WarriorConcept

Great War III hands down.

Being betrayed by NPO and MCXA during UJW. Should have been better prepared for it, but relied on trust instead. That didn't work out.

[quote name='Comrade Goby' timestamp='1282001498' post='2418376'] Damn you Celestial Being! And how could you initiate me into an alliance I founded!!!!!!!!!!!! ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRR [/quote] Because I'm WarriorConcept

[quote name='Comrade Goby' timestamp='1282000600' post='2418357'] Why you gotta buzzkill brah? Also please get into my range so I can pay you back for that tech raid a few years ago [/quote] It was initiation, no refunds!

All GGA nations have been messaged with an offer to change their AA to Celestial Being Applicant. While we will not help in their current wars that occurred before the change we expect that no new wars will be launched on them once the change has occurred or they will be met with retaliation. Once the wars expire we will be giving them aid so they can get back on their feet and decide where to go from there.

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1281814381' post='2415917'] That's not really a fair thing to say. RoK was going to declare at the "normal time", but then NSO started going into peace mode so it had to be moved up a few hours. [/quote] I wasn't aware what else was needed to be said after Hoo said "aid the guy we're fighting and it's war" and NSO went ahead and did it anyway either.

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1281757050' post='2415315'] RoK waited 3 days to attack the nation, then attacked it 3 hours after it switched AA to NSO. It's almost like they were waiting for it. [/quote] Or until their protectorate asked for help?

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1281752918' post='2415257'] So being spied on is just a friendly prank, nothing aggressive deserving a military response? So what you say is only actually attacking a nation means committing an aggressive act? Then it's clear we currently have a rogue coalition, since no one doubts that RoK hit NSO before NSO had made any supportive move ingame at all. To me this seems like a clear cut event in trying to bully someone weaker: first the nation because TENE can do what it wants to him, he may not respond but if he does he has to pay reps. And RoK can attack any member of NSO - if they tell NSO before. When NSO does something on the nation level, they were the ones that actually provoked the incident. I admit I love this logic, somehow there NSO and the nation in question is always wrong, and RoK and Tene are nice guys interested in diplomatic solutions for problems. [/quote] You're trying to twist this a bit, but it is a better effort than anyone else I will admit. That does not change the fact at all that the rogue was at war with RoK's protectorate before he applied and joined NSO, and therefore should have to handle getting peace himself. NSO going in and aiding the guy whom they saw was clearly at war is the one thing that made this an alliance war when it didn't need to become one.

Glad to see this back. Za Sibir'!

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1281751597' post='2415226'] Since when is responding to aggressive acts roguery? Does this mean you consider the current coalition fighting NSO a bunch of rogues? Cause it's hard to say yes to one, and no to the other without leaving out logic in the argument. [/quote] You're getting your definition of rogue wrong here. The nation became a rogue when he started attacking RoK's protectorate and was not absolved of his crimes simply because he joined NSO without them properly checking why he had active wars. He remains a rogue until he accepts punishment for his actions and paying for reps. Just because NSO was too arrogant in trying to look like a tough guy in front of RoK and are getting beat down because of it is their own fault really.

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1281750018' post='2415189'] I got his posts turned off - after I read a thread with more than one of his post last year or so. Pretty funny when I am being asked everytime whether I want to read one of his posts That said, no, I am not reaching for straws. A CB "they aided our enemy" doesn't work when RoK declared on NSO by attacking the aided nation before it got aid. Numerous other CBs might work, this one draws it legitimacy from an act committed after the supposed reaction to act occured. Or ar you denying the correct timeline of events here? And when you accept a nation that went rogue against my alliance, I would come to you first ask why you did it, and then point out to you in detail what occured, expect and willingly provide proof for what happened, and then give you time to sort it out how you and your alliance's official stance is on the nation in question. And only then would I consider ingame action. And were I at any time during the process I just described have nations attack the nation we are negotiating about, I wouldn't just accept and understand you aiding that nation, I would even expect your alliance to consider this an act of aggression by mine. RoK attacked the nation in question while NSO attempted to solve it, aid only flowed then. So getting back to "they aided him" CB: How can it be the CB when aid flowed [u]after[/u] RoK had declared war on NSO already? [/quote] RoK was defending and helping its protectorate by attacking a nation that kept continuing its attacks. Honestly I would have informed NSO first before attacking him, but they have every legitimate reason to fight him and declare because as far as the standard of the world goes, nations should not be accepted while having active wars. The nation deserved to keep getting hit and aiding the nation was a terrible decision. Claiming RoK declared war by its attacking the rogue that was fighting RoK's protectorate is a terrible stretch, but I mean if that's what they believe...fair enough? Then they can both keep fighting it out till they're satisfied.

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1281750743' post='2415207'] I wonder why everytime this comes up, it is forgotten that RoK had just previously attacked a member of NSO. Sending aid was the most diplomatic response to just having been DoWed on by RoK. And saying that you are gonna do that doesn't in any way legitimize doing it, it just shows that diplomacy by this definition means "do what we want or you will get stomped in the ground - you have been informed, anything else is your fault". [/quote] Really? Attacking a rogue that was fighting their protectorate since before he got admitted into NSO is now a declaration of war? So I'll just accept the next guy who goes rogue on you and then I can claim a defensive war, right? Oh wait, I have to aid him first then I can say it's a defensive war!

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1281748689' post='2415157'] Oh, so telling an alliance before that you are declaring on them legitimizes attacking them? Boy, when we get that precedent settled, we might finally stop having to read those awful attempts at justifying wars beyond the real reasons for figthing them. CB: we told them we would attack them if they didn't change their flags to ours, when they didn't comply they declared war on us, clearly [/quote] Now you're just reaching for straws and you know it, please don't turn into a heroftime. I'm pretty sure you're sharper than him. You know that when Any alliance warns you that they're at war with a nation and the war screens prove it and the war screens proved it before he joined your alliance then you should obviously let them continue with their fight or at the very least not aid the nation and by virtue of doing so declaring an act of war on RoK. Oh or should I just accept any nation that goes rogue on your alliance then aid them? That wouldn't be an act of war by your standards, right?

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281748667' post='2415156'] You really haven't been paying attention have you? Hoo said so isn't the argument. The argument is that sending aid to somebody at war is an act of war. The fact that Hoo explicitly warned them about something that should have been common sense anyway before the aid was sent just proves that NSO sent the aid fully informed of what the consequences would be. [/quote] Now you see why he's on my ignore list. He never has a decent argument. Ever.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281747044' post='2415129'] What if it was a government sanctioned spy attack? Then wouldn't it be so by the same logic that Heft's action is viewed as that of the NSO? From what I heard, it was, but I am uncertain on that point. [/quote] Now, I normally have you on ignore but I got the notification that you quoted me so I'll respond. If it was a government sanctioned spy attack by RoK's protectorate on the guy, then why the hell would NSO then proceed to accept him? That one post alone just reminded me why you're on my ignore list here, you're still a blabbering buffoon.

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1281747374' post='2415133'] You guys do realize that the only reason the "ulterior motives" talk came up was because the professed motives ("You sent 6M! Oh No! WAR NOW!") don't make any sense, right? It is of course possible that the "act of war" silliness wasn't given much heed because RoK had just knowingly and apparently deliberately committed an act of war against us thirty minutes earlier. The aid wasn't the right response, but, well, bad diplomacy does tend to beget bad diplomacy. [/quote] How does the motive not make any sense? The fact that you aided a nation at war with RoK's protectorate? In any situation at all, after being forewarned, that is an act of war.

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1281747054' post='2415131'] Well, they only did that after RoK attacked the nation without having talked that over (and saying that you are gonna do what you want isn't talking) with NSO, ie when RoK declared war on NSO. Indeed a small fact, but I think it should be added when mentioning this specific incident. [/quote] Yes they only aided him after being specifically told that aiding the nation RoK's protectorate was fighting would be an act of war. Really good choice, right?

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1281746136' post='2415104'] Well, RoK attacked an alliance of more than 100 members because of one 4k NS nation, so attacking a couple nations for spying seems more reasonable, but is definitely in line with the CB from RoK. Generally, the conflict though seems so petty that it still amazes me that someone actually managed to construct a war out of this. [/quote] It's almost as if they shouldn't have aided a nation that was at war with the protectorate of RoK, right?

[quote name='Corinan' timestamp='1281745722' post='2415096'] That or we're not the types to whine like babies about our predicament like most alliances would do. Like yours will one day. [/quote] Actually the attempts at spin do seem like whining, but I'm sure you yourself are enjoying the fight anyway.

Yeah, him attacking nations that did not spy on him surely makes it a defensive war.

[quote name='Wad of Lint' timestamp='1281743417' post='2415045'] You still don't get it. Diplomacy should have occurred BEFORE RoK declared on the rogue. Not after. This is long before the aid was sent. Do you understand our grievance now? Im not saying you have to agree with it, but at least attempt to understand what the hell you're arguing about. [/quote] You mean when RoK came to you after a rogue that was attacking their protectorate went and decided to join your alliance? And when they told you it's a rogue and you could verify such nation was at war with their protectorate? And that any attempt to aid said rogue whom they themselves and their protectorate were fighting and going to fight till he paid reps would be deemed an act of war? Trying to play the victim in this instance is laughable.

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281743459' post='2415046'] Weren't you in NSO before? Don't you know about our policy? Did you support it then? Or did you somewhere take a 360 and winded up on your side. We might not have always been accepting nations at war, but in this instance, he was fighting a defensive war in our point of view. And I wasn't suggesting that RoK give up it's attacks but rather provide us with better evidence as to why he was being considered a rogue. I realize RoK doesn't care about whether or not we treat him as a rogue, but the second he joined our alliance, it became important. And hey, you notice how I've stated multiple times that I don't really believe it and I'm not going to argue for someone else's opinions? I understand that desensitized feelings were offended when I said that I didn't care, but you're taking this a bit far here. Go on. Keep trying to argue with me. [/quote] NSO was accepting nations that were on a ZI list in the past, but those nations had to obtain peace first before they were afforded any protection from NSO back then. But you should know about that, right? The second he joined your alliance, he was still a rogue to them and as such in any case like that the new alliance should have said "alright sorry about that, we'll wait till you guys sort it out" instead of "hey let's aid him so we can get war declared on us!" Oh trust me, it's amusing myself and many others seeing NSO try to give diplomacy lessons. [quote name='Rayvon' timestamp='1281743845' post='2415055'] Every single one of those is from the 8th. You wouldn't have had to read too far. Keep reading. [/quote] Oh you mean from the first day this whole thing started? The first day I started reading them considering my ally was one of the ones involved in the war? Good argument.

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281742635' post='2415025'] What trouble? The first move was theirs. They attacked someone in our membership after we asked them not to. Good diplomacy would merit them not to. There would have been plenty of other methods of getting to attack him; one including providing us the necessary evidence to kick him out of our alliance. Do you see what I mean here? I don't really like arguing for other people or arguing for stuff that I don't believe in, but there's certainly more suspicion on this theory than the other NPO theory. Keep going. It's funny, because I did say that I don't really believe it because of a lack of evidence. You see, I work within realm of reason and logic; which requires evidence to be had. I know you and your kind don't work in that realm because you like to talk out of your $@! and not really do your research. As for your point on "lies and misconception", you clearly had no clue what I was talking about there which is why you brought up this specific petty argument. [/quote] You guys don't know what good diplomacy is at all if that's what you think. Good diplomacy first of all, or rather common sense, would be not to accept a nation who's already at war and admitted to most likely going to be attacked in the near future. Then good diplomacy would be not to spit in an alliance's face when they say they're not going to give up their attacks on that nation just because he joined you until he pays the reps he owes. Honestly all of this is very basic stuff and the fact that you guys couldn't even handle it and still complain and blame it on your conspiracy theories is hilarious and pitiful. I thought you guys had more self-respect than that. Hey did you notice how several people were just laughing at you for honestly believing that all of this was RoK's plan from the very beginning instead of just admitting you guys $%&@ed up on trying to call a bluff and got smacked in the face for it? There's a reason for that, and it's because your "logic" or whatever you think you have is utterly bogus and reeks of delusion and paranoia.

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1281741955' post='2415004'] Out of mere curiosity, was it NSO that ended diplomacy when they aided one of their members under attack, or did RoK end it before when they attacked said member in the first place? Isn't, at least most of the time, attacking a member of another alliance without getting consent from that alliance, a simple act of aggression? And I mean a direct one, not in the line of "our protectorate was really stupid to someone, he was stupid back, and now we are at war with you unless you back off". [/quote] An act of aggression would be acting a nation who is at war with an alliance then aiding said nation after being warned not to by the alliance's protector under threat of war. At that point it seems like NSO doesn't care what RoK said or thought, thus ending any chance of diplomacy prior to war.

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281741792' post='2415001'] Perhaps "the fact" was the wrong term. "Supposition" or "theory" would be better on my part because I don't really believe it. You should probably ask Dopp or Heft what they had in mind because I don't share their beliefs. We're not a hivemind. Although it's certainly more reasonable than the NPO scenario. For example, why the hell did RoK attack our nation flying under our banner when we specifically told that we would be protecting him? Sounds like escalation to me. But that's besides the point. I love it how you just jump on this one particular section of my post. Shows that I'm right. [/quote] You're saying that [quote]they hired a nation to attack their protectorate then told him to join your alliance? Then told your alliance to waive your own admissions process and accept someone at war? Then after telling your alliance not to aid him or war would start, he somehow manipulated you into thinking that they were bluffing and made you guys send aid anyway?[/quote] is more likely than the NPO scenario? That they went to all this trouble to bait you to war then gave you an easy out by warning you that aiding them will be an act of war? Oh I don't know...maybe they attacked him because he was at war with their protectorate prior to joining NSO and never worked out peace so there's no reason to stop attacking him? You really are on something here, especially if you believe you're making a good point. Go on though, like I keep mentioning it's amusing to the rest of us how you're still grasping for some...how should we phrase it..."lies and misconceptions".