.

[quote name='Cortath' timestamp='1285448562' post='2464551'] I'm just going to chime in here, having read the last few pages of posts: You know what this all sounds like? I hear about negotiations, white peace, reparations, declarations of war, etc., etc. This sounds like an alliance-to-alliance war. You don't make peace with nuclear rogues. They nuke you. Why are they nuking you? You have no !@#$ing idea. They just started for no discernible reason. You don't negotiate with nuclear rogues. Why? They just want to nuke you and they're going to keep on doing it. You have nothing to offer them. You don't declare war on nuclear rogues. Why? They're nuking you! You can fight back without any need to recognize hostilities. Nuclear rogues are states that are no longer rational state actors. You can't negotiate, because 1) they don't want anything, and 2) you don't know what, if anything, they want. All they do is nuke. Maybe they're leaving the game, and this is their goodbye present. Maybe they just don't care. Everything in this thread is politics. It's not the highest principled politics I've ever heard of it in my life, but it's politics. GOONS can call Methrage and friends a "rogue" if they want, but it sure sounds to me like he's a member of a microalliance that they're in a conflict with. They're discussing negotiations, reparations, they made a declaration of war. These are not things you do with a rogue; these are things you do with a rational state actor. And if this is an alliance-to-alliance war, we decline to become involved. Sanctioning is traditionally viewed as an act of war when it is used against a rational state actor, i.e. an alliance. We have no treaty with GOONS that demands we engage in aggressive action along their side in their alliance to alliance war. [/quote] What if that rogue feels like they had made a mistake? People act rashly sometimes. To say a rogue can't attempt to negotiate a peace is absurd. From what I've read it appears that the nation who initiated the attacks was in fact a rogue - Methrage, the leader of the alliance had not sanctioned the attack. He approached GOONS and they discussed reps, apparently 9million. He then decided to take arms with his comrade and join his rogue crusade against GOONS. Therefore a rogue. (But for the sake of preventing an argument over this point, I won't deny you from your belief that the original instigators of the attack aren't part of an alliance, the main point I'd like you to address is in regards to your refusal to sanction Jim as a rogue) Take for example the "rogue alliance" "CoUNT" which made it's appearance largely against STA and Legion iirc. They were all deemed rogues, even though they mustered themselves under the same banner and you know what? A bunch of them negotiated peace and reparations soon after. (They were also all sanctioned, and most probably on all colours) Jim is flying the KN banner as a rogue nation, and therefore seemingly by your definition is a rogue. He wasn't a member of this alliance before he aided them, he wasn't even a member of the alliance when he took direct arms to GOONS. He even wore a "rogue" banner for a short while whilst attacking them. So, let's hypothetically agree that the original members of KN aren't rogues, so what about sanctioning Jim? Is it out of outright ignorance that you refuse to sanction him - or is it because (as you previously denied) you just don't like GOONS? Edited a little for clarity.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1285446877' post='2464529'] What I'm trying to say is that this fact does not validate the spy operations. What validates them is if GOONS has a sufficient case before hand to conduct them. And there is an inherent risk in these situations that you [i]could be wrong[/i], which is precisely why you make the case as watertight as possible before conducting a spy op, to minimize the risk that you commit an act of war on an innocent. Yes, the spy op will serve as the proverbial nail in the coffin, but only if you are right. Knowing that you happened to be right is not sufficient to justify the spy op after the fact. [/quote] OK, perhaps if this was the first instance of GOONS spying for this purpose then yeah. However, they had successfully gathered enough hard evidence for two alliances which aren't exactly known for their support of GOONS to allow them to gather the indisputable proofs. Moreso in the case of STA. If they were randomly spying nations to try and catch them out, like I said before, I would be far more sympathetic of your viewpoint. You would have a leg to stand on and an argument to throw at them, however, they haven't. They've hit the bullseye, or perhaps jackpot is more fitting considering the general outcome, each and every time. I don't think I can stress this enough, they were correct every single time. You avoided my questions in my post above, but how about this one. What would you say is enough evidence to warrant the spy attack to gather the concrete proof?

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1285446019' post='2464509'] Right. The question stems from the "what if," what if the guy is innocent, you just committed an act of war. I don't believe it is acceptable to justify things after the fact, you have to be justified going into it. I haven't seen the 'other evidence' GOONS claims to have and I am not judging this instance, but answering your simple example. I believe the citizens of this world should be entitled to a degree of privacy, without a sort of global police state where you folks at the top can conduct spy operations without due cause. [/quote] Yeah, but the thing is. He did do it. I would sympathise with your point of view if GOONS had been going around harassing innocent folk, but they have not. They've scored 3/3 finding out who has been aiding their enemy (whether you deem them alliance or rogue, they are at war with GOONS whichever way you look at it). If GOONS had been wrong in spying Jim, then yeah, this would have warranted an apology/reparations, or even a war that was legitimately justified. But the simple fact of the matter is he did do it. Answer me this please: GOONS and allies attack Jim conventionally, citing they believed he had aided Methrage, but they hadn't bothered gathering the absolute, concrete proof of a spy report. What would you say? Certainly, you'd have a feasible defence. Certainly you could argue his innocence. Now answer me this: Which situation would you have preferred? The one which has unfolded before us, or the hypothetical one I described above. It's neither here nor there, Jim instigated this situation and should be brought to face the consequences. He sought to make it escalate it to an overt fight. Nobody is to blame other than himself. He created the predicament he is facing now. That is it. End of story.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1285445403' post='2464501'] Yeah, I know, right? I think it's pretty obvious why GOONS would ask STA's permission - They didn't want STA to turn on them like they turned on \m/. Oh man, remember that, that was ugly. Tyga destroyed half their NS with his mind. I don't know anyone who would want to mess with that. Or, you know, [b]spy operations are considered an act of war[/b] and have been considered as such ever since they existed. But I do prefer the first theory. [/quote] And so is aiding one's enemy. Tell me what would have happened if people went around "secretly" aiding FAN? Even voting for a senator was cause enough for an alliance to be rolled.

[quote name='DragonsPhyre' timestamp='1285444964' post='2464490'] If they had all this proof, why would they feel the need to spy? [/quote] Because if they didn't you'd be running with the line "Where's the ocular proof?" instead of the crap you're trying to argue now.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1285426645' post='2464289'] Should you feel sorry for JimKongIl? Nope. But he doesn't fit the definition of rogue as was typically defined on Planet Bob prior to this incident. However, when you are one nation against hundreds, your enemies set the table. Part of why you don't put yourself in the position of being 1 (or a few) vs. 100s. [/quote] OK, if [i]secretly[/i] aiding an enemy (this goes for all parties, if you describe them as rogues or as an alliance) does not constitute a "rogue" action worthy of war/reperations, then what does. Certainly spying as those more sympathetic to Jim believe. Any action taken which directly afflicts an alliance is a rogue action, and this is even moreso the case when done by an individual, in this case Jim. There's no if's, buts or maybes here, Jim attracted GOONS attention by aiding someone they were currently engaged in. He's a rogue. He provoked the GOONS, not the other way around. And to address the few NPO posters here (including Cortath I believe), disputing whether or not he's a rogue, here's a situation for you. A nation goes rogue on my alliance, our alliance deals with this nuclear rogue for a week or two. After the second round of nuclear war, he switches his AA to FAN, and continues his attacks on [i]my alliance[/i]. All slots are covered by us, and we ZI him. He sends many PMS of complaint to us, and eventually one of our members sends him a joke $1 aid offer. A few hours later an official from NPO comes over to our IRC and demands we pay a NPO nation the same amount of money or we retract the aid offer, otherwise we'll face war over it. And yeah, we had a significant treaty with GOD at the time, so we weren't some alliance like Jarheads et al. (It was Umbrae Nocterm or whoever, this time). So NPO considered what we did worthy of war, so imagine if we'd sent $4.5million secretly!

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1284576847' post='2454896'] Methrage the only reasons ive been able to gather from sources as proof that i did it, was my recent following and posting in GOONS topics which put me in the spotlight which resulted the aid spam the day before whoever asked for spy premission. i still believe the "evidence" was merely speculation on them fronts, i could be wrong but that is whats been suggested to me as im still not allowed to see it. Speculation or not it still wasnt solid proof because why else would they need to do spy attacks, that in its self proves the "evidence" wasnt as solid as its been made out. [b]Regardless atleast i now know pezstar had no trust in me,[/b] to ask me before hand. It wasnt like i was a nobody in the alliance and was highly productive and generous within the alliance. [b]Lack of trust and faith in my possible answer[/b] pezstar, hurt. Anyways what is done is done [color="#FF0000"]*wonders off sorting out paying off the fine for his crime*[/color] [/quote] You see, that would all make sense [i]if[/i] you hadn't done it. You can't run around now blaming others for not trusting you when you were [b]lying.[/b] How you can try and turn this around on anyone other than yourself is beyond me. It's your own fault

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1282658308' post='2429391'] I called it at the start of the war too. Great minds... [/quote] [quote]8/8/2010 6:03:11 PM "GODs Coming For a Beer Review[/quote] As the first nation to DoW in this entire thing, I think I get to steal that +1 :v