Veneke

Mechanus - The term Penedono offered us was to admit to something we did not do. I did not do, if you'd prefer. For the record, the quote you have there is from the peace talks. As I suggested above, read the entirety of them. Context is after all as important as content. Ooooh, character assassination... always fun to see those. I notice that you conveniently forget to mention that those conversations with various people in the 57th regarding all of that was because I found a bunch of them trying to set up a spy ring and we, well I, went to end it. It's this context business again that you're forgetting. I figured that the BC war was going to come up. The situation is drastically different. In the BC case, we had a .gov member leave Browncoats, come to us with screenshots that BC were planning to attack us, and we acted on it. What we have here, is an [b]ally[/b] receive a screenshot that makes no sense, from a non .gov member (conveniently anonymously too) that doesn't even stand up to said ally's scrutiny. You can try spinning it all you want, but the two situations are vastly different. A grudge? Mate, that makes no sense at all. I'll leave you to your delusions though. How about you look at the image itself? There are clear inconsistencies that you don't need any skills in photoshopping to see. As for GLOF not believing that the screenshot that I supplied was genuine, don't you consider it a tad odd that they broke a treaty and attacked us in this manner? It seems a massive overreaction, and considering the peace talks, and the fact that there are disgruntled ex-members of the 57th in GLOF, and well... might get a bloke thinking, wouldn't it? Your last paragraph is an attempt at casting your own self as the victim, and I'm calling hypocrite on it. That said, it is utterly fitting. Carry on.

[center][IMG]http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll214/Veneke1/57thFlagbkp4-acopy-1.png[/IMG][/center] [center][i]Official 57th reply to GLOF.[/i][/center] Good evening. This entire war (much like every war since the new year) is more than a bit confusing. I'm going to attempt to display what happened in its entirety below. This will be a long post, as many will note is my style. If you're unwilling to read a wall of text, then I suggest you skip over the OP, and merely read the free to view [URL=http://z10.invisionfree.com/57th_Overlanders/index.php?showtopic=684]peace talks[/URL] that occurred between myself and Penedono with Thunderstrike from RIA moderating. These too may be too long, but if you skim and read the parts in bold you will get an idea of what was going on. It is sufficient to say that Mechanus and Iyeman left the 57th for their own reasons. I will not be going into detail on this. Shortly after the new year, it came to our attention that logs from the private 57th IRC room were leaked to various parties. These logs were released with the obvious intention of discrediting the 57th in the minds of her allies and enemies alike. As many of you will no doubt agree, stuff said in the private IRC room of an alliance rarely dictates policy. Nonetheless the logs were an embarrassment to the 57th. The person who leaked the logs was ImaMonkey, a new member of the 57th. A bit of investigative work on our part revealed that the spy in question was ImaMonkey, but that the IRC hotmasks for both Iyeman and ImaMonkey (this was the confirmed spy at this stage) also partially matched. Iyeman's and ImaMonkey's forum IP's however did not match at all. We took this information to GLOF, and their tech guys and our tech guys looked at it. All believed the evidence presented to be curious at best, and damning at worst. This said, GLOF did not believe that it was sufficient enough to be a confirmation of actual spying. The 57th accepted this, and the matter was dropped. As something of a side note, I later found out that Iyeman was put on a watch list in GLOF, and that members were told to watch what they said around him on IRC. 57th internal security at this point increased, and I became more wary of anyone on shifting IP's, or who merely joined but didn't post anywhere or come on IRC regularly. It was during a casual course of checking the online list that I discovered and screenshotted the pic of JackieChan's IP, an IP that matched Iyeman's. This screenshot was taken in the manner that I take all of my screenshots. I'm not very well up on tech things, and I was unaware that a JPEG file is apparently less than useful for things like this. Nonetheless, I took my findings to GLOF again. Penedono told me to wait until his own tech guys got back to him on it. This I agreed with. GLOF's tech blokes agreed that the IP's matched. It was shortly after this that they approached Iyeman. I have no details of that conversation, what I did have, is Iyeman going nuclear rogue on me. I considered the matter closed at this point. At 5am on 13th February I received a query from Penedono. The sum total of this was "Hi!". At 5.42am on 13th February GLOF made their thread cancelling their treaty with the 57th and declaring war on the 57th Overlanders in the same breath. They asserted that the screenshot I had given them was a fake, and that I had plans to undermine the internal position of the Lodge, proof of which had been supplied to them by means of a screenshot apparently of myself stating as such. Both the 57th and indeed myself deny the first allegation. The discolouration of the picture in the JackieChan IP I can only explain as a result of the poor file type I saved the original in. I have no idea how to explain it technically, and I will leave that to more technically proficient people. I can do nothing but emphatically state that I did not, nor did any member of the 57th (or anyone else for that matter), alter the image I sent GLOF in any way. Had GLOF come to us and shown us this discrepancy, then we would have dropped the accusation, as we did in the earlier instance where GLOF felt that the evidence was insufficient. They did not do this, as is plainly obvious. The screenshot they were supplied with that "proved" that I was behind it, is an obvious fake. I'll leave the technical side of this to the experts (though quite a few seem to agree that it is faked, or at least has as much doubt as GLOF claim the screenshot I took has). However, there are two obvious differences that all can see. Firstly that is not how I write at all. The style of writing is dramatically different from my usual prose. Anyone with any knowledge of my style of writing (even my IC enemies) will confirm this, as indeed they have. Secondly, if you look on our forums you'll notice that there is a default gap between the text and the dotted line above the signature. This is absent in the picture GLOF received. When I made contact about this with Penedono I was told that the screenshot they were supplied of me was not relevant. I was further informed that even GLOF themselves were dubious of its legitimacy. Regardless of all of this, GLOF offered us the following terms: 1. Admit that we faked the screenshot in order to ZI Iyeman. 2. Elect a new Captain (they were willing to allow a re-election of myself). 3. Allow anyone who wants to leave the AA to leave freely. The third term was odd to say the least. We have never stopped anyone from leaving the 57th. Hence, this was an easily accepted term. The second term was absurd in the extreme. If GLOF thinks that they can fool around in our internal affairs, they have another thing coming. In fact, its somewhat reminiscent of the pre-Karma days when viceroys and the political influence of larger alliances pretty much gave them full run of those smaller alliances internally affairs. The first term would require us to admit to doing something we did not do. I now come to the more curious element of all of this, the GLOF-57th peace talks, talks mediated by ThunderStrike (RIA). These took place over two days, the 14th and 15th (GMT). You can read the entirety of the talks [URL=http://z10.invisionfree.com/57th_Overlanders/index.php?showtopic=684]here[/URL]. The parts in bold are for those who wish to skim the document, it is particularly long. During the first day of negotiations, the third term was agreed to. The second term was dropped by GLOF. This ended the first day of talks. The first term posed the largest problems, and it was not until the 15th that we discussed this in any detail. In short, GLOF refused to alter the term in any way at all. Both Thunderstrike and myself attempted to word this first term in a manner that was agreeable to both parties (read the peace talks for more detail on this). Penedono made an interesting comment (one of several) in the peace talks, which I'll reproduce below because it has immediate relevance. [QUOTE][03:57] <Penedono[Mason]> you're leader of the alliance - I don't care if it has to be desertson or LP or whoever who steps up and does the right thing, but someone needs to[/QUOTE] I don't think I need to elaborate much on this. It was from this moment that I realized that GLOF didn't care about the truth of the matter, but more that they needed to be vindicated in their attack on the 57th. There was no attempt to solve the issue during the talks, no attempt to get to the root of the problem, nor explain the obvious problems in the screenshot they were given, or address the fact that the image I took was a JPEG. These were topics quite simply not open to discussion on the GLOF end of things. Towards the end of the talks Penedono gave us 9 minutes to "own up to what we did or the beating continues. For how long? I don't know." In short, they have no war aims other than continued war against the 57th until "... we're (GLOF) satisfied that we have caused enough damage commensurate with the disrespect you've shown us". They would seem to seek the end of the 57th, especially when you view Penedono's following two lines "We're not looking for reps, or whatnot - we're looking for the 57th - and you as their leader - to own what you did. If you don't, we'll continuwe to level your allaince" I'm not sure what more I can say here. They're seeking to level the 57th until we own up to something we did not do.... they're also unwilling to address the numerous problems present in their "case". In short ladies and gentlemen, they're looking to end the 57th either physically, or morally. Physically, by leveling us, or morally by "admitting" to something that we did not do. They seek our destruction. I strongly advise that you read the logs of the [URL=http://z10.invisionfree.com/57th_Overlanders/index.php?showtopic=684]peace talks[/URL], it is truly amazing what Penedono was saying towards the end of this, and indeed throughout. However, I am not here to convince you of anything, but rather to state what the 57th does in the face of unwarranted and dishonourable aggression coupled with absurd and terms completely impossible for the 57th to agree with. The 57th Overlanders hereby rejects any terms whatsoever that require us to admit to something we did not do. We are an honourable alliance, whatever our other faults, and this strikes so hard and fast to our core as to be immediately rejected in any form. The 57th Overlanders hereby rejects any terms that subordinates the internal structure of the 57th or her Charter to a foreign power in any manner shape or form, for whatever reason. The 57th's counter offer was as follows:[LIST] [*]GLOF accepts and states that the screenshot they were given of myself was a forgery. [*]The 57th will accept and state that the evidence given to GLOF over the Iyeman-JackieChan issue is no longer found conclusive by GLOF and hence all accusations are dropped. [/LIST]This is what we offered. It was rejected in the worse manner possible. The 57th's counter offer now stands as:[LIST] [*]GLOF accepts and states that the screenshot they were given of myself was a forgery. [*]The 57th will accept and state that the evidence given to GLOF over the Iyeman-JackieChan issue is no longer found conclusive by GLOF and hence all accusations are dropped. [*]GLOF apologizes for bringing accusations against the 57th in a public manner without any recourse to diplomacy. [*]GLOF apologizes for breaking the Foundation of Serenity treaty and failing to abide by its 1st article (non-aggression), 2nd article (intelligence) and its 6th article (cancellation). [*]GLOF pays reparations for the damage caused to the 57th for the first round of attacks prior to the ceasefire, and any attacks that occurred during the ceasefire. [*]The 57th pays reparations (or deducts these from GLOF's reparations amount) for the damage caused to GLOF for any attacks that occurred during the ceasefire. [/LIST]The 57th is an honourable alliance. I'll be the first to admit we have faults, but we are men (and women) of our word, and our word, our honour, our self-respect (whatever you may wish to call it) is of much more value than anything else. If GLOF seek our end, then they must be content with the end of us physically. The honour, integrity and ideals of the 57th will not be sacrificed to allow GLOF to save face in the court of public opinion. Edit: Had to fix image alignment.

[quote name='Bower3aj' date='14 February 2010 - 11:44 PM' timestamp='1266191070' post='2181513'] A reasonable answer, though I wasn't holding it against you at all. Just merely pointing out to JW that a member of the lodge knowing you on an intimate level is a fool hearted argument to make. It's nothing against you. I think the first part of your thing has been answered. We really just don't care if the SS that was provided by somebody other than you is real. It is merely what caused us to look at your images again. They looked at your images at said that they looked forged. That's what matters to us. That images given to us look forged to experts on the matter. Though I will say, if this is the largest coincidental jpeg ever, than you should be more concerned that there is a member of your alliance that wants to get you all rolled. That seems to be something that I would be worried about. I cannot speak to any attempt to contact you. I don't know when it happened or how it happened. Sorry. But I will say that I believe his response to you being in a different time zone was something along the lines of we're all in different time zones. Again I can't speak to the full timing of things as I don't know everything, nor can I speak to what your actions would have been. Perhaps you don't know people as well as you thought you did :/ [/quote] Penedono said the same thing, and the fact of the matter is that the screenshot you were given is extremely relevant to the discussions at hand. In the first instance, it was faked, and in the second instance whomever supplied that screenshot to you is manipulating you. Quite clearly because of its faked nature (I'll deal with the first screenshot momentarily) and what they probably expected to happen when they gave that screenshot to you. A deterioration of relations between the 57th and GLOF. They've managed to achieve their aim in that regard. The first screenshot could all have been solved peacefully had you talked to us. This is why the whole thing is retarded. Look at any of my screenshots and you'll see the same grainy, inconsistency throughout. The darker numbers are as a result of this. Had you brought this to my attention, we would of course have dropped the issue (though Iyeman had attacked me at this stage, so how that would have gone down is a matter of speculation), but the charge nevertheless would have been dropped. If you can't speak of who tried to contact me and when, then don't comment blindly on it like you have done up until now. Your last point rings truer than you know... I thought I knew GLOF, thought I knew ye well enough that if someone had asked me if they would declare war on an ally over dubious evidence I could have confidently laughed in their faces. I appear to have been mistaken in that belief, and that is a sobering thought. Edit: I forgot half a sentence.

[quote name='Bower3aj' date='14 February 2010 - 09:07 PM' timestamp='1266181667' post='2181220'] Are telling me JW that I could go to any member of your alliance and ask them to give me all the qualities and traits that your allies leaders hold? I doubt it. Charles had to check because he doesn't know Ven very well... Hell, I don't know Ven very well. Weird considering that a year ago I was excited at the prospect of signing a treaty with them. Oh yes, for those of you that noticed. I'm talking about long before a treaty existed between the 57th and the Lodge. Back when Ven was second in command. Looking back it is rather strange that even though I was always hanging out and talking to various 57th members I never met their second in command and current leader. I didn't formally meet Ven until a just over a month ago when I was sent to help dig him out of the hole he put the 57th in. So perhaps you should not just assume that everybody knows everybody else if they're allied to them. K? thanks. If you're talking about who I think you're talking about then perhaps you should re-think your arguments. Or rather just not say anything at all. The premeditation behind this was receiving the SS that made us go back and look at the original SS. And after having multiple career graphic designers say that the images were forged, or answered "probably, yes" to the question we tried to reach the 57th. They never answered. We talked with our other allies. and then we DoWed. That's the premeditation behind it. The person that you inadvertently accuse of organizing this war wasn't made aware of the target until a couple of hours before update. Almost the entire alliance had no idea who we were attacking until about an hour before our DoW came. It may be that I am the only person that knew who we were attacking outside of the council in advance, but that's only because I connected what little dots there were correctly. So yes, this was premeditated about a day, maybe a day and a half in advance. There is no conspiracy here. Sometimes life is rather simple. This is one of those cases. [/quote] The internal procedures of the 57th at the time of the signing of the treaty had the second in command in charge of internal, and not external, affairs. I was rather more busy setting up trade rings, recruitment, activity, education and so on rather than with talking to our allies, mainly because Mechanus had taken that up as his area of expertise. It also made more sense for him to do so, due to the nature of the command structure in the 57th. I personally prefer dealing with people inside my alliance, because those are my crew (That's a Firefly reference, if you don't get it, don't comment on it). It's a personal preference of mine, and one that, back then, I didn't have to overly concern myself about. I never once saw Mechanus work on any trade ring, education system, or anything of the like, so nor did I go into his realm of affairs, and that was just the way it was done. Same thing can be said for the Quartermaster, the two of us stayed away from the military, and gave him a free rein. That was how the government was run under Mechanus. It's changed somewhat since. I'm curious, when ye went talking to these career designers, did they check that image that ye were given? Amateurs and career blokes alike have spotted the differences. Hell, I know nothing about the thing and it's obvious that there's something odd about it. With regards to the images I took myself and gave ye, you'll note that all of my images look like that, as up until now I was unaware that JPEG's are dodgy images. Plus, for whatever reason, my images all possess that grainy distorted effect, and oddly enough seem to differ in how they're distorted. A previous image was linked earlier in the thread which pretty much recreated that effect (not as extreme as the one given, but nonetheless a recreation). Contact was made to me (while I was afk) at 5.00 am GMT. This declaration went out 42 minutes later. The entirety of the message left by Penedono was "Hi!". That was the sum total of contact you tried to make with me. You're well aware of the fact that I'm on GMT actual, which was why this makes no sense in the slightest. When I talked to Penedono running this by him again yesterday (and Thunderstrike from RIA can confirm this) his reply was something to the extent of "I don't care." though he certainly had a more colourful way of phrasing it. It is curious to note though that target lists were made before an attempt was made to contact me... that's quite interesting indeed. For the record (thought I stated this earlier in this thread, but perhaps not), had GLOF come to me and shown me this, we would of course have dropped the accusation because GLOF wouldn't have felt that the evidence was satisfactory. This was done earlier, when previous evidence linking Iyeman to a spy in the 57th was deemed inconclusive, and we had no problem with that. We realized and accepted that Iyeman was a GLOF member, and it was up to Penedono to establish his guilt or innocence. As it turned out, in the event, they took what I had, verified it themselves, went to talk to Iyeman, who then decided to go nuke rogue on me, mysteriously got this screenshot of me saying it was all planned (a screenshot that stands up to no kind of scrutiny at all), decided to draw up plans to attack the 57th before contact was even made with me, and then, well... that's when this thread started.

Heft - I agree. Cairna - Despite our many differences, you're a funny bloke. Monkeybum - Er... ? The "bottom line" of which you speak really does end with you declaring on us without talking to us first. That said, I'm more than happy to talk to ye now, but all I'm getting is "We're sorry for this. But the evidence..." then when I go and show ye that there are massive inconsistencies in the screenshot provided to ye, I'm rewarded with "Well, this tech stuff is all over my head.", or "Well Veneke, we know that you'll deny it.". It could be that it is over your heads, a substantial amount of it is for me (not a terribly hard thing to achieve, but the fact stands nonetheless). One obvious one that I picked up on was that there is no space between the text and the dotted line. If you'll notice on our forums there is a space between the end text and the dotted line above the signature on all posts. There are also other things with regards to distances and pixels and such, but that's all beyond me too. The first screenshots, as has been explained, are inconsistent due to the poor file format I saved it in. Not sure how well to follow up on this. (OOC: because invisionfree doesn't save all IP's used from a username.) This all said, had you come to me and said "Well, look it Ven, I'm not so sure this is sufficient. Here's why..." we could have avoided all of this. You have to remember that Iyeman attacked me once you went talking to him, I haven't had a single word with Iyeman in quite a spell. All ye there lads. Hobgoblin - Ye.

[quote name='Duke of Cool' date='13 February 2010 - 07:17 PM' timestamp='1266088675' post='2179526'] It's all "he said, she said" at this point. You, just like us, have every reason to justify actions, or the lack thereof. But it was not us who committed the first act of war. Time will play out, words will be said. As in the OP, our information was absolutely sufficient to realize that we were being attacked. By an ally. The world's not effed up enough as it is, but now we have to keep a sharp eye on our own flanks, rather than forward? Absurdity, indeed, sir. [/quote] Er... yeah, no. This is not a "he said, she said" kinda thing. You declared war on us without talking to us. That there is what we call a fact. Odd little things I know, but there you go.

[quote name='Duke of Cool' date='13 February 2010 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1266087294' post='2179493'] For all you judgmental types who constantly jump to conclusions ON THIS FORUM, to say that diplomacy was not attempted is just plain sillyassedness. The entire crux of CN is the communication that goes on outside of the numbers. [b]EVERY. REASONABLE. ATTEMPT. was made to contact the leader of the 57th, to no avail.[/b] Your high horses aren't so high. If you find yourself in our situation, you too will have to answer to the naysayers. It is the price of politics here and out in the real world. Opinions are formed. The smart ones, however, will take into account all of the machinations that go into decisions such as that we have made. GLOF has never been opportunistic, at least since I've been a part of it. As a group, we lament the use of war as a solution to conflict, yet we march just the same if it is needed. We have followed our treaty partners into war, not questioning the heart of the matter, but following the treaty that ultimately defines the friendship of alliances. When our alliance is attacked in such a way, to tamper with our membership in a foolish schoolyard tug-of-war, we act. If we cannot be afforded an opportunity to talk the conflict out, the next step must be taken. [/quote] I'm sorry, but this is just absurd. Was there a pressing reason that war had to be declared that particular night before talks were held? You went looking for .gov when we were all away (OOC: doing RL things, like sleeping, 'cause I'm on a bloody different timezone, which your leaders well knew). You tried for what... a whole 3 hours while there was no one about, and decided that the best possible recourse in a situation like this was to declare on your ally, without talking to them. It was a knee-jerk reaction, and that's the fact of it. Be that as it may, the situation is as it is.

neneko, thank you for the clarification. That is indeed what I meant. Locke, indeed, memoryproblem's reasoning is much more likely, as my own tech guys have just informed me.

[quote name='nippy' date='13 February 2010 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1266071469' post='2179198'] holy crap. The 'first few numbers' of an IP address are what's important. If they're different, then the IP's don't match. [/quote] I'm assured by blokes with much more technical know-how than I that the difference in the first few numbers of an IP address on IRC referred to a near geographic match. Or something like that... it's rather above my head, but they did agree that it was either a freak occurrence with a proxy, or someone on the same network (near enough to the same network) as Iyeman.

/me looks at the date No, it is not 1 April. Okay... The 57th approached GLOF twice over the possibility of Iyeman holding a spy in the 57th. The first relates to an IRC impersonation of one of our members. The IP codes in this nearly, very nearly, matched. The only essential difference was the first few numbers, the rest were all the same. GLOF and myself agreed that this does not constitute irrefutable proof. Personally, I thought it was as good proof as any, but he was and is their member, and I was not going to push the issue over what they considered flimsy evidence. What we have here concerns the second incident. I had been on the lookout for similar IP's to Iyeman's pretty much since the first incident (what good leader wouldn't?), and I eventually found JackieChan's as a perfect match. I took the screenshot (both of which GLOF have reproduced) and gave the screenshots to them. GLOF tech blokes agreed that JackieChan was Iyeman, and when they went to confront Iyeman, he turned nuclear rogue on me. I had sort of assumed that this would be the end of it. Clearly not. Continuing chronologically, GLOF appear to have been sent an image of a post apparently made by myself, and subsequently acted on it without even talking to me, or indeed any 57th government member. In point of fact, no message of any kind was sent to any government member from GLOF, but instead it was our other friends who left messages to us of GLOF's intent. This is where we are at the moment. To refer to the screenshots, as Uisge has already said, the problem in the pixel inconsistency (or whatever the hell it is, I'm not too well up on tech things...), relates entirely to how the screenshot is taken, and the fact that JackieChan was logged in as anonymously (you see the little star beside his name in the screenshot?). Myself and Uisge tested this theory, and it reveals the same "inconsistency" in pixels. It has nothing to do with the image being faked, but rather that, for whatever reason, revealing anonymous people on the Online List results in a different type of viewing. I've no idea how or why this is the case, but it is nevertheless so. Had GLOF come to us stating this, we could have easily resolved all of this. If that meant letting Iyeman go, then fair enough. He is after all a member of GLOF and under their protection, if they didn't feel the evidence was satisfactory, then there's very little we would be willing to do about that. In fact, we didn't engage Iye at all, except to defend myself against his rogue actions. With regards to my alleged post... that's a complete fabrication. I realize that this is kind of a cop-out answer, but it is as it is. Look at the manner of the post, and compare that to how I post usually. Even those who I would not normally see eye-to-eye with are in agreement that that post is nothing like what I would write. Nothing at all in fact. At the end of the day, you will believe what you want to believe, and my contact with GLOF so far shows that they are unwilling to even consider the fact that the screenshot of my alleged post is faked. I will admit that I have not talked to them yet about the differences in pixels as others have discussed in this thread, but that is due to the fact that we only just established that.

I hate timezones. As has been stated, the terms are up and will be altered should this war drag on beyond 7 days (or other circumstances force us to change them, as I note below). Considering the fact that we've had multiple inquiries as to our policy on individual surrenders, the terms were designed with this being a relatively short war in duration. I do not believe that anyone wishes to force a player from the game, and to be honest if someone was in bill-lock and would be at risk losing their nation (as per Astronaut Jones) then an individual solution would be reached, which may even allow for the lifting of the no Foreign Aid term temporarily. This though brings us to the next point, individual terms are exactly that, individual. The above is a fairly accurate guideline on what to expect if you wish to surrender, no more than that. The actual terms given to anyone from WFF or TORN will have to be negotiated based on those peoples circumstances (bill-lock situation, etc). Thus the terms are obviously under continual scrutiny both to ensure the safety of the individual PoW and to satisfy our need that they're not going to re-enter the conflict. ZI for violation stands. You give your word to surrender and then you turn around and stab us in the back, I'll see you all the way down to ZI. I've no idea why people are complaining about this. Nuking non-nuclear capable nations is abhorrent. Have a look at the 57th Charter, we don't use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear opponents, nor do we initiate nuclear hostilities. This is our perspective. Don't expect it to change. TORN wants to ride the big green wagon all the way down to 5k NS, and start nuking people who can't return the favour, I consider that in poor form. We'll deal with you folk after the war.

[quote name='Mechanus' date='04 February 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1265310299' post='2159140'] Not whimpering, just find it curious that under the new regime things have taken a turn from what the alliance was built on. I mean, I would know these things what with me being a co-founder of HPS and the 57th and the very thing that your boss is changing is a core value those alliances were built upon: Friends/allies are defended no matter what. Now it's whenever you fall under these specific guidelines. Why do you think I made the change to signing only MDPs and greater for the 57th? You can insult me all you like, doesn't change the fact that the 57th is changing its core beliefs for whatever reason your boss has decided upon. [/quote] Wrong. You have long since lost any right to lecture the 57th, or indeed any of her members, about her ideals. I seem to remember honour and loyalty being in them somewhere and you are lacking in both. HPS's ideals were purely about survival, as you well know, so I don't see the application unless you're trying to impress people by saying that you were here with the rest of us way back when. As for altering a core ideal, this is merely a solution to a practical matter, a matter you yourself admitted while Captain was going to eventually (and in fact did) put the 57th in a situation where she could neither enter nor exit the field with honour. I refer of course to our decision to not defend Veritas Aequitas in the Karma conflict. A war in which they were attacked prior to the attack on RIA (the alliance whose side we entered in on). Where was our "Friends/allies are defended no matter what." there? We made a political decision that was in the best interests of the 57th. You applied the same thinking here as what has been written in this treaty. Where does the greater dishonour lie? The alliance that says it will back its allies/friends regardless of the circumstances, and then deliberately ignores treaties? Or the alliance that does what it says it will, even if that means admitting some uncomfortable truths? I do enjoy the way you continue to believe that the 57th revolved around yourself though. If anything, it merely cements my view on why you left the 57th, but that is neither here nor there. What is at the heart of this is that we're finally admitting that we are physically do as we had previously promised. We lack the numbers, the material and the general capacity to do so. The 57th cannot fight on opposite sides of a conflict, it is logistically and politically impossible for her to do so at the present time. I'm not sure that there's a single alliance out there that could reasonably claim that they could. Our core beliefs haven't changed dramatically. We're dealing in practical issues and pursuing practical alternatives as opposed to trying to get the ideal solution to work. We're still trying to figure how exactly we're to be able to defend multiple allies from multiple hostiles who are quite likely opposing each other and manage to keep the 57th intact. This all said, if you think for a second that you can hit an ally of ours and not have your head blown off provided we're in a position to do so, well, try your luck, see how far it gets you.

Always good to have friends... even the crazy ones. o/ RIA

Jerdge - Your explanation (quoted below) is the best I've seen yet. We could have said ourselves a dozen pages of back and forth had you arrived sooner. "I don't think that The Grämlins could ignore this simple fact when they decided to take this path, and this makes me think that they agree with us that the MHA and their freedom can't conflict (while their freedom and their bonds with their other former signatories most probably would never conflict). This is just my opinion on this matter, anyway."

SynthFG - I never expected you to share that information. The problem I have with this line "For now simply accept that Harmlins represents a greater bond than any other in CN history, including OoO and that where it matters both alliances move as one" Is that both of ye are saying that with or without the treaty the bond will be the same. This leads us to one of two conclusions 1. The bond between Gramlins and the alliances she cancelled on is no longer the same. If anyone has trouble seeing this merely apply the same reasons that they're keeping the MHA treaty to the ones they cancelled. The bond between Gramlins and MHA is the same with or without the treaty. However, they kept the treaty. The bond between Gramlins and her other allies is the same with or without the treaty. However, they kept none of these treaties. 2. The treaty is being kept for personal, private reasons, despite the fact that whether it exists or not the treaty is the same. This can only lead us to conclude that the MHA/Gramlins bond is not as strong as it may appear, and that the reason that it's being kept is because one side or the other doubts their ability (or the others ability) to maintain the relationship without a permanent treaty that cannot be cancelled. Neither conclusion is very likely in my opinion, and in fact I really do think that it is the reasoning advanced in my prior post Is the real reason. Though why Gramlins nor MHA is simply coming out and saying that I'm slightly confused about. Do you not wish to offend Gramlins ex-allies? Sure, it will represent no real difference than what you've done here and now anyway, so I don't follow that line of thinking (though I could be wrong, I have no idea how testy the alliances in question would be if they found out that this was the reason). Short of being told otherwise, in a manner that makes sense (and so far none of your explanations make sense) this will be the conclusion I will have to draw from your actions here. Edit: To clarify the person I'm addressing.

Even were I to accept your argument that the treaty could not have been cancelled (which I really think is nothing more than e-lawyering, making this move highly ironic), none of this takes from my point in that it could have been done. However, you have stated just there that it could have been done (I put it in bold for you to refer to), which is all I was getting at. I'm actually quite interested in how these discussions between Gramlins and MHA went down, particularly how their respective FA teams thought this move would be received. Gramlins makes a call to dissolve all of her treaties. MHA (or MHA and Gramlins, whichever) say that this might not be the smartest move ever made, so here's your (our) insurance policy. Then their response to the continued presence of the treaty revolves around "Whether this treaty exists or not the bond is the same." This to me seems idiotic, unless I'm missing some backroom stuff - which is quite likely. If the fact of the treaty exists with or without it, why wasn't the treaty merely cancelled with the rest to give this move the strongest impact that it could possibly have? MHA would still have your backs, and Gramlins would be the first large alliance to take the rest of CN forward into this new era of treatyless FA plans. The other "damage control" (though its debatable if that's the right phrase for it in this instance) aspect of it belongs to the school of thought that it cannot be dissolved, which is highly ironic considering one of the main knock-on effects of this move is an attempt to remove e-lawyering from FA. We've also clearly established that it could in fact have been dissolved, look at any of the suggestions non-MHA/Gramlins people have posted. Everybody is pretty much agreeing that with or without the treaty, MHA will defend Gramlins and Gramlins will defend MHA (or even move offensively with each other), so the need for the treaty is what, exactly? You could argue, convincingly, that the departure this represents is not the one many think (a complete dissolution of all treaties for all alliances etc) but rather the more moderate version of what would have followed had Gramlins cancelled the MHA treaty. In short, a largely treatyless alliance. This holds considerable merit (though as I've stated earlier doesn't negate the fact that it weakens the move), but I have yet to see even a single Gramlins or MHA person (or anyone for that matter) advance this kind of thinking. It's certainly better than the "This treaty cannot be cancelled" line that's coming out.

Saber - I agree with Kriekfreak, Shamshir, Hizzy. Spaarlaamp - I'm not particularly familiar with the history of alliances doing exactly that in general, as I said I only ever participated in such an exercise once. I did so while I flew the flag of the Hegemony of Periphery States (a tiny Maroon alliance at the time) during the Hyperion war. Shattered Star Exiles did the same in the same conflict. I sincerely doubt that we are the only two alliances to have done so.

Congratulations to our good friends at CRAP.

Congratulations to our good friends at Silence.

MrCyber - No, quite simply no. I've never seen or heard any alliance decried as bandwaggoners if they moved in on the side that was outnumbered/outgunned. I should know, I was in one that did, and have been allied to more who have done the same. In each case, said alliances were lauded for their bravery.

LM - Quite the contrary. You presuppose that it was impossible to cut the tie. This is not the case (unless you are somehow saying that you are physically incapable of doing so). They tie "could" have been cut, it would have cost Gramlins significantly, but it could have been done. A simple call to MHA explaining the situation would likely have taken most of the hurt out of it, particularly when you explain the situation and your new direction to them. I'm not saying it would be the smartest move going, and as I've repeatedly said it would not be a move I'd have done in their position, but it is within the realm of possibility.

LM - I mentioned nothing about their ability (or lack thereof) to cut the tie. I am not arguing with you on this, I accept that they would not cut the MHA tie. This, however, does not take from the fact that because the tie remains, this move is weaker than it could have been. Edit: Typo fail: Got my "would"'s and "could"'s mixed up.

LM - That treaty was signed in the spirit of the times. Times when do define your friends you needed treaties and times again when in order to show that you were "blood brothers" you needed to hold treaties that could not be cancelled. As I pointed out in my post I said that I would have done the exact same as Gramlins in this position, but merely illustrated that the move would have been far more ground-breaking had the MHA tie been cut. The reasoning for not doing so is entirely beside the point, however the precedent being set is now weakened by that tie. Stetson - Nothing has changed is an illusion. On that point I fully agree. A treaty that once was there no longer is. The foreign policy of an entire alliance, a large and politically influential alliance, has altered radically. Anyone who insists nothing has changed is doing a poor attempt at spin, or hasn't read the thread. Treaties are (hopefully soon to be were) key ways in figuring out who was allied to whom and how it all broke down. A move away from this increases uncertainty, as has been mentioned. It also requires more use of diplomats (with which the MDP web were rapidly becoming redundant), which is only a good thing as you bring more people actively in to affairs on Bob. Edit: because =/= however

I'd have been more supportive, encouraged, etc. by this move had the MHA tie actually been cut as well. After all, you've said that with or without the treaty you would back them regardless. Surely the same is true in reverse (for those who can't keep up, read: Surely MHA would do the same)? If so, then the reasoning for keeping the treaty is entirely politically based on traditional Foreign Affairs thinking (read: treaties). It's not that I advocate or believe that being entirely "treatyless" is the way to go, I'd actually argue to the contrary. However, you are in the unique position of setting a precedent for the entirety of Bob, by being in a position to actually cancel all of your treaties (including the MHA one) without that actually affecting your relations at all. This is important, because the actions you take here and the results thereof, will contribute to whether the rest of Bob goes down this route or not. By keeping the MHA treaty, you are in effect declaring that "yes, this is the way to go, but we're still uncertain". Which is perfectly reasonable, and certainly the option I'd pluck for in your position, but in terms of altering world politics in the manner that people demand/want/need, the more definite option should have been pursued. You have in effect signed an ODoAP with all of Bob, which, as has been stated, is no more than an expression of your sovereign right (though thankfully you have not seen the need to encapsulate this in a piece of paper - for that I commend you fully). I look forward to the day when this is a more common state of affairs, when holding treaties is the exception rather than the norm, and that people act both aggressively and defensively in a manner which best suits their political goals, ideals and common sense. Will this lead to more bandwagonning? Possibly, but it will equally lead to a larger number of people defending said alliances (particularly after someone bandwagons them). I saw it mentioned that this could have a detrimental effect on your word of honour. In short, no. You are honour-bound to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to act on your remaining treaty. Will people be uncertain of your assistance outside of this? Definitely. "Yeah, we're still going to defend you but we don't want to have a treaty explicitly saying that." isn't exactly a confidence builder. This however, does not alter the fact that you are obligated to no one else, and so not acting in their defence or aggression does not mean that anyone will doubt your word, for you have told them that you no longer wish to be obligated to defend them. It will alter relations with said alliance though if you do not act on it, similar (though actually more damaging) to the current state of affairs when alliances have conflicting treaties. The issue of stagnation really should be left for another discussion, as there are many more factors affecting this than what is being done here. I will simply say that if you believe uncertainty in how an alliance intends to act in a war will increase the stagnating effect, then I disagree, largely because you ignore the tangental benefits of this uncertainty. For those who claim that New Sith Order pioneered this... and worse still, the NSO people publicly saying that they did exactly that. You have either no knowledge of history (which is clearly evident for some of you), no understanding of the Moldavi Doctrine (which is an expression of the same sovereignty in conjunction with, and not instead of (or in this case largely instead of), other treaties), or quite simply are going for a PR win, which is idiotic in the extreme. Please stop. NSO are a capable alliance, and one that certainly helped altered the state of affairs to this point, but don't go and claim credit for something that is clearly not theirs to claim.