caligula
-
Posts
454 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by caligula
-
-
I think this will end when Hoo gets enough blood for the blood god
But seriously, we wait all this time for a war and one day later already talking about peace
I wish the NSO and RoK luck, oddly. -
[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1281430169' post='2409379']
Ok, so based on the logs I can see where you are getting this from. Makes sense, and falls in line with what we were presented with (i.e. retaliation against aggressors.
My question lies with this:
So what? Id say its worth the risks in quality to afford those individuals a chance to have a community before being wiped off the face of the planet for whatever their circumstances are.[/quote]
Then don't complain when the inevitable happens and you accept someone who is at war with an alliance that does not wish to give it peace, or for you to aid it...I guess is my point.
[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1281430169' post='2409379']
You're referring to what Heft did as being of questionable judgment.
Prancing around that while being vague is very unbecoming of you, who professes to be a defender of Heft's honor. So let me get this straight:
You yourself view what Heft did as a mistake, or whatever it is you're accusing the NSO of doing in general. And now you're saying that Heft did not make a mistake?
Aren't you talking out of both sides of your mouth here? Either Heft made a mistake, or NSO did not. You're not seriously trying something so disingenuous, are you?
How was this "the wrong way"?
We requested proof contradicting the screenshots we were given, and were rebuked. Therefore, its simply logical to conclude that Hoo could not show us said evidence because it didn't exist.
If it didnt exist, we had no reason to not afford him the protections guaranteed by his membership.
[/quote]
...Apparently you're not making the same connection that I am that the nations were aided by order of a High Official of the NSO with prior notice that such an act would be considered an act of war.
I'm not judging Heft, I'm judging the action, quite the opposite of what you're trying to say I'm doing.
Hoo gave all he needed to with his word and then with the CB. The proof is there. He gave you an option to believe that he was right and that a nation already at war was indeed a rogue. Hoo even stated that aiding him would be considered an act of war.
The nation was then aided. I don't understand how RoK can be blamed for the CB at hand.
The argument that you did not take him seriously is not an argument against RoK, but the NSO. -
[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1281428171' post='2409353']
Didnt you just say you were against slandering Heft?
What does that have to do with anything? We've never gone out of our way to tick off RoK, and Im pretty sure theyve never done as such to us.
We accepted him. Thats one of our unique policies, accepting folks at war, and then depending on the circumstances, either negotiating a settlement or letting them take their lumps. Hoo knows this.
[/quote]
Where in my post did I mention Heft?
I am apalled at certain individuals attempts to say Heft did not the authority to aid the said nation, or that Heft is some incompetent blowhard, but more ticked that a few NSO members are pointing fingers at him for making a mistake.
That is why I have referred to what happened as the actions of the NSO, as, like it or not, they were the actions of the NSO.
Heft's a great guy and if he is forced from government after this it would be un-sithlike.
I just wish people would stop making it personal.
As for your second part, well, there's two sides to that coin.
Sometimes you get members like this:
(Hostmasks, obscentities bleeped.)
Session Start: Sun Aug 08 02:13:03 2010
Session Ident: #nso
03[02:13] * Now talking in #nso
03[02:13] * Topic is '|| http://www.newsithorder.info/phpBB3/ || http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/892/lolafmain.png || #temptrade for temp trades'
03[02:13] * Set by Heft on Fri Aug 06 18:08:31
Snip
[04:19] <sedrick> omg iam
[04:20] <sedrick> im in 3 def wars
[04:20] <sedrick> i thought 2
02[04:20] * +Fernando12 (*******) Quit (Quit: Fernando12)
[04:20] <@Jerek> yeah, I thought I was hallucinating for a moment
[04:20] <Caliph> no, they staggered you after update
[04:20] <Caliph> i had checked your wars earlier
[04:20] <@Jerek> great job Caliph, you scared him off
[04:20] <sedrick> well i have to hit this guy
[04:20] <Caliph> lol
[04:20] <Emperor_Whimsical> Caliph is intimidating
[04:20] <sedrick> lol he has 12k troops
[04:20] <Emperor_Whimsical> glad he's on mah side
[04:20] <sedrick> so 6k troops vs like 30k troops
[04:21] <sedrick> lol reminds me of 300
[04:21] <sedrick> hopei get peace
[04:22] <sedrick> lol i realt hate this guys
[04:22] <sedrick> **** hatem
[04:22] <sedrick> damn
[04:23] <sedrick> lil ********
03[04:23] * Kublakhan (*******) has joined #nso
[04:23] <TheDon125[FEAR]> Unfortunately, such is the result of starting offensive wars, be they provoked or not
[04:23] <sedrick> they forced me to do it
[04:24] <TheDon125[FEAR]> Well, no they didn't, unless they hacked your account and declared on themselves.
[04:24] <sedrick> exactly
[04:24] <sedrick> ths wat happened lol
[04:25] <sedrick> what would u do if no one would let u join there alliance in your old alliance threaten
[04:25] <TheDon125[FEAR]> If that's the case, you should have gone to Admin and had them perma-banned from the game. Hacking is not tolerated. Period.
[04:25] <Caliph> ^
[04:25] <Caliph> right
[04:25] <sedrick> no they did not hack me i waz jkin
06[04:25] * Emperor_Whimsical hacks caliph
[04:25] <Caliph> :0
[04:25] <Emperor_Whimsical> like in bioshock
[04:25] <Caliph> hacking and wacking?
[04:25] <Caliph> like in Fallout 3?
[04:25] <sedrick> i had no alies
[04:26] <Emperor_Whimsical> lol
[04:26] <Emperor_Whimsical> I never had hacking in fallout 3
[04:26] <sedrick> in i was recieving threats
[04:26] <Caliph> *****
[04:26] <Emperor_Whimsical> I had small arms and melee dawg
[04:26] <Emperor_Whimsical> I prefer oblivion, tbh
[04:27] <sedrick> i really had no choice sir
[04:28] <sedrick> heres is a example
[04:28] <TheDon125[FEAR]> all you had to do was join an alliance and not declare war. If your history was clean, most alliances would have accepted you. War is not always the answer.
[04:28] <sedrick> dude
[04:28] <sedrick> i tried to joinmha
[04:28] <TheDon125[FEAR]> (its the fun answer, but not always the ideal one)
[04:28] <sedrick> they have this thing saying former alliances
[04:29] <sedrick> in they askedtene about me
[04:29] <sedrick> then they denied my applicatioin
[04:29] <sedrick> then i went to join npo
[04:29] <sedrick> but i didnt want to be in npo
[04:29] <sedrick> so i w8
[04:30] <sedrick> i startt getting major threats in spy attacks
[04:30] <sedrick> one threat said we are preparing todestroy
[04:30] <sedrick> u
[04:30] <sedrick> in we will have fun ziing u
[04:30] <Xiphosis[GOD]> so you pre-empted them? XD
[04:31] <sedrick> no
[04:31] <sedrick> i waz bullied
[04:31] <sedrick> my alliance partner waz spying me
06[04:31] * Xiphosis[GOD] facepalms
[04:32] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Forget I asked!
[04:32] <TheDon125[FEAR]> lol
[04:32] <sedrick> the guy who messaged me said the name of the ppl who0 were gonna hit me
[04:32] <sedrick> so i waz thinkin
[04:32] <sedrick> in i was like if they hit me im done
[04:33] <sedrick> i had no allies
[04:33] <sedrick> then they kept spying
[04:33] <sedrick> i said stop
[b][04:33] <Xiphosis[GOD]> So you hit them from... the MHA AA... anyway.
[04:33] <sedrick> more threats
[04:33] <sedrick> no
[04:33] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Even though MHA refused you.
[04:33] <sedrick> no
[04:33] <sedrick> i hit them b4 mha
[04:33] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Really?
06[04:33] * Xiphosis[GOD] looks at your war screen
[04:33] <Xiphosis[GOD]> oh look at that it saves your AA.
[04:33] <Xiphosis[GOD]> and you totally did.
[04:34] <sedrick> tht y mha asked themabout me
[04:34] <sedrick> no i didnt really
[04:34] <sedrick> i hit them then join mha for protection
03[04:34] * Mussolandia (*****) has joined #nso
[04:34] <sedrick> but they wouldnt accept me becuz of wars[/b]
Apparently there was some little drama between him and his old alliance, he didn't like the reception he got on his way out and it appears they probably messed with him, maybe even to the point of bullying given his...demeanor. However, he then attacked their nations.
But that's just all I can gather.
While taking in nations who need help is admirable, there's a right way and a wrong way to do it, and I wouldn't expect other alliances to exactly be open to accepting nations they were at war with after they rogued them. -
[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1281427586' post='2409345']
We were shown evidence that he was not a rogue, but simply an unaligned retaliating against aggressive failed spy attacks.
Therefore not a rogue, and the situation would warrant some further negotiation. Had we been shown conclusive proof that he was a rogue, the aid would never have been sent. Thats our standard operating procedure in those cases.
RoK was unreasonable, and we were unreasonable right back. Isnt that how diplomacy works in back channels? Our membership isnt known for their flowers and kisses.
[/quote]
Exactly.
I think we all know full well there isn't much love lost between the two alliances.
As for if he's a rogue or not, he was at war regardless in some sort of capacity with TENE. That alone is cause enough to at least delay membership to someone in most alliances as a precaution against the same thing that is happening right now. I'm sure more will develop in due time but I'm more inclined to believe sedrick in his own words.
To disregard RoK's warning (or threat, depending on what side of the treaty web you're on.) that aiding the said nation would be considered an act of war invited action, heck, it begged for it. I think Hoo himself might have even been perplexed as to how easy you made this cb for him. -
[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281427126' post='2409335']
Are you serious? When a war breaks out, that's usually the most important thing to look at when you're establishing its legitimacy.
[/quote]
I said it shouldn't be a question, as in :
There is no question that when NSO accepted a rogue by RoK after the leader of RoK stated aiding said rogue would be considered an act of war and then high ranking NSO government member X authorized the aiding of said nation that there was an act of war committed by NSO.
Saying "we didn't think it was an act of war," when one party has explicitly said it would be is a total disregard to the politics that HoT is pretending to portray as abused by RoK.
I am all for calling this an e-measuring contest, but this is still a valid CB.
It's clear as day from the logs in #nso That the guy is absolutely nuts. -
[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1281427133' post='2409336']
Actually someone from MHA confirmed he was an applicant and not a ghost.
[/quote]
Yes, he was also promptly denied and thereafter was ghosting our AA. -
[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1281426619' post='2409327']
So wait. This has nothing to do with Heft's actual position, and entirely with Hoo's choice to use this as a reason for a DoW?
Let me catch my breath, it seems you've just stumbled upon what actually happened and Im honestly a bit shocked.
Im glad that you agree that this war wasn't really all of Heft's doing either. And Im sure he appreciates you defending him for faults he himself has already admitted to doing.
[/quote]
I can't say what their interaction was but it was a measuring contest of some sort.
Guess who won?
While that may be what's really behind it, the way it started or who's at fault should not be of question. -
[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1281426395' post='2409323']
Ouch, burn, except we did. And upon looking into it, it seems that despite being the attacker, he was not the initial aggressor in this event.
I like your last sentence though, it's very ironic given what you're trying to imply.
[/quote]
Meh, I just felt I'd give you the laugh.
IIRC, he was ghosting our AA at the time of those spy attacks, and that is the only evidence I have seen.
So... -
[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1281426203' post='2409316']
So is Rebel Virginia.
So why was he ignored when he attempted to rectify the situation immediately afterward?
Then quit doing it.
[/quote]
I'm not.
I'm commenting at the lack of respect he is being shown by his fellow alliance mates even.
When someone messes up you talk to them about it inside, you don't trash them on the OWF.
As for the first, Hoo took Hefts word as the official stance of NSO on the matter, a state of war existed thereafter.
While surely they could've probably dealt with it if they chose to, Hoo felt the grievance was strong enough to declare war.
It's pretty simple to me. -
[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1281426120' post='2409313']
Sorry, but Hoo being stubborn isn't reason enough for us to cut and run on one of our members. Any one of them.
[/quote]
Well, in light of this, you should probably check new applicants war screens.
But I don't want to sound like an imbocile giving advice with hindsight. -
[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281426008' post='2409311']
Right, and if some base member of 64Digits attacks a base member of RIA, we have 'entered a state of war' with RIA by those standards. However, typically, level heads will negotiate the issue; I would, for example, go to RIA leadership and say "Hey man, sorry bout this, what can I do to fix the situation?"
[/quote]
Again.
This argument is fallacious.
Heft is a well established high ranking government member of the NSO. -
Either way, he clearly has the authority to send aid, as was done.
I don't understand how RoK is at fault for taking the word of a high ranking government official at face value, nor why they should have to come back to the table just because the alliance wanted to rethink its position after they found out Hoo was serious when he told Heft he considered an action most in the OOC: game /OOC to be an act of war, an act of war.
This is probably the worst argument for NSO that I've heard.
I think it's pathetic that people are trying to smear Heft. -
[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281425568' post='2409300']
However, [i]those superior to Heft immediately attempted to rectify the issue[/i], efforts which RoK purposely ignored in the interests of starting a war. NSO cannot be held accountable because of the attempted negotiation, which RoK ignored when they hastily took the aggressive route. It is this fact, and this fact alone, which puts the blame on RoK instead of NSO.
[/quote]
Why do you keep saying that?
The only one with a higher rank than Heft is Lintwad AFAIK. -
[quote name='Antonio Salovega VI' timestamp='1281424346' post='2409285']
Thank you, HeroofTime55 for providing a textbook illustration of being clueless about being clueless. There are diplomatic logs available which show RoK giving the Sith an upfront notice that aiding the rogue would be considered an “act of war.” I suggest you read them.
RoK is not at fault. If anything Rok’s direct and forthright diplomatic dialogue left absolutely no room for misunderstanding. It was the Sith who disregarded RoK’s diplomatic admonition by aiding the rogue. That flagrant disregard was the first act of war which precipitated the current conflict. It is apparent to all but the most myopic, that it was the Sith who initiated this war by deliberately rebuffing and/or ignoring RoK’s counsel. If you insist of pointing fingers at an alliance which did not "even feign diplomacy", I suggest that you look at the Sith leadership. It was they who were warned and it was they who blew it. Sadly it is the member nations of the Sith who are paying the price for their leader’s obvious incompetence.
[/quote]
I was going to reply and be like "Has this guy had even the slightest of what went on? Gee, It really even makes me mad that he said that despite having what actually happened agreed upon by both parties involved...I mean, I have to reply just to show him he's a....."
But then I saw your post and realized it had already been done.
I just wanted to let you know that I wanted to thank you so much I quoted it and typed the above words. -
Ironically, the CN world is becoming multi-polar.
All of the people whining about the inaction of alliances really should just keep it to themselves, as they're actually doing quite well to polarize the game into roughly 4 camps, (5 if you count neutral alliances,) with only a few bridges inbetween.
Will get interesting soon.
Edit: [size="4"]
[/size] Neutrals [size="4"][/size] -
Unproductive post.
-
[quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1280732572' post='2398108']
Good move MHA, and possibly the only thing that could give Ram some good publicity.
The original agreement was signed on both sides by those who aren't in the same alliances or who don't even play the game anymore, and I'm sure MHA gov have been quietly cursing them in the nicest possible way over recent months. It's the same as the NPO situation, do you stick with someone who treats you like dirt and goes against the spirit of the treaty (and in NPO's case actually breaks an admittedly minor clause of the treaty) because of a promise mistakenly made in the past or do you draw a line under it and move on no matter what those who don't know about the situation think of you?
The two treaties were signed very close to each other for reasons that were though to be justifiable at the time. Yeah it turned out badly, but MHA haven't signed a treaty like this since the NPO debacle so it's safe to say that they've already learned their lesson.
EDIT: Don't forget about a new MHA sanctioned alliance pip
[/quote]
<3 Kowalski. Come back. -
[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1280726083' post='2397968']
beat you to it
get some original material, would ya?
[/quote] next time i'll ask you to write me it! -
[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1280726219' post='2397972']
Whether they do or don't, the negative attitude toward MHA is pretty widespread. Pacifica's hypocrisy aside, MHA's actions are still laughable.
[/quote]
I've found it mixed, people in the same alliance agree and disagree, some agree but disagree on parts, it's all a muddle.
I appreciate the support those have given MHA, as this is a hard time for us. -
[quote name='Dilber' timestamp='1280725493' post='2397954']
I've already dealt with it since then. Congrats on admitting to being in the fellow group of "traitors".
[/quote]
I never "admitted to being a traitor," I merely pointed out the irony of you making a forum pip calling us traitors.
I thought that was obvious.
Sorry. -
[quote name='Dilber' timestamp='1280725017' post='2397945']
I was talking about the Ordinance of the Orders, which MHA was one of the big pushers behind it being eventually canceled. After it was cancelled, we still protected them for a long time from the likes of you. If you want to talk history, I can do that.
[/quote]
Gee, so all that stuff about being traitors applies to you too, then?
Thanks for making my point. -
[quote name='Dilber' timestamp='1280724646' post='2397939']
I found another similarity. Both times MHA pushed to have an eternal treaty canceled.
[/quote]
You really do need to move on.
The first treaty has already been dismissed and was not cancelled by us, rather by you when you ventured off and attacked OV, I was in TORN when you left us to dry...etc... but that's not about that.
We've done all we can for our brothers, i can't say the same for you. -
[quote name='iamthey' timestamp='1280723937' post='2397927']
Apparently that is how treaties work in MHA, and apparently they can just refuse to honor them when it suits them. I guess we all know exactly how much our MHA treaties are worth.
[/quote]
I remember a certain uncancellable Order of Orders treaty. -
[quote name='BamaBuc' timestamp='1280718166' post='2397838']
Look, MHA, I get that Grä has gone in a different direction than y'all. I get that the Grämlins of today are not the ones you signed the treaty with. Those reasons are completely understandable... People cancel treaties for those reasons all the time. What absolutely boggles my mind is that you apparently signed an eternal treaty without so much as [i]considering[/i] that Grä could possibly evolve into a different alliance than the one it was at that moment! Alliances change. Maybe you had undying loyalty to the Grämlins as they existed at that moment, and would have upheld that bond forever if they had forever remained the same. But did you seriously not give thought to the possibility that Grämlins [i]might[/i] not stay the same forever? You guys made the decision to enter into a treaty that had no way to cancel it without breaking your word. It didn't say "if one signatory goes !@#$% insane and no longer resembles the entity that signed this treaty, it's void." Or "if most of the government officials signing this treaty should leave, it's void." You guys boxed yourselves into a corner where you could either break the treaty or stay allied to an alliance that's proven to be extremely volatile and irrational. Like I said, I don't blame you for wanting to get away from Grämlins. People feel that way about treaty partners all the time. But the lesson here is not to write checks you aren't willing to cash. That's what you did.
I do have one question though: why not just wait for Grä to disband? They're down to 12 members total, probably less than that active, and there seems to be a rift between Ramirus and the other two triumvirs (or whatever Grä calls them) about ending the war. So why take this PR hit (I'm assuming you guys knew this would bring a PR hit) when Grämlins are likely to bite the dust any time now?
I will say that I applaud you for waiting until the war ended before canceling. I've always felt that even if you disagree with an ally in war, you should wait til they make peace before you cancel on them.
-Bama
[/quote]
OOC: Bama, I responded because I generally agree with you on most issues when I see your posts. Both of the MHA's treaties were signed in 2008. While I get the other reasons for criticizing the cancellation of this treaty, I do not understand the criticization that it is directly related to any current members failings. As someone mentioned earlier, only two signatories from either alliance remain in either alliance, and only one has affiliation with the government, as an advisor. To criticize the MHA because it signed what were thought to be unbreakable treaties with alliances they truly shelt a deeper bond than most in this game have ever felt with one another at any time was not done out of lack of foresight, but perhaps a case of optimism gone awry. I believe that those on both sides who signed either document never felt that the relationship we had would change, but the politics of that era have also changed. We're talking about 2008. Aqua Unity was still a goal of most, Trident didn't have conflicted interests (Major ones, there were, but they were workable issues.) I don't think any of the signatories could have predicted the events of recent, or even of the past few years that brought the cancellation of the previously two eternal treaties. (The NPO treaty indeed had a cancellation clause, but it was one year, and was not meant to broken.) I only arrived in 2008, and had stated during discussion stages that these treaties could possibly come back to bite us in the $@! if things changed. Unfortunately our database was erased from our old forums and much of that history is now gone. Our alliance was also different from within back then. We were quite happy with our position in the world, us "lowly," members only thought the best of either alliance, and most were giddy at the prospect of securing that relationship permanantly. Our government was more of an Oligarchy rather than the relatively steady Republic we have today. Over the years, we have all drifted. It is a testament to the strength of that relationship that it lasted so long [i]despite[/i] it's obvious eternal flaw. We've corrected it, and legally have cancelled the HA Accords (in the only alliance's eyes that truly matter, our own,) at a time when our relationship is no longer at the MDoAP level. As for your question as to why not wait for Gre to disband, (and I do hope they do not,) it is in my opinion that we took the pr hit because we felt so strongly as an alliance about the issue. As an alliance, the rift between the leaders does not even factor in. As an alliance I believe there is a feeling that we would rather not be treatied to an alliance where one leader has exclusively led the alliance to ruin, not for one days, not for ten, not for two hundred more. To expect a dramatic change would be naive.
IC: That being said, we didn't even cancel this treaty because the "times have changed." The issue is listed in the OP. The alliance we were formerly allied to had made decisions that threatened not only their existance, but us as well. Did we just give up on them? No, we attempted to reason with their leade(R)s. The responses we were given were that we just didn't understand and that it was for our own good. In fact, at one time we were told that the supposive threat that another ally faced from an already vanquished foe that THAT SAME OTHER ALLY had given peace was greater than our concern that their action was killing themselves and damaging them beyond repair. In fact, THAT SAME OTHER ALLY did not even agree with that rationale. We spent hours, days, typing back to eachother but at the end of it it was clear that reason was not going to rule. Did we abandon our brothers? No. We fended off several wolves who came knocking. We instead attempted to help them procure a peace they desired. When it became obvious that it was not possible, we still stuck by their side. We've done all that was asked, and more.
Edit: Lowly peon view, not view of alliance as whole, yada yada yada
Ragnarok Declaration of War
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
So your argument is that this war is somehow unjust because NSO committed an act of war against TENE, RoK's protectorate, and not RoK.
