Indian Bob

Fair enough.

So wait, he's apologizing for signing on with another protector before the 24 hour clock expired on his notification to AzN? He was probably just protecting himself from [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=103837&st=0]some people[/url] should the cancellation clause be waived and an immediate notice of new protection not be written. Gotta be careful these days!

What Methrage is suggesting would work for some people like myself. I'm not going to be buying tech for the forseeable future as I'm deliberately staying small to handle our low end rogues. If the bank were to identify 5 people who prepaid for tech I could just send 50 tech to every 10 days and keep track of the balances owed then when I'm ready to buy the next round of buyers could be pre-paying and the bank would just have to find the sellers to use to pay back the tech I deposited. Hell I'd even pay interest on that in the form of forgetting some of the principle owed just so I could keep all 5-6 aid slots full with my own tech coming back that cost me initially $750k to buy. Otherwise if you guys are just brokering deals you're not a bank, savings or otherwise, just saying. Good luck with this because either way you're going to be doing a ton of work if you do it right.

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1310400861' post='2754414'] The NPO's war-by-proxy on Polaris -- the 'noCB War' -- would not have happened. No Vox 2.0. Probably no Karma, either. Beyond that it's very difficult to say. [/quote] if there was no 'noCB War' my understanding is that there would be no SNAFU and probably no Hydra as the founders would have stuck around and taken over Tempest. not that anyone cares but us.

[quote name='Ying Yang Mafia' timestamp='1309438509' post='2744989'] Even if the game goes on for another 10,000 days people will still be holding grudges and arguing over events that happened in the first 2,000. [/quote] Let's hope so. Even with new grudges forming it would be a shame to see the old ones fade away.

[quote name='Cobalt' timestamp='1309297691' post='2743631'] In other news, my fake alliance named Al Qaeda has nothing to do with the Al Qaeda from another world. Its just a coincidence [/quote] Not even remotely similar, but please carry on.

Based on the response he's received, I'm not surprised that Alex hasn't been back here but I can confirm that Axis =/= The Axis from the war that took place on another world. The use of the word is in it's actual meaning, a place were things come together, in this case the rulers of their respective nations on planet Bob. Feel free to continue to read what you want into it and by all means make fun of the vote selling system, but let the name thing drop, it's just an unfortunate coincidence.

[quote name='Craven' timestamp='1309025756' post='2741219'] I'm curious as to why someone would agree to protect someone prior to reading their charter. It is a pretty risky thing to do.. his charter could've been all about destroying a large alliance or something yet.. you've already agreed to protect him. I'm not judging, but perhaps a little more communication between alliances and their future protectorates would save them both from future trouble. However, I wish Axis good luck even though it is off to a rough start. [/quote] It's an informal protection subject to the finalization of their plans. Meaning, there were some concerns we have about their charter (believe it or not some of which have already been addressed) but we didn't want their asses hanging in the wind until we can either come to an agreement or not. This DoE was very unexpected, but we're willing to try and work through these issues because Alex is a good guy and may have just gotten a tad bit excited.

TTS, it's been a pleasure getting to know you and here's to a long and fruitful relationship!

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1308785201' post='2738733'] With all due respect for your contributions in that war, SNAFU isn't a particularly important alliance, and you were far from the focal point of that war. NPO and her closest allies have been taken out of commission for the foreseeable future, and that goes double for NPO itself. That "limited way" crap wasn't just so they could have fun blowing stuff up, you know. [/quote] i never said we were important but the only thing you can possibly be saying is worse now than it was before is the reps and i'm just pointing out that we took on our (admittedly small portion) and TPF's and we're done. if you're not talking about reps then this new statement seems to suggest that <gasp> people take damage in war. yeah the attack on NPO sucked and was b.s. but saying that they took damage and therefore are out of the picture for a year is just stating the obvious. we're not all that big, but we pulled our bigger nations out of PM a lot sooner than the rest of the coalition, so by extension we should be out of commission a lot longer than the NPO any of the other "focus points" and i'm telling you that's just not going to be the case. pick a fight that makes sense. "big wars damage alliances and that takes time to rebuild" isn't it.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1308779578' post='2738655'] Well, to be fair, that was more hopefulness on my part. Everyone knows that big parties always resolve these things, nobody wants to actually risk upsetting the order of the world. Cowardice abound. Just how things are, most unfortunately. Isn't helped by this era of fear we live in, I mean, after all, nobody wants to be sidelined for a year, and that's the modern consequence of losing "The Big One." [/quote] you must live in a different era than we do. we finished our reps two weeks ago and that was only delayed because GOONS didn't have the slots available. now we're not rebuilt but that's just because we lost a lot in this last war but that's the nature of the game, not any "era" we live in. i personally am not terribly happy how close this brings us "that side" but it's no indictment of the world writ large.

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1304465716' post='2705561'] That's one detailed peace agreement. I'm very glad I had nothing to do with either making it or (at this point) having to keep track of everything to make sure it gets done by the right time, the right amount, blah blah blah. The one thing I do like is the non-aggression pact. Personally (and yes, this is just my opinion and yes I don't know anything about what "really" happened), both "sides" lost respect in this war. Doomhouse for declaring aggressively in the first place and NPO and allies for "defending" by everyone attacking GOONS. Strategic reasons (if there are really any) aside - that almost made me feel sorry for GOONS - and THAT IS a negative as far as I'm concerned. [/quote] Just to be clear, not "everyone" attacked GOONS. We declared on MK in defense of TPF, and were countered by Umbrella and TOP. SNAFU never fought a GOON nation. That being said, I'm not a fan of the GOONS in general but aside from the peace mode term this is a very reasonable end to the war. Of course there should be no reps but as the defeated party we have to take some crap but by allowing us to do this all in cash (at a reasonable amount no less) they've made our opportunity to rebuild much easier.

Congratulations on peace Avalon. (Well, on one front anyway.)

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1303168849' post='2692920'] Two points: - You weren't collecting signatures, peace was not necessarily going to happen in the immediate future. - We asked them to come in, not the other way around. [/quote] That's just not true. Sardonic and Infinite Citidel were asking for signatures and TCK said he'd have to get them from everyone in the coalition it was only then that the penalties for efficiency terms were mentioned. Hell Sardonic even asked if a post could be done that same night!

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1302303851' post='2687123'] Already said that NPO didn't have a treaty chain at the time because such an arrangment was actively facilitated. [/quote] Which means there was no treaty chain. The conversation should end there until that situation changed. [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1302303851' post='2687123'] The issue is more alliances coming in. Preempting wouldn't have been necessary if unexpected actors didn't switch sides. [/quote] Who jumped sides? I thought most of this was predicated upon Legion's inaction. At least that's what the DoW stated and that's what I've been reading here. [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1302303851' post='2687123'] The war wasn't going to be over until VE and co. felt they had done enough damage or achieved goal x, seeing as it still took time after the preempt for that front to peace out, rather than it peacing out right away. It didn't make sense for us to wait for NPO whenever it was ready given by that point, peace moding was already being implemented as a strategy and more nations would have gotten into PM by the tie any such declaration occurred. Not preempting would have allowed substantially more preparation.[/quote] Or there just wouldn't have been an escallation. You keep looking at it through the eyes of the paranoid as opposed to looking at what was actually happened and not what you hoped/feared would happen. [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1302303851' post='2687123'] Most of the alliances that were pulled off the Polar front were fighting polar allies that were just sticking it out in a moral sense rather than it being an actual diversion of resources, so ODN for example sitting on UINE was never going to happen and having C&G stay on Polar solely wasn't going to make them quit sooner. The diehards for Polar were going to stay in until the end regardless of the fact that they could no longer cause damage so C&G being stationary would have had no inherent benefit whatsoever. It was completed in a numerical sense on the side fronts as NpO allies weren't in the best shape at that point, but peace hadn't been agreed to. Not really. Like I've said before, NPO not entering entirely was not seriously considered because it would have made zero sense for them not to and there was enough reason to believe they would. To be honest, a war against NPO on virtually any CB even if it was incredibly stretched would have been popular. So if there was an assurance that NPO would not enter, it would not make sense to pursue them when you'd get less flak for going after them on anything seemingly traditional. Let's say instead of NpO of getting attacked based on the Lennox thing, it was NPO or if a similar thing had happened after the Polar war was over. Few people would give a !@#$ because NPO is substantially less popular than Polar. I mean I don't think you seem to understand what kind of things you could go after NPO on, even 6 million dollars in aid would be enough. So NPO let's say NPO posts an announcement saying "we will not chain into anything," then there is no reason to hit them at that point because when NPO can get rolled on its own later on with less people caring because it wasn't tied to Polar, there would be no incentive too. In fact, I think if an actual out of the blue attack occurred on NPO, it would be substantially more popular than attacking Polar and then getting NPO or at the very least not elicit as many negative reactions due to the disparity in interest groups. [/quote] Seriously? Your argument is that the NpO front was under control and just a matter of working out the surrender terms and that's why you NEEDED to pre-empt an NPO entry? That's pretty funny, you deliberately escalated a war your side had already won just in case it might get escalated. You then go on to say that it would have been easier and better for you to hit NPO out of the blue than to tie it in any way to the NpO war, yet you chose to tie it to the NpO war. Do you always do the opposite of what your own reasonig tells you is the right move?

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1302207933' post='2686284'] Saying that such is a "FACT" does not by itself make it a fact. That said, it would have been very easy for TPF, Legion etc. to declare and for the NPO to ride in on an offensive aggression clause. This never figured into our decision. Also, thumbs down for the insult, as I believe it's the first that has passed between TOP and SNAFU during this war. [/quote] It is still a fact that if TPF or Legion activated a [b]defensive[/b] clause in [b]defense[/b] of NpO, the NPO could not legitimately go in on an [b]aggressive[/b] clause. However even if they did choose a creative interpretation of their treaties, the gentleman who stated that he watched Legion for days and their inaction caused them to determine that NPO was gearing up for war was who I was responding to. For reference: [quote name='mattski133' timestamp='1302037828' post='2684942'] I remember waiting for days for Legion to do something and yet they remained motionless. Everyone was watching them. I think both sides know at this point they should have been fully mobilized and ready to go if the war was one declaration away from happening.[/quote] So, if Legion stayed inactive, there's no way NPO could have gone in aggressively or defensively. I apologize for the insult, but it's not merely directed at TOP, but to all of the alliances that engage in pre-emptive attacks. I know our leadership has expressed positive feelings towards you folks, therefore please accept that it was intended to be personal but more an indication of my general feelings towards pre-emption no matter what side I'm on when it happens.

[quote name='mattski133' timestamp='1302141410' post='2685874'] And yet this NPO member says that if a legitimate point of entry had arisen, NPO would have entered (he didn't need to say it but I think he's been the first from NPO to discuss a stance at all in public)- http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=99990&st=3660&p=2684942&#entry2684942 Legion and TPF were bound by treaty to defend NpO and were not doing so. The three reasons for that; 1) cowardice 2) waiting for an opportune moment 3) at the request of a mutual ally. There's a fourth as well, which is they felt NpO was guilty. Yet those treaties stand so I ruled it out. I also ruled out 1 because TPF are not cowards, from my experience. That leaves 2 and 3 which I think are linked. I find it unlikely both TPF and Legion would ignore their treaties, and even more unlikely that NPO would ignore their treaties to them, unless that's what your suggesting. Since those treaties all still stand, it seems I am correct in that. If you want someone to blame, blame NPO for allying themselves directly to this side again. Life's not fair. Plenty of people get rolled for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The consequences are usually defeat or the humiliation of abandoning your allies. Both sides of the war know this now. [/quote] You can talk all you want about what you "find unlikely" but the FACT remains that until TPF or Legion actually engaged someone the NPO was not a threat. Hell, even those brain surgeons at TOP/IRON et al waited until C&G was only one attack away from entering before they pre-empted. The only people I blame are those who, even if every single one of your assertions are correct, attacked an alliance because of their "likely" involvement in a war that is now well over and are now demanding unreasonable surrender terms. If you really were concerned about your allies and portecting them from NPO's potential involvement your job is well and truly done. P.S. Sorry for the long delays between responses, I have limited internet in the evening.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1302126035' post='2685712'] Wow, it took you that long to notice my post? Do yourself a favor, go back read your post that I quoted, and what post you quoted, then go look up the Green Civil War. [/quote] Okay, I did. No where on the wiki for the Green Civil War is there mention of any alliance declaring on another because they "might" get involved in an on-going war. I did see an alliance and two predecessors of alliances on the Doomhouse side of this equation declare war on another for what is a total BS reason i.e. to control a color sphere. I literally did control+f to see if there was something I was missing. There is nothing that even begins with "pre" let alone prempt, there is nothing with "un" that resolved to un-involved. So, clearly you're not talking about my response to Roquetin <sp?> but to his statement. Fair enough, GGA, NPO, GOONS, FAN, MDC, \m/, and Genmay were bad people. They were then, and may be now, I don't know but I do know that if it was wrong then, it's just as wrong now and if you had a shred of honor you'd denounce BOTH actions and not just the one that damaged you.

[quote name='speakerwire' timestamp='1302122697' post='2685678'] No overarching bodies or organizations interrupted or attempted to halt the advance, the only advocates acting to benefit the NPO are NPO themselves. I see no furor, no protests. [/quote] So, because Almighty Admin or his holy Moderators did not step it, it must be okay? They are the only overarching bodies that I'm aware of. You see no furor or protests in this, an almost 200 page thread, or in the others that are rather lengthy as well? You guys aren't just talking to yourselves in these threads. You don't see the protests because you're blinded by your spin.

[quote name='speakerwire' timestamp='1302121708' post='2685663'] A sour grapes argument that simply boils down to 'I don't agree with the move that was made'. There is no question about the legality of the invasion, the effectiveness of the invasion - and once again, there is no reason to try to sell you on it is likely you will never accept any proposed reasoning, as is often the case with the defeated party. [/quote] I'm sorry but I made no subjective conclusion, that was your position. I will not question the effectiveness of the invasion as I'm nothing if not a realist, and the odds were stacked against the NPO from day one so there was little question of it accomplishing it's goal. As to the legality of anything, I believe you said: [quote]However, this is not a criminal court nor are the proceedings here akin to one.[/quote] So I don't know where your justification of "legality" comes from? Your attack was baseless according to the facts, and you've subsequently attempted to justify it. That is not agreeing or disagreeing with the move, it is the only conclusion that can be reached based on the facts.

[quote name='speakerwire' timestamp='1302120866' post='2685650'] Until proven otherwise, your claims that accusations are baseless, is itself baseless. [/quote] The only undeniable, categorical, proven fact is that the NPO, and indeed their treaty partners that were the only links to the NpO war were not involved. They did not mobilize their nations, they did not make even so much as a declaration of support let alone take an active role. THAT is proof whereas your arguements and accusations are built upon rumors, feelings and intuition. In other words, baseless.

[quote name='speakerwire' timestamp='1302119211' post='2685634'] NPO, obviously couldn't start an effective political discourse (Proof: War) -- nor could they act on one started by the other side (proof: Continued war). [/quote] Oh, damn you mean I'm fighting a war that NPO could have avoided if they'd just talked Doomhouse out of attacking before they knew they were going to? You are correct sir, that would have been the apex of political discourse. Oh, and they're inaction has kept me at war? Because they are the ones that are taking upwards of a week at a time between counter offers. Right.

[quote name='mattski133' timestamp='1302037828' post='2684942'] I remember waiting for days for Legion to do something and yet they remained motionless. Everyone was watching them. I think both sides know at this point they should have been fully mobilized and ready to go if the war was one declaration away from happening. It all goes back to WHEN the attack was going to happen, in the end. Doomhouse took the initiative, and ever since then detractors have been trying to spin it as a paranoid attack, with no reasoning behind it, while Doomhouse has adamantly defended it as an eventuality. I'm out. [/quote] You do realize that you just completely contradicted yourself don't you? You waited to see Legion do something. They did nothing. Therefore it was inevitable that NPO came in. So, what you're saying is that the only observable, concrete evidence, that you could produce for NPO's eventual involvement explicitly showed that their only one step chain into the conflict was NOT getting involved? And THAT is the reason you pre-empted? Doomhouse being adamant about something does not make Legion's inaction an indicator of NPO's liklihood of getting involved no matter how used to blindly following the party line you are.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1301617696' post='2681749'] As a matter of fact... [/quote] As a matter of fact what?

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1301615023' post='2681716'] At the same time, it would be incorrect to say there was no pressure on anyone at the time to participate in NPO's system. You can look at what was done to the few alliances that either didn't want to be a part of it or were excluded intentionally. [/quote] Did they get declared on pre-emptively because they would "probably" join a war they had no treaty obligations to join?