neneko

I know the cool thing to do here is to bash SF but honestly I'd be more surprised if this treaty wasn't cancelled. The Brain certainly did not act as a friend to CSN this war.

[quote name='Sulmar' timestamp='1299612292' post='2656888'] I hear that that quote happened after CD got peace. [/quote] The words to focus on here is "Since then" and "acts of war". Reading is hard.

LittleReine proves once again that if you're a micro you can get away with being terrible.

I'll just leave this here. [quote name='Heft' timestamp='1298508259' post='2643268'] We declared war on GOONS awhile back. Since then, both MK and Umbrella have committed various acts of war against us up to and including actually attacking our nations. [/quote]

[quote name='The Last Imperial' timestamp='1299575444' post='2656558'] umm did you forget that Umbrella broke terms as well by attacking NSO nations well knowing that we are allied to them by the Terra-Cotta Pact [/quote] I don't wanna interrupt your rant now that you came all the way out of your cave but what terms did umbrella break exactly?

Haha this is rich. Hoh and Shatt threatening micros when they can't touch the protector. High morals only when convenient. Not that I expect anything less from that dynamic duo.

Good show. [i]Get it? Get it?[/i]

After 5 pages I'm guessing my question is burried under too much rubble for anyone to find so I'll reiterate. What did the NSO recognition of hostilities thread actually mean? If MK truly did not start a war with NSO when they launched attacks against them (which I think is silly but has actually been claimed) then is the recognition of hostilities a DoW on MK in response to those attacks? If it is the exception in the peace terms certainly does not cover it. NSO declaring war on others does not give CD the right to enter according to the peace terms they signed. The other explanation would be that the recognition of hostilities was just that, a recognition of the war already started by MK. Now this explanation makes a lot more sense since NSO makes sure to mention very clearly that they fight a defensive war. The problem with this explanation is that if MK started the war, the war started when MK launched their attacks which was quite a while before the CD surrender. Most arguments here try to put the truth somewhere between these two and claim that MK started the war but NSO did the DoW. That doesn't make a lot of sense. If MK started the war by launching attacks against NSO then those attacks started the war, if NSO started the war CD broke their surrender terms since nobody did a "DoW or equivalent" against NSO. Now I think that the "or equivalent" in the terms quite obviously includes launching attacks against an alliance but common sense apparently have no place here.

I was wondering who the mystery ally would be. I'd rate my surprise to a 4 of 10.

Now there's one little thing that keep bugging me about this explanation from NSO and CD. What does the recognition of war that NSO posted actually mean? What I assumed it meant was that they recognize the wars launched by MK as acts of war. This explanation makes a lot of sense since NSO make sure to clearly state that they're fighting a defensive war with MK. The fact that MK started the war against NSO means the war started when MK started launching attacks though which was quite some time before the CD surrender. The other explanation to what it could mean and the only explanation I can find that would place the start of the MK-NSO war at the same time as the recognition of hostilities is that NSO declared war on MK in response to the attacks. Of course this makes no sense since NSO claimed to be fighting a defensive war. The exception in the CD surrender terms doesn't list anyone making a DoW against someone else though so this explanation doesn't help CD out either. Now can someone help me see what I'm missing here. Did MK start the war against NSO and if so when did we start it? I don't really think a announcement made by NSO is a fair way to decide when WE started a war if that was indeed what we did. I see the explanations going all sorts of ways here so I'm not really sure about anything anymore. [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1299505063' post='2655404'] I'd like to see evidence of that. [/quote] Beyond the complaints in the DoW thread from you on GOONS I don't have access to any private logs. You'll have to ask the gov in question for those. edit: from your edit it looks like someone filled you in on it. Good thing for you it didn't actually matter what our gov said.

[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1299504620' post='2655398'] We contacted you about it 2 days before we posted the recognition of hostilities, still well after the signing of the terms. [/quote] Actually we were contacted the same day you declared war on GOONS. When one lie fails go for the next one.

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1299501465' post='2655358'] Nobody ever suggested that. There were assorted individual actions and acts of war prior to the terms being signed, but the NSO did not consider itself to be in a state of war until we made our announcement, which was in response to actions which occurred subsequent to the CD surrender. At no point prior to our announcement did MK ever indicate a belief that they were in a state of war with the NSO, and in fact seemed to indicate the opposite. What you are claiming now would run directly counter to that. [/quote] That's an outright lie. You contacted MK regarding the attacks and we told you that they were due to your attacks on our bloc. Just a simple question here. Let me quote a part of the surrender terms CD signed first. [quote]The parties of ... CD, ... agree to not re-enter on any point in the current conflict surrounding NpO or NPO. These parties may defend against an alliance who DoWs (or equivalent) against their treatied allies after these terms are posted.[/quote] Do you think that launching wars without a official DoW would go under "or equivalent" here? [quote name='Heft' timestamp='1299502743' post='2655370'] This is also correct. It is clear by now that certain elements of Doomhouse are willing to grab on to anything they can in order to justify exacting harsher terms than would otherwise be warranted, and this is just the latest evidence of this increasingly common trend. [/quote] Now while I am flattered that you find me important enough to refer to as "certain elements of Doomhouse" I can assure you that I don't have that much pull in DH. I am literally the only person that have said that I want CD to pay out their ass for this. [quote name='AngelOfLight' timestamp='1299501978' post='2655363'] What I see happening here is that most of the guys from MK just rage and spew venom without making any effort to justify why the feel we broke the terms. That apart, these surrender terms DID NOT INVOLVE MK, so MK cannot claim to hold CD responsible for violating these terms. These terms were signed in conjunction with MHA and others, and thereforei t is only THEY who can concur or differ on whether or not it constitutes a breach of terms. If I have an agreement with a firend tomorrow and another third person comes along and threatens dire consequences saying I broke the agreement, then he's not justified in making that decision. As long as the two original partners in the agreement have not mutually agreed that there has been a breach, the third party is not part of the agreement at all. If MK seriously wants to resolve this dispute through dialogue instead of threatening consequences without attempting to sit and talk like mature adults (or mature children in the case of some), then initiate a diplomatic dialogue involving MHA and CD and discuss this in a civil manner. It takes little to pull a trigger to fire a gun. It takes a lot of maturity and sense to talk open mindedly and hold back on the trigger until diplomacy has taken it's full course. If MK just pounds its fists and rants and raves, they will be looked upon as the NPO of 2011, regardless of how well they win. MHA is way stronger thank MK, but their alliance members are still so polite and civil to talk to. They gain respect, even from their enemies, because their behaviour is admirable and their gaming spirit is something we can all learn to respect. They don't rant, rave and threaten dire consequencies. They're the single-most powerful alliance in the game and yet remain polite and courteous, which is more than what I can see happening in this thread with the MK members. Remember, this is a game, and to be so angry and vengeful over a simple browser-based game shows that you take this way too seriously. If you seriously want CD to believe they have broken the terms, then initiate a discussion between MHA and CD and talk things through. You can't convince someone they're wrong by putting a gun to their heads. You need to have patience and maturity to debate your point of view in a diplomatic and civil fashion. DISCLAIMER: These are my personal views and do not represent the views of any alliance, including my own. [/quote] You realize that you're making this post in your own DoW thread right? You made your choice by attacking us and the next chance for diplomacy will be during the peace negotiations. Were MHA really the first alliance that came to mind when thinking of people that embodies all the admirable traits and great spirit we should all strive to achieve? Are you perhaps sucking up a bit in hope that they won't punish you for breaking the terms? That makes two of us. I want you all to myself pretty pony.

While point two is technically true you can apply that to any term. You can't force anyone to pay you reps either but if the alternative to paying is worse they might do it anyway, same deal with disbandment. We could argue that nobody is ever forced by anyone to do anything which is actually a line that npo argued back in their glory days to claim that they never forced anyone to pay them anything. I don't really think it holds up though.

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1299498784' post='2655326'] I'm interested to know how our argument is somehow more convoluted than the argument that "These parties may defend against an alliance who DoWs (or equivalent) against their treatied allies after these terms are posted" doesn't explicitly and obviously allow CD to hit MK (or Umbrella, if they so choose). [/quote] I'd say that's mainly due to the fact that we hit NSO prior to those terms being signed thus making this a very clear breach of the surrender terms. Now don't get me wrong I'm just arguing this because I can't resist an argument that's easy to win not to make the people that signed those surrender terms help us with CD. While I can't speak for MK for obvious reasons I'd prefer if nobody not already in this front had to have a say when we decide what CD will pay us for doing this. Delicious blood tech. Who can resist it?

Finally someone gives us a good reason to extort some tech out of them after they're dust. I do like me some blood tech.

[quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1299479229' post='2655130'] and slander NPO's rep on the owf. [/quote] I'm going with this for the official reason for our attack on NPO.

[quote name='Andre27' timestamp='1299335522' post='2653485'] So you got lucky. Let's see if that luck continues. As for comment, i make mine towards a person and not an alliance. The comment in question was aimed at someone talking tough while in PM [/quote] I don't see how luck plays into it. Unless you guys flipped a coin to decide if you'd put half the alliance in peacemode or not. I think I'd rather be 'unlucky' in this case though. Lets all hope my luck doesn't last long.

[quote name='Andre27' timestamp='1299328552' post='2653441'] Funny to hear such comments from someone in peace mode [/quote] First of all turn on your sarcasm detector. Second, you're probably in the wrong alliance to make peacemode jokes. I had two targets in my range not in peacemode and from the looks of the battle so far and the fact that they're in defcon 5 I'd say that's due to inactivity.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1299314291' post='2653364'] All the quicker Duckroll can move towards forgetting about how they let their multiple allies (plus one bloc-mate) burn in this war. But I suspect you won't forget for too long, when Doomhouse decides to go for you without a CB and there is nobody left alive to help you out. I'll be waiting with a nice fat "Told ya so" when that day comes. [/quote] Yupp duckroll is next. The latest TOP/IRON announcement was just a ruse to cover the fact that TOP is already on board with these plans and will in fact be the first ones to attack with the cb that IRON was hogging too many of the citrus exchange slots.

Since this protectorate thing is aimed at small nations that might not be used to how things work on bob some explanation of what the slots will be used for might be good in order to attract more nations. As of now it might sound to new nation as if they'll outright pay for protection while in reality I assume those slots would be used for standard tech deals or something similar. [quote name='TBRaiders' timestamp='1299309054' post='2653284'] TOP and MK are joining Duckroll as soon as this little war is over. [/quote] Not funny >:|

This better not be the big secret that would turn the tide of war.

[quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1299178652' post='2651318'] No, it's definiatly GOONs [/quote] Spelling is clearly your forte. Either that or wit. It's so hard to choose.

[quote name='ShotgunWilly' timestamp='1299217508' post='2652096'] I'll give you guys that there's no violation when you take the literal meaning of the document. It's still a violation of the spirit of the surrender and a loophole, by definition no less. [/quote] [quote name='Ragashingo' timestamp='1299217130' post='2652070'] They got in by exploiting a loophole and violating the treaty to their withdraw? Classy x2. [/quote] [quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1299216831' post='2652051'] Damn it.. It screams loophole or in this case, "we can still hit NPO"... [/quote] There's quite a few more quotes I could throw in here from both sides. This isn't even close to a loophole. NoR signed this with 'the other side'. The document clearly says that they can't enter in defense of NPO and I don't think the spirit of the document means anything other than just that. If NoR entered in defense of NPO but declared on an alliance not directly engaged with NPO I'd say it was a loophole but in this case there's no reason for wF to make them sign anything that doesn't allow them to hit NPO or its allies.

[quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1299123522' post='2650601'] You really need peace that badly that you accept terms that include paying the enemy? You should be ashamed. [/quote] Does this mean you will stop whining about the largest reps in history™?

[quote name='erikz' timestamp='1299095671' post='2649833'] That would be a waste of slots. I'm offering direct payment, and 3mil per 50 tech for a 200 total through KoH. [/quote] It was my impression that the issue was that KoH had very few nation capable of paying the reps so funneling through low tier nations wouldn't waste slots on their end. If you don't want to funnel the money I guess you're safe from having to follow up on that promise at least since it says in the terms that the reps need to come from KoH nations.