Reason

Find it difficult to name this war Second Unjust War because it has no link to the original in my mind beyond \m/ and Polaris. Cluster#$%# seems much more colloquial and apt.

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='04 March 2010 - 12:12 AM' timestamp='1267679740' post='2213415'] So how do you handle members of your alliance that cause internal drama? Does the challenge system help avoid internal drama at all? [/quote] From my point of view the answer is not really. This is because those people who are loose cannons can always challenge their superiors for their positions (with a few limits) if they feel they are capable of doing their job better.

[quote name='pezstar' date='03 March 2010 - 12:09 AM' timestamp='1267593156' post='2212306'] The Minnesota area. [/quote] Mind my terrible pun if I say this is a pretty sweet deal. *Ques drumset

Where on STA's border should I sneak in to smuggl- I mean, to illegally trad- I mean, TO NOT bring twinkies in any way, shape, or form?

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='02 March 2010 - 09:41 PM' timestamp='1267584312' post='2212137'] Couldn't you have just done a re-vote? And were it not for the nuclear waste in the air of my nation, our environment would be impeccable. We have no garbage to save: Alzadar recycles. [/quote] He made a promise and he failed. The only way to keep his word was to step down. No re-vote, even if we had done it, would validate breaking one's word. I know, on cybernations, this type of thing doesn't mean very much but I personally thought it was very honourable for him. On top of that, he probably saved the alliance he cared about from much worse consequences. Of course, he's a self-styled prick, so I won't go further on that point . Well then keep your recycles out, good sir, we have no place for hippies in our dark Sith Empire.

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='02 March 2010 - 09:31 PM' timestamp='1267583676' post='2212123'] Perhaps a loose definition of "we", but he [i]is[/i] government. I'm a little confused regarding "The promise was the will of his alliance". You people actually wanted your leader to back himself into a corner? [/quote] I am also government, but the statements by our leadership made it clear we had lost (as if it weren't obvious enough?). Personal opinions do not make the alliance's statements false. I pray that we never resort to judging alliances by the opinions of each member, but to each his own I suppose. I don't think you understand what I mean by the 'will of the alliance' implies. We voted not to surrender. Ivan said he'd fulfill that vote or he'd step down. We did not vote on the issue of 'how to force Ivan to resign' and I find it an insult on the part of our membership to say so. Please save your garbage for another alliance.

[quote name='Obiwan' date='02 March 2010 - 07:53 PM' timestamp='1267577791' post='2211970'] Semantics, foolish. Making the promise, foolish. Still violating the heart of that promise, a stain on your "snow white" character. "No surrender" leaves you with only two options, white peace or victory. Neither was achieved. No matter how you spin it. [/quote] There were no semantics. He said he would find white peace or step down. He failed to find white peace; he stepped down. The promise was the will of his alliance and it was completely reasonable and honourable. He never violated his promise, but he kept it by stepping down. We surrendered. Spinning it? Please show me where we claimed we have not lost the war. Now will you please stop jeering us from the peanut gallery, young Jedi? Failure, though obviously one of your strong suits, is not something useful when attempting to make an argument.

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' date='01 March 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1267486922' post='2210428'] People blame Sparta for taking reps on TOOL, when they declared on Sparta and lost, they weren't significant reps if other alliances involved hadn't taken reps as well and Sparta can't control other sovereign alliances, so take it up with the other alliances. People blame Sparta for not even having taken reps yet from TOP/IRON, why don't you wait to see what happens before condemning them? [/quote] I think taking reparations from TOOL was fine but to ask them from TOP/IRON would not be. I know, obviously, terms have not been finalised yet, but the fact that it was on the table suggested to me that the government in Sparta must have approved it. Still, I suppose we'll have to wait and see before making judgement as you said.

I would argue only the alliance that is attacked deserves reparations for their damages because they are the only ones who did not choose explicitly to engage in the conflict, thus their damages were unwanted. Sparta entered the war knowing it would expect damages for its actions and I would hold them morally responsible for those damages but I would not hold CnG responsible. Therefore, while I concur CnG should get reparations for their damages, I cannot say the same for Sparta.

[quote name='Shinpah' date='01 March 2010 - 04:07 PM' timestamp='1267477836' post='2210235'] What an idiotic line; Sparta jumps in the war defending us and Athens against IRON and TOP, and when they're attacked and subsequently win against the people attacking them they've no right to reparations from the damage? [/quote] I am pretty sure he means Sparta demanding reparations from IRON and TOP: wars Sparta started against them. For more information, please see this: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=196&showentry=1401 [quote] 3. TOP shall pay the following reparations: 25K tech to Sparta. 4. IRON shall pay the following reparations: 15K tech to Sparta. [/quote] It is true that Sparta has the right to impose terms as they see reasonable and TOP and IRON can refuse if they wish but his point, or so I insinuate, is that the aggressor in a war should not demand reparations of the defeated.

[quote name='Ying Yang Mafia' date='01 March 2010 - 01:42 PM' timestamp='1267469169' post='2210065'] If I am ever to be on the losing side, I will pay whatever reps are required of me. [/quote] There's no need for the empty posturing - you've already won. I will see how you and all the others act if the situation reverses and they are asked a large amount of reparations and make a judgement accordingly.

[quote name='Olaf Styke' date='01 March 2010 - 02:32 AM' timestamp='1267428934' post='2209710'] Here is the kicker: the onus is on the person MAKING the argument to prove it correct, not on the accused to prove it false. They didn't bother. Neither will I. By your logic, I think our arguments, mutually lacking proof, are equally valid and therefore this argument is null unless either one of us bothers to provide proof (though in reality, their failure to support their argument means it ceases to have any value whatsoever and I effectively win). I have no intention of doing so, seeing as the argument is null as is. [/quote] There, you answered my question after two pages of us throwing crap at one-another (no, really, I actually appreciate it). Now, I understand your point that you feel the onus lay on the OP to prove his point and I do not disagree, however, I also believe there is an onus on you to prove your point because I lack the information to make a full decision to believe you or not. I understand the OP's method was bad and he did not state his case well - thus I do not believe him - but I was wondering if you could show why you are correct so I will be inclined to believe you. Thank you.

[quote name='Olaf Styke' date='01 March 2010 - 02:15 AM' timestamp='1267427919' post='2209690'] Because I already answered it. Just because you made an accusation doesn't mean it's valid, we don't assume an argument is true if it has no proof. They've not provided sufficient proof, therefore I needn't provide any to refute it. I'm going to accuse you of being Almighty Grub because you play Cybernations, now go spend the next 20 minutes trying to prove to me you're not, and stop wasting my time. I'm going to ignore you now. [/quote] That is true, an accusation is not automatically valid because it is made. However, it is not false simply because it is made either. I told you that you provided no proof to show the claim is false. Therefore, I stated that I would like you to disprove the OP's accusation. I don't understand why you're playing semantics other than it seems like you're just trying to avoid my question which you still have not answered. @wilhelm: thank you. I will look it up. @wolfbain: that was the first decent rebuttal I've seen this entire thread. Thank you for at least arguing against the OP logically and not on fallacies.

[quote name='wilhelm the demented' date='01 March 2010 - 01:59 AM' timestamp='1267426959' post='2209671'] What's so simple is that those two things can speak for themselves. No one needs to tell you what we are doing, we don't need to defend our image because there is nothing to be ashamed of. As far as I'm concerned, everyone is capable of making an informed decision, (despite many examples to the contrary) all you have to do is be able to tell the difference between information and dribble. [/quote] That's great, but I am not a person who is in a position and knows enough about Sparta to know this automatically. I told Olaf that, as an outside observer, I wish he had responded to the OP's arguments so I could see he is right or wrong. Can you please show the evidence or the logic behind why they 'speak for themselves' or provide me somewhere to find it for myself. All I have wanted is to make a fair decision with relevant information but other members of your alliance in this thread have not bothered to even give me a shred of respect in attempting to ask for some.

[quote name='Olaf Styke' date='01 March 2010 - 02:01 AM' timestamp='1267427103' post='2209678'] So you told us that proving the conclusion was true would make the conclusion true... [/quote] Yes, I said that to prove you are right [b]you must prove it[/b] and you have failed to do so because you made no logical argument against the OP's implications. I am asking you to prove that Sparta's military record is not as poor as the OP suggests and that Sparta's foreign affairs have been honourable and not simply for the expedience of the moment. Why are you purposely avoiding this question?

[quote name='Olaf Styke' date='01 March 2010 - 01:50 AM' timestamp='1267426412' post='2209658'] Why aren't you demanding that our detractors PROVE that we're wrong? Funny, you seemed so dedicated to wasting my time in the other thread to prove that we're not all those terrible things we were called, and yet in this thread you seem content to dismiss it as 'obviously wrong'. Congrats mate, you're hypocrite of the day. [/quote] I will start by saying I am not saying the thread is useless because I think Sparta is a bad alliance or its conduct is. I am saying the thread itself, in this form, has no purpose or usefulness. Still, I don't see this thread as related to the other, but since you have brought it up, I will prove this thread is useless and thus respond to your point. The usefulness of information is a factor of many things but, primarily, of the level of understanding it brings to a situation or a new method of analysis or perspective. The best threads are ones which contain vital information and thoughts with expert insight, hoping to uncover to share something important to the reader. The reader comes into the thread expecting, I should hope, something useful to make their time in a thread worth while. Yet what precisely was this thread? It was simply some Sparta member, upset from another thread which, I agree, was done in poor taste, filling up space on the OWF by: 1) not providing any new or important information relevant to the audience; 2) not providing any interesting analysis of the information. In fact, all this post did was show the OP's love for an alliance and that would not have been so useless at least if the OP had explained why this is so and showed us reasons to like Sparta. Instead, all we are left with is a thread that leaves you wondering why you read it in the first place. Therefore, I would deem this thread useless, contrary to the OP's interpretations. There, I have proven my argument logically against the OP. I still wish you'd bother to do the same.

[quote name='Olaf Styke' date='01 March 2010 - 01:40 AM' timestamp='1267425857' post='2209639'] Edit: by the way, nice circular argument there; how do we prove it false? by proving it false! Genius. [/quote] It's not circular logic. You never proved them false. I am insisting you prove them false to prove that they are. I thought this was obvious but apparently it is not to you.

[quote name='Olaf Styke' date='01 March 2010 - 01:40 AM' timestamp='1267425857' post='2209639'] Ok, that was a good first try, but next time read ALL of what I said before posting. [/quote] You still haven't responded to my point. That's two posts now and you've avoided it. All you have stated is that you don't consider this thread dignified enough to give a serious response to. I said that this attitude cause Sparta to look bad by failing to disprove the reasoning of the OP because it is a falsifiable question. I said Sparta should prove them false and thus they would be wrong. I am able to read and understand what you have posted, but I am not quite sure if the reverse is true.

[quote name='Aurion' date='01 March 2010 - 01:39 AM' timestamp='1267425795' post='2209636'] And yet you were compelled to take the time to respond. Funny that. [/quote] Yes, I was hoping to convey to the original posters how terrible of a thread it was. Thanks for pointing it out.

[quote name='Olaf Styke' date='01 March 2010 - 01:35 AM' timestamp='1267425552' post='2209629'] How can we be expected to argue something so blatantly and ridiculously false? [/quote] Actually, it's quite simple. You disprove their accusations of your military ineptness and your flip-flopping foreign affairs. I am pretty sure that would prove them wrong but I don't see you bothering.

Let's not clutter the boards with useless threads. PS - I want the 20 seconds of life back for reading this $%$@. Thanks.

[quote name='Olaf Styke' date='01 March 2010 - 01:17 AM' timestamp='1267424472' post='2209596'] I would like to think that THIS thread was well reasoned and mature, but that would make me a retard. [/quote] As an outside observer, I'd just like to say that the response from Sparta in this thread has been pretty poor. You never really made a direct argument against the OP's points but simply dismissed them as obviously false. I am not saying that they are correct or incorrect, the accusations, but I would like to point out that it makes it seem like you guys have no real defense or counter-argument. Maybe you should focus on dismissing the military statistics and foreign affairs record they accuse Sparta of and not any ad hominem avenue of attack you find in the posters.

[quote name='Krack' date='28 February 2010 - 01:55 AM' timestamp='1267340358' post='2207852'] He's trying to make it sound like FARK forced him to resign or his alliance could not get peace. Everyone with a halfway functioning brain realizes he promised something he couldn't deliver and it's his own fault he felt the need to resign. We're just pointing it out over and over again because your side has adopted the tactic of "if we repeat this ridiculous notion again and again, hopefully people will start believing it" - we call this the "Bob Janova style" of propaganda distribution, and the easiest way to shut it down is to counter the ridiculous statements every time they are made. [/quote] He's not trying to make it sound like anything; you are blowing it up into a huge issue and I am saying it is not. He said he would step down if he could not get white peace. He did not get white peace; he stepped down. All he stated in the logs were that Fark knowingly put him into a position where, to hold his word, he would have to resign his position. He never blamed Fark and he stated he was fully aware of the consequences of his promise and his decision to follow through. You complain that he is playing technicalities and word games but it is you who are insinuating exactly such arguments when they never even existed in the first place. You're really just making this too hard. As hard it is for you to take a person at the face value of their words, I can see that it is even harder for you to bother providing justification for your argument except that "any person with a half-functioning brain ought to believe my position!!!" Good news is I have a full one and it tells me you're wrong.

[quote name='Jyrinx' date='27 February 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1267331963' post='2207520'] My point was that you did break your promise, just not in the absurdly technical sense. You didn't literally break it, but you're just playing with semantics and technicalities at that point. I presumed that the entire point of you saying NSO won't surrender as long as you're Emperor was to take a stance that your actions won't lead to NSO surrendering. It makes this entire thing look less like keeping your promise and more like finding a loophole to let NSO surrender while also claiming to keep your promise in the shallow technical sense. [/quote] It is quite unfortunate for you that words have precise meanings. While I do not know how on Earth you could misconstrue the sentence, 'I will not surrender so long as I am Emperor of NSO,' apparently you were able to. My congratulations. For the record, his promise was that he would find white peace or he would step down as Emperor for the good of the alliance. Where 'loopholes' and 'technicalities' come in is a complete mystery to me, but if you want to keep on trolling Moldavi for no reason, I can't make it any worse than you do for yourself. I thought you would at least show some respect for taking a noble action but I don't think honour and dignity have mattered much in cybernations for a long time, if ever.

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='26 February 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1267211198' post='2205171'] When the $%&@ was this? [/quote] Give this man a medal. He's right.