PotFace

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1282009895' post='2418522'] [color="#0000FF"]Granted there is one individual out there whom believes that this war was an elaborate ploy by the NSO to split up SF and CnG, but to be fair he and anyone who agrees with him is likely bonkers.[/color] [/quote] Although, I'd like to see how warped that argument would be, for entertainment value. Seems like asking your pals to stay out of this and sitting there getting rolled in a defensive war wouldn't really accomplish much of anything at all.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007622' post='2418467'] Ran outta quote tags![/quote] [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007622' post='2418467'] Rarity is irrelevant to circumstances. [/quote] [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007622' post='2418467'] Yes you are a wannabe spindoctor in action, you still aren't very good at it.[/quote] .... then all you're showing is that you don't have any respectable counter-arguments to the points that I have made, and you are providing nothing valuable to this discussion. What a great way to represent yourself and your alliance !!!

It's amazing how you guys can say so much while saying so little. If this is how you address points that people bring to you..... [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007588' post='2418466'] Reading your follow (and I use the term loosely) 'points' I'd have to say you failed to shed your pesky preconceptions.[/quote] [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007588' post='2418466'] See what he does there folks? He grabs a statement without backing it up and then proceeds to build a premise on it hoping nobody notices that his starting position is wrong to begin with. Clever ain't he? He hopes to get people arguing about point B and not calling him on how wrong he is about point A.[/quote] [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007588' post='2418466'] Your previous attempts to divine motivations of others action have failed miserably up to this point, good to see you are not breaking your streak.[/quote] [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007588' post='2418466'] You are.[/quote] [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007588' post='2418466'] Rok had no pressing reasons to avoid a war, this is not the same wanting or looking for a war.[/quote] (yes it is - you either want it or you don't) [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007588' post='2418466'] No we can't, that is a completely unjustified statement by you that has no basis in fact.[/quote] [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007588' post='2418466'] Hey look, we're back to false premises![/quote] [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007588' post='2418466'] You fail to see it because your head is firmly lodged where the sun don't shine. You have taken the facts, spun them, twisted you, picked and choosed which you wanted to adressed, played with the basic meaning of words, and anything else you could to distract attention to the fact that you are hideiously wrong in an attempt to usher out every last bit of comon sence from this disuccion, but what you can not do is erase what has happened. [/quote] and

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1282007240' post='2418457'] Curbstomps last as long as the aggressors want them to last, just as they always have. [/quote] Unless it's not a curbstomp at all. In cases like that, war would simply be an instrument by which something else is to be accomplished, like it ought to be. War just for war is, and has always been, looked down upon by those who are against hegemony in general.

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1282006563' post='2418448'] 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. [/quote] 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?

Right. So lets simplify this even further and address those pesky preconceptions: 1. I believe that one single diplomatic attempt to avoid war does not successfully show that you're trying very hard to avoid war. In order to try hard at anything when encountering a failure, it would involve making multiple attempts. In this case, with only one single attempt having been made, all it would have taken is just one more attempt for this to be considered "multiple attempts". In other words, if you don't get back on the bike when you fall off, then you're not trying very hard. I think that most of us would agree with this. At least, anyone that's remotely successful at anything, that is. 2. Having learned that trying once and giving up means that you're not trying very hard, we go on to examine the root cause of giving up so soon. If it were a [i]lack[/i] of motivation, then that would seem acceptable to me. Some people just simply don't have it in them to get back on that bike. However, declaring war less than 24 hours later - not even waiting long enough to coordinate an update assault, which is pretty much the standard that most alliances go by - shows me that there's [i]plenty[/i] of motivation here. So it can't be a lack of motivation. Let's look at desire: 3. Now that we know that trying once and giving up means that you're not trying very hard, and that when they gave up, they were motivated at the time, we can therefore conclude that the reason they gave up was a lack of motivation to resolve the situation diplomatically, and an abundance of motivation to go to war. Anyone lost yet? 4. If there's a lack of motivation to avoid war, and an abundance of motivation to go to war, then therefore, they [i]wanted[/i] war. We can add weight to this argument by noting that such circumstances as these are handled by alliances all the time without war being the end result in the first place. And we can add even more weight by citing the fact that no way out of this war has been offered yet. So, they wanted to go to war. Fair enough. There's plenty of us out here that crave war. However, citing a lack of motivation to avoid it and strong desire to engage it does not mean that's a good enough excuse to start one. When you are asked, "why did you DoW?", the answers that we have been given, such as, "we could and we did", or, "we didn't want to try harder to avoid it", or, "they deserved it", simply isn't strong enough grounds for a DoW. I fail to see how this isn't a textbook example of war-mongering. You can take the facts, spin them, twist them, pick and choose which ones you want to address, challenge us on the basic meanings of words, and do everything else to direct attention away from the issue at hand and to usher out every last bit of common sense from this discussion, but what you cannot do is erase what happened. "It is what it is". You wanted war and you [u]got[/u] war. You rushed into war. You offered no way [u]out[/u] of war. And you still haven't. Your CB is based on something that rarely [u]results[/u] in war. You have failed to demonstrate more than one single attempt to [u]prevent[/u] war. And after this has been directed to your attention, you fail to see anything [u]wrong[/u] with your war. Yes, this is hegemony in action. It's not that complicated.

See what I just did there? Glad to see you two figured it all out on your own

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281995973' post='2418288'] Opinios are like armpits, everybody has them and everybody thinks everyone elses stink. + a few personal attacks and delusional rationale [/quote] 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? Are you seriously trying to show that the aforementioned isn't as petty as, say, NPO's wars against GPA, FAN, GOLD, or Devildogs? You know, the very substance that inspired the ability for the propaganda from Schattenmann at Vox Populi, the formation of an anti-hegemony movement, and the subsequent formation of Karma to even come to be? Are you seriously trying to say that, it's okay to act like war-mongers and say that you're not war-mongers, only because that's just a preconception of what hegemony is or isn't? Despite that enough people here know what hegemony is to found a Karma War? You're tap-dancing for the spotlight, and let me tell ya.... you'll never make it to Broadway. If you're unsure of what hegemony is, please, go look it up and spare yourself further embarrassment. You can't say that something is something else, because of some kind of a preconception of what it is or isn't. We have words in this language, and words have definitions. I don't get to choose what their definitions are - I just use the words to convey a meaning. And no matter how much you tried to change the meanings of words, I'm sure you'll have millions of others that will disagree with you. What you're doing here is saying that we're wrong about our own opinions in hopes of directing attention away from the main idea. It's not working. And it's also a typical reaction that I'd expect to see from the old Hegemony as well.

Yeah well, everyone's entitled to their opinions on how a proper war should be carried out. Even me. So here they are.... If you're going to declare a war, [i]and you don't want to appear to be war-mongering[/i], [u]then have a goal[/u]. That means, surrender terms along with your DoW. Truly, if you're looking to avoid war, and you have failed, then your next objective should be to keep it from being prolonged. "This war will cease if - blah blah blah". After all, you can't be a war-monger if you're trying to keep the war as short as possible. I see no terms here, which means that RoK isn't interested keeping this war short and sweet. RoK and pals have come to the aid of TENE. Mission accomplished. Now what? Also prior to your DoW, [i]if you don't want to appear to be war-mongering[/i], include your satisfactory effort to avoid war in your OP. Sure, your CB technically authorizes you to declare war if it's proper and legit, but as we all know, if you're war-mongering, then a CB is all you need. If you're the type that tries to avoid it at all costs, then you'll need to demonstrate that. Satisfactorily. I do not see that here. I see heavy focus on the CB. And little more. The DoW was posted less than 24 hours after approaching NSO gov't. This shows extreme motivation to DoW, and little motivation to avoid a DoW. When you DoW, you're asking your supporters to lose infra for your decision. You owe it to them try just a little bit harder than this. Sure, every alliance has its own policies in how it goes about handling diplomatic affairs (hopefully - some just "wing-it"). But it's those policies that shape public opinion of you and your alliance, and ultimately lead to long-term reactions that directly affect your alliance's credibility, stability, and future. And so while coming out and saying "this is just how RoK handles its business" might explain what's going on here, what it doesn't do, is convince me that RoK and pals aren't war-mongering right now. And while convincing [u]me[/u] that they're not war-mongering might not seem to matter much in the grand scheme of things, convincing the cyberverse does. It doesn't take much effort to read-up on the war against hegemony initiated by Karma just last year and study the consequences of actions such as these. This DoW is very comparable in both form and motive, to the way NPO's DoWs from 2007-2009 were issued. Edit: spelling

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281832505' post='2416184'] (... a whole bunch of not addressing any questions that have been asked still) + Then you are in the wrong thread, this is a DoW, we are discussing a DoW here. That typically includes the reasons for the DoW. If you wish to discuss something more abstract might I suggest the World Affairs communication channels? Or at the very lease posting a question of your own that isn't riddled with false premise like a piece of Swiss Cheese. [/quote] [i]We[/i] aren't discussing a DoW. [i]I'm[/i] discussing a DoW. [i]You[/i] are discussing little more than the CB. They're not the same thing. There's more to a DoW than just the CB. For example, there are many occasions in which an alliance obtains a CB, but decides not to DoW. This wasn't the case with this war, and I feel that some of us deserve to know why. I understand your infatuation with the CB, but this, as you pointed out, is a DoW topic. Welcome to it. I appreciate your enthusiasm for the reasoning behind the questions that I ask, but, they're very simple questions. I can certainly understand why you wouldn't want to answer them - particularly if you don't have any good answer. In case you haven't noticed, I've been asking questions that I know that you guys don't have any good answers for. There's a few reasons why there aren't any good answers (at this time); 1) because they involve foresight and other aspects of the DoW that you guys never even considered enough to be prepared to address in the first place, and 2) to show everyone that if you [i]had[/i] taken the time to consider these aspects, then the idea of being war-mongers would have dissolved away long ago. Since you feel that my premises are false, let's back up and get to the very meat of the very simple questions that I have repeatedly asked, yet have not received any answer to: - Why couldn't RoK handle this situation without posting a DoW? - Why weren't surrender terms issued along with the DoW? - Why is it that surrender terms still haven't been issued, several days into the war? - Why did the OP consist of just the CB, and not any additional information about the DoW? - Why weren't additional diplomatic efforts made, considering that the DoW was posted less than 24 hours after the logs happened? - Why didn't RoK allow TENE to post the DoW when it was their problem to begin with? I apologize if there was any confusion in relaying these questions to you. And.... go.

[quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1281828800' post='2416145'] I tried not to smile and I tried not to post but I couldn't stop myself. [/quote] Well, if there's something new about the CB that hasn't been discussed yet, please, help yourself.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281826491' post='2416105'] And this is relevant how? I mean its all pretty words, but I'm pretty sure its nothing ground breaking here. [/quote] Thank you for asking. By refusing to argue that posting reckless DoWs shows a severe lack of consideration for your supporters, and noting that this isn't a ground-breaking find, we can therefore demonstrate that only is this true, but this mentality was also present in everything that had anything to do with this DoW. Furthermore, we can also demonstrate that if you're looking to avoid war, a lack of care and consideration isn't the way to go about it. This is relevant in that RoK (Hoo) was indeed looking for a war, and as soon as the opportunity presented itself, took it and exploited it as quickly as possible. [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281826491' post='2416105'] Which is it? Am I a bad person for talking about the CB, or am I bad person for not talking about it? [/quote] It's bad to talk about how the war came about, because this issue has already been settled. It's very clear that Hoo told Heft that he would consider aiding the "rogue" to be an act of war. Most of us understand that to be an undebatable fact. Therefore, there's no point in discussing it further - especially with hopes of avoiding other questions about this DoW. Which is why none of my questions today have had anything to do with the CB itself. What you wish to discuss.... has already been cleared up. There's other questions to tend to now, if you don't mind...

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1281823341' post='2416038'] Each new action, event or piece of information causes a re-evaluation of the situation, ones position and as a consequence their actions. [/quote] 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 name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281823910' post='2416046'] We are discussing a war, why wouldn't we be concerned about the reason it came to be? I realize you want to try and play a game of bait and switch to move to conversation away from a point you can't win, but try a little harder please. [/quote] You must have forgotten how DoWs work. You see, when you announce something to the masses, they come back with questions. As much as you'd like to control which questions they ask, you simply cannot. It's the public that shows up with questions. Your job is to answer them. You can label it however you wish.

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1281822383' post='2416024'] 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] Yep. You nailed it right on the head. Why would that be, you think?

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1281819084' post='2415984'] 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] 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 name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1281818018' post='2415962'] I can see multiple ways which your statement could be intended. Please clarify. [/quote] 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 name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1281816317' post='2415939'] 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. [/quote] If that was the case, the OP wouldn't include a DoW, now would it?

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281809163' post='2415863'] This is 2010 not 2006, the war is a few days old. Welcome to this year. [/quote] Not exactly sure if you're agreeing with me or not here. Please elaborate. [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] Well, it appears I can't get you guys to take your attention off of the CB. And in failing to do so, you guys continue to confirm that the objective was war itself. Thank you for clearing that up. I'll be sure to strike that off my list as an answered question now. I've heard this from enough people to be satisfied with that answer. Can you answer any of these questions for me: Now that war has been declared, and is in full effect, would you say that [i]now, at this time,[/i] RoK and friends have accomplished what they set out to do? If the objective here was to defend TENE, and we can clearly see that is now done with, what's next? What keeps this war going? Why haven't terms been issued yet?

Just confirmed with Lennox over at NSO that no surrender terms have been issued to them. That's just horrible. Terrible !! Because now you guys are showing us that, not only is the CB where you put most of your concern, but you guys actually set out to accomplish a goal, without having a goal. The only possible way that would be untrue, is if your goal was war itself. Sure, there's been a few instances in which a DoW has been posted without surrender terms. But in those cases, the goal was war itself as well. RoK did little to avoid war, it did little to show that it was necessary, and it has done nothing at all to try to end it. Yes, this looks like war-mongering. It looks like [i]hegemony[/i]. There's no need to take that out on anyone else - we're not responsible for any of it. You guys are. Right now, seriously, the best thing that can be done to clean up this mess, is to offer white peace, let NSO accept it, both parties pretend like nothing ever happened, and just move on. Because anything else at this point would be supporting the idea that RoK is now a hegemonic alliance.

[quote name='Adrian LaCroix' timestamp='1281803961' post='2415779'] No war is ever necessary. Period. But not everyone is GPA, and some people would rather not sit on their hands when they feel they've been slighted. [/quote] I gotta get you guys to stop thinking on paper here. Now, this is just my opinion here (and I say that so that the closed-minded thinkers don't get offended), but I'd like to think that sometimes, war [i]is[/i] necessary. For the following circumstances: - to preserve alliance sovereignty (self-defense) - to preserve alliance integrity (no spying) - to preserve alliance man-power (no poaching) - to preserve any other alliance structure (variable) - to preserve alliance credibility (honoring promises) And I sure bet you're glad that I mentioned that last one. Because it's the last one that would stand any chance of validating this war as a [i]necessary[/i] war. However, it doesn't. And the reason why, is that RoK's promise to TENE could have been upheld by simply attacking the "rogue" in question until such time as it became very clear that diplomacy had failed. Most of us are in agreement here that RoK didn't try hard enough to avoid war. And that's simply where most of the heat is coming from. Since that also falls along the lines of "alliance credibility", I'd hate to think that RoK's main motivation here was to preserve its credibility in honoring its promises, while at the same time, tarnishing its credibility by failing to conduct thorough diplomacy prior to going to war. Also, again, have surrender terms been issued yet? I can't wait to see those....

[quote name='Rampage3' timestamp='1281803280' post='2415769'] No, what I am saying is that I specifically am unconcerned with what YOU think about the OP, specifically your assertion that TENE should lie under aggression while we talk until you can feel like we did enough. [/quote] This wasn't an "emergency" situation. So, yes, this could have waited a few days to ensure more thoroughness in execution of this DoW. As you can see, it would have been worth it. [quote name='Rampage3' timestamp='1281803280' post='2415769'] We are direct, succinct, and we can be depended on to do precisely what we say. [/quote] We certainly know [i]that[/i] now don't we? And if there was any concern about this, you guys [i]definitely[/i] just put it to rest. Here's 2 more questions that you guys don't have to answer - 1. If you guys can decide not to care about my own questions and opinions, then what's to show that you won't be doing the same with everyone else? -and- 2. Has RoK released surrender terms yet? If so, what are they? If not, how come?

[quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1281802289' post='2415759'] Just because you don't like the answer Rampage gave you, don't pretend you can't see it. [/quote] It was a "yes" or "no" question. Was this DoW really necessary? So, no, I haven't received an answer to it yet. Let's try and speak the same language we've all agreed upon. [quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1281802289' post='2415759'] It matters to us but less than you'd like it to. [/quote] You are a real quote factory!!! Thank you for clearing that up. If we could keep this kind of progress flowing, by George, I think we'll be at a conclusion before the end of the war!!

[quote name='Rampage3' timestamp='1281800809' post='2415740'] There is no getting to the bottom of this. In your opinion, we should have somehow done more. To claim that [i]necessary[/i] is a universal term only allows you to play a game where you can constantly "move the goalposts", so to speak. If we'd waited another day, surely we could have waited another. If we had waited two with nothing, surely we could have overlooked all of this for a 4K nation and 6 million dollars, at least in your eyes. Why should you care how long we wait, it is not YOUR protectorate right? But the fact is, our protectorate program in Ragnablok means something. And one of the most important things about us in general is that if we are WITH you and you get hit, we roll to protect you. And if you are expecting us to compromise THAT to ease your discomfort, then you will be disappointed. I am fine with my protectorate being defended if all I have to concern myself with is your hurt feelings. [/quote] So what you're really saying is that not only will my question go unanswered, but also, it doesn't really matter what any of us think about your OP. You know, I'm not really the type to guarantee the way other people do [i]their[/i] business, by any means, but BCOM has a University with a curriculum that's tailored specifically toward handling foreign affairs. If you're interested, I'd be more than willing to mask a RoK volunteer to come and grab what we have. After all, you jolly-well can't complain about something if you're not actively trying to do something about it....

[quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1281799200' post='2415725'] I thought I'd made it clear that "necessary" is far too subjective a term to use in an environment where there are such divergent views. You're flogging a dead horse. [/quote] I think we all know what the word "necessary" means here. The fact that the Karma War even happened proves that - I don't think that the community's views are as divergent as you'd like them to be. I mean, this isn't an interrogation or anything - you don't have to give an answer if you don't want to. But if you're making an attempt to quell our concerns about this war, then it may be [i]necessary[/i] to eventually. Dissecting words from sentences and debating their meanings in an attempt to circumvent [i]common sense[/i] (another subjective term, btw)is really not helping us get to the bottom of this.

[quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1281798405' post='2415716'] I'm not trying to convince you that war-mongering is acceptable. [/quote] Just checking - I thought that's where you were going with that. And so, back to what I was saying, if war-mongering isn't [i]acceptable[/i], and we know that unnecessary wars = war-mongering, then we now have the issue here at hand: "[i]is RoK war-mongering?[/i]". To date, much of the confusion here in this topic has been that question, being answered with "but the CB is [i]valid[/i]". Really, that doesn't answer the question at all. The only person in this topic that has come even remotely close to explaining any viable answer was Van Hoo. Yes, the CB is valid. But is this war really necessary? Most of us feel that it isn't, because when you come out and post a DoW like this, what you're really telling people is "we were either too unwilling or too incompetent to handle a trivial situation like this in a fashion that most other alliances would, so here's a DoW."