R&R-UINE Announcement

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307591426' post='2727608']
It's not only the forced expulsions, it's the alteration of charters and internal procedures over a minor incident that's the issue. People aren't complaining because it's the end of the world, just because we've spent the last two years operating under the assumption that these sorts of terms were contrary to our new norms.
[/quote]

I am yet to figure out who entitled anyone to create those [i]new norms[/i].

[theArrowheadian]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1307590366' post='2727587']
This thread is a guide to how win a easy and justified war, and how lose tons of PR doing this.
[/quote]

Hey as long as they're talking about you and that's what a lot people seem to be doing.

[Minilla Island]

[quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1307593021' post='2727621']
That's not quite true. You negotiated for what... 2 days? That's a drop in the bucket. My advice to anyone when negotiating terms for their alliance is simple:

-If you can't stomach the terms, decline them. The worst that can happen is more war. I promise, losing your dignity and self-respect is far, far worse than fighting a little longer.
-If you can live with it, take it and screw everyone else. It's your alliance and if you are ok with it, good for you. Just make sure you're ACTUALLY ok with it, because once you accept it, you have to live with it, and if it was too harsh, you're going to hold a grudge for a long time.

There are two things I think STA really regrets. One of them was accepting way, way too harsh terms a few years ago.

If you guys are comfortable with the agreement you made with R&R, don't worry about the peanut gallery. You don't answer to them. You answer to yourselves.
[/quote]

I take the attitude of the Holocaust survivor: We won because we survived. As we speak, some of the terms have already been started with the reps being sent. So, whether or not we like the terms is a non-issue. The fact is we were on the business end of a bayonet, with few coming to the charge. Picture the Finns in the Second Winter War with the Soviets. We had few bullets facing the Soviet Army. As great a patriot as he was, Mannerheim threw the cards in. We did the same here.

As I said earlier: The Union will rebuild and she will prevail.

[Louis Balfour]

Considering all the bawing about these terms, it's interesting how little of it is actually coming from UINE. I think that says something.

But then again, considering all the flack we got for writing in an apology into terms from some of R&R's louder detractors here who were screaming 'Bloody Murder' about it, perhaps all this bawing isn't that surprising. It's just what they do...

[mythicknight]

World Police Pt. 2? Lackluster sequel

[Banksy]

[quote name='Comrade Craig' timestamp='1307593392' post='2727624']
I guess I'm not clear about exactly what our "new norms" are. Perhaps DH should publish them so we're all clear

-Craig
[/quote]
[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1307593763' post='2727628']
I am yet to figure out who entitled anyone to create those [i]new norms[/i].
[/quote]
It seems like you haven't visited the OWF since June 2009. I envy you.

We've come to accept that the alteration of charters and the forced resignation of government members (hello echelon) is something that isn't done. It's not a moral v amoral argument (for once) but a convention we've had in every war since the Karma war. If this is news to R&R then they are even more out of ~the loop~ than I realised.

@ Craig, this has nothing to do with "DoomHouse," we're usually the ones ~in the wrong~ here. I am simply pointing out that what R&R has done is completely unprecedented in the last two years.

@ Lusitan, I don't think you understand how norms are formed. It is not a minority or a single entity that creates them, rather a society or community. The 'international' community has changed the types of peace terms victorious alliances impose on the defeated, and we haven't seen terms like this for some time as far as I can recall.

I'm hardly one to complain that a member of the premier bloc on the planet has suddenly handed us this precedent. It has the potential to make things far more interesting. But you can't escape the fact that it is a break in established norms and this is why it's caused such an issue.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1307581411' post='2727432']
I often kick pebbles as I walk along the side of the road. It's not that I hate the pebbles, or even particularly pay them much mind. They just happen to be there, and I have a tendency to fidget.
[/quote]
But do you keep a bucket of pebbles by your bedside, just in case you get the urge to kick them around a bit in the middle of the night?

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307591426' post='2727608']
It's not only the forced expulsions, it's the alteration of charters and internal procedures over a minor incident that's the issue. People aren't complaining because it's the end of the world, just because we've spent the last two years operating under the assumption that these sorts of terms were contrary to our new norms.
[/quote]
I could allow just one MKer to be morally outraged at this, maybe. But good lord, after what your alliance has perpetrated in recent years, and especially in recent months, you really have no room to speak. So cut it out with all the pretend moral outrage. All of you.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307596322' post='2727651']
@ Lusitan, I don't think you understand how norms are formed. It is not a minority or a single entity that creates them, rather a society or community. The 'international' community has changed the types of peace terms victorious alliances impose on the defeated, and we haven't seen terms like this for some time as far as I can recall.

I'm hardly one to complain that a member of the premier bloc on the planet has suddenly handed us this precedent. It has the potential to make things far more interesting. But you can't escape the fact that it is a break in established norms and this is why it's caused such an issue.
[/quote]

You missed my point. It's not that I don't understand why norms are formed, it's I don't understand why [b]you[/b] are basing your argument in them.

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Louis Balfour' timestamp='1307594053' post='2727632']
Considering all the bawing about these terms, it's interesting how little of it is actually coming from UINE. I think that says something.

But then again, considering all the flack we got for writing in an apology into terms from some of R&R's louder detractors here who were screaming 'Bloody Murder' about it, perhaps all this bawing isn't that surprising. It's just what they do...
[/quote]

Yes, it has never happened ever in the history of the Cyberverse! An alliance who has been given crap terms has refrained from irritating the situation by publicly complaining about them and just getting on with things. Never. This is a watershed moment in Cybernations history, to be sure.

I think the general consensus here is that the terms intruding on UINE's sovereignty are a step too far. I guess it is easy for you to dismiss such sentiments by labelling it "bawwing" rather than actually thinking about what it is people are annoyed about and why.

It wouldn't be Cybernations without people like you running the same memes up the flagpole everytime somethign like this happens. "Stop bawwing!", "lol moralists"...blah, blah, blah.

Heaven forbid people form an opinion about events presented in the public forum and...*gasp*...post those opinions.

[Banksy]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1307596858' post='2727662']
I could allow just one MKer to be morally outraged at this, maybe. But good lord, after what your alliance has perpetrated in recent years, and especially in recent months, you really have no room to speak. So cut it out with all the pretend moral outrage. All of you.
[/quote]
I like the way you didn't read my series of posts, assumed I was taking a moral position and then countered your own assumption.

[img]http://vitodibari.com/Blogging%20the%20Future/Tim%20Gunn.jpg[/img]

[Banksy]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1307597055' post='2727665']
You missed my point. It's not that I don't understand why norms are formed, it's I don't understand why [b]you[/b] are basing your argument in them.
[/quote]
I'm basing my argument on the fact that norms exist because ... norms exist. I don't really understand what you're trying to say here, sorry.

As I think i've already said ad nauseum, we've been told for years that these sorts of terms are unacceptable, and this goes against that. That is all i've said.

[Mathias]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1307596858' post='2727662']
I could allow just one MKer to be morally outraged at this, maybe. But good lord, after what your alliance has perpetrated in recent years, and especially in recent months, you really have no room to speak. So cut it out with all the pretend moral outrage. All of you.
[/quote]

Shut up. No one cares what you'll "allow."

MK hasn't forced people out of gov or changed anyone's charter. And this argument isn't about MK, so sorry we're not the boogeyman you want us to be.

And I'll be outraged about what I've always been outraged about. Just because I don't !@#$%* about tech raiding or people having to pay reps or just simply going to war doesn't mean I don't have my own moral standards.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307597422' post='2727676']
I'm basing my argument on the fact that norms exist because ... norms exist. I don't really understand what you're trying to say here, sorry.

As I think i've already said ad nauseum, we've been told for years that these sorts of terms are unacceptable, and this goes against that. That is all i've said.
[/quote]

Norms exist based on moral concepts. You cannot really dissociate them. Saying otherwise is like drinking water from the ocean and claim it's not salty. And the funny thing is you already realized how easily you can slip in your argument

We were told for years since noCB, including by ourselves, that pre-emptive strikes were not acceptable. Yet here we are with you defending other kind of norms. For years we were told that alliances needed treaties to defend friends. And yet, both our alliances supported and protected alliance(s) who went paperless.

Explain me again, why are you defending norms?

[flak attack]

[quote name='Minilla Island' timestamp='1307593978' post='2727631']
I take the attitude of the Holocaust survivor: We won because we survived. As we speak, some of the terms have already been started with the reps being sent. So, whether or not we like the terms is a non-issue. The fact is we were on the business end of a bayonet, with few coming to the charge. Picture the Finns in the Second Winter War with the Soviets. We had few bullets facing the Soviet Army. As great a patriot as he was, Mannerheim threw the cards in. We did the same here.

As I said earlier: The Union will rebuild and she will prevail.
[/quote]
Surviving a 3 day war where no one wants to disband you isn't exactly winning. You barely dealt any noticeable damage to RnR.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1307596858' post='2727662']
I could allow just one MKer to be morally outraged at this, maybe. But good lord, after what your alliance has perpetrated in recent years, and especially in recent months, you really have no room to speak. So cut it out with all the pretend moral outrage. All of you.
[/quote]
Surprise! A monarchy has a problem with an alliance forcing democratic charter changes!

[Steve Buscemi]

at UINE for agreeing to terms so quickly and [i]those[/i] terms. Congrats RnR!

Does anyone else think of UINE and the other small blue alliances allied to NpO being ex-BLEU? I don't even think UINE was around during the BLEU days, but I always think of those guys being NpO BLEU meatshields.

[Jaiar]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1307506452' post='2726640']
Is it though?

I think that depends on how earnest you think R&R is about their implied intentions. They seem genuinely to want to teach them something now that they've found out what a disaster of an alliance they are. That pretty much can only be accomplished two ways when your an adversary, either by a forced guiding hand or by beating their face in for a substantial period of time. Instead of going with the latter, they went with the former and ended the war after only a few days. Stigmas of old were based on situations where such forced guiding hands were blatantly used to harm under nothing but the most facial assertion of a false benevolent pretext, and maybe its just me, but that's just not the feeling I get here.
[/quote]
And VE again shows its hypocrisy knows no bounds.

These terms are sad. RnR is sad. UINE's "new" government is sad for accepting this. Such a sad day.

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1307504147' post='2726582']
(or his altenative name should he ever decide to reroll)
[/quote]

Super sketchy.

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1307504147' post='2726582']
5. From the date of this agreement forward, UINE will not be allowed to interfere with or attack the R&R alliance or any alliance that R&R is treatied with, unless it is in self-defense from an act of aggression launched against UINE by R&R or her allies. Any form of aggression from UINE towards R&R or her allies may be considered an act of war.
[/quote]

As opposed to the all those other times when aggression isn't an act of war?

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1307579174' post='2727410']
Mandatory Tech deals is a way of [i]running[/i] a foreign alliance's resources. Mandatory exit of peace mode is a way of [i]running[/i] a foreign alliance's nations.

The argument on sovereignty concession is nothing short of absurd - that is per se the definition of a treaty and more so of surrender terms -, the question is where you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable demands on someone's sovereignty. Punishment should fit the crime and not follow a blind declaration of [i]rules that should be respected[/i]™.

Saying that an alliance has no business running another alliance has never been true in Planet Bob since the first war GATO fought.
[/quote]

1. None of your examples change the internal working of the alliance in question. Different values of "running", which is fun word-play but useless.
2.Tech deals and peace mode exits end. These changes are meant to be permanent.

Apples and Oranges. Your argument is stupid. QED GED FMOC.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1307604057' post='2727748']
1. None of your examples change the internal working of the alliance in question. Different values of "running", which is fun word-play but useless.
2.Tech deals and peace mode exits end. These changes are meant to be permanent.
[/quote]

1. They do change the internal working of an alliance for an extended period of time. They change the aid slot allocation, levels of tech import and so on. You being from Polaris should known that internal workings go far beyond what is written in the charter.

2. I am glad RnR informed Polaris in general and you in particular of the spirit of the agreement. If it doesn't have a time limit nor says it's permanent it only means you don't know how long it will last not that it will last forever. Assuming you know the conditions of a contract between two parties based on the assumption all the information you need is delivered on the OWF is stupid. Again, you being from Polaris should know that better than anyone.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1307598175' post='2727686']
Norms exist based on moral concepts. You cannot really dissociate them. Saying otherwise is like drinking water from the ocean and claim it's not salty. And the funny thing is you already realized how easily you can slip in your argument

We were told for years since noCB, including by ourselves, that pre-emptive strikes were not acceptable. Yet here we are with you defending other kind of norms. For years we were told that alliances needed treaties to defend friends. And yet, both our alliances supported and protected alliance(s) who went paperless.

Explain me again, why are you defending norms?
[/quote]
Okay
1) Norms are not necessarily created by morals. They are social conventions. Like a handshake.
2) I'm not ~for~ these norms, I'm not too sure where you got that from. As a member of the resident CN hegemony[sup]TM[/sup] i'm stoked to find out someone else is breaking them first.

[AmbroseIV]

The continued bickering over precedent and sovereignty is slightly astounding. People do realise it's nothing more than throwaway rhetoric, right?

Sovereignty, first of all, is quite possibly the most overused term on Bob (hegemony might've overtaken it, but I don't care to count) - ignoring the multitude of scenarios that don't include war (such as the inherent influence of allies an alliance chooses to keep), as soon as one party at war surrenders they have lost their sovereignty. Regardless of any specific terms, they've ceded control of their alliance to an external party; the individual terms may be fair or outrageous, but the exact degree/whether they're asked to write an apology or expel all members over 5k NS [i]really[/i] doesn't matter.

The way the word's being bandied about here makes the entire concept [i]totally[/i] irrelevant and if it's such a big concern I expect the near-constant jockeying for underdog status to be taken to a whole new level: people will be fighting over who'll lose the next war to ensure they don't infringe on the sovereign right of another alliance

As for precedent... well... don't be daft. Bob is constantly evolving (for better or worse) and while it can be humiliating, the OWF isn't a legally binding court (only say that because sometimes I get the feeling people don't realise this) - history has shown that people will make the decision they feel is most appropriate at any given time and what is considered acceptable will change over time. To suggest a precedent will be set after the [i]negative[/i] feedback R&R has received seems to be... a confused stance. It would be akin to saying because of DH's most recent efforts we will suddenly see a spate of preemptive wars: it's just not going to happen.

Actually, that's probably an unfavourable comparison for R&R given the context - they really don't stand to personally gain anything from this incident and (despite some arguably clumsy wording) I don't think you can claim any ill-intent for trying to address the root of UINE's problems over the last 6 months and ensure this is resolved once and for all. You need to treat things on their own merits. I don't feel an urge to request someone is removed from government just because R&R have, and I assume everyone else who's posted feels the same, so just who are they enabling and/or establishing a precedent for...?


[b]TL;DR - I will scream if I hear someone mention the words precedent or sovereignty again in this thread. Feel free to have an opinion on these peace terms (or anything else - go ahead, I'll let you! ) but what exactly will you achieve by using cliched, redundant terminology? Just simply say you don't like [whatever]... please? [/b]

[/rant]


To expand on the topic of the actual peace agreement: having had to deal with Keve and UINE (on and off) over the past 6 months, I personally don't mind the terms. Of course no-one would like it to happen to them but, after playing their little games and being screwed around with a fair degree of regularity, I really don't have much sympathy - although they were up against insurmountable odds, UINE managed to obtain peace within two days, had already promised this course of action [i]and[/i] received every concession they asked for... so perhaps they were just a little hasty in their decision making.

Beyond that, I can only thank R&R for their assistance and offer UINE my best wishes for the future - hopefully everything works out for you. If I can offer one piece of advice, however, it's that you find some more directly supportive allies or at least try to ensure the relationship consists of something more than a reunion every few months where you are berated* for causing them some kind of trouble or embarrassment.


Now, to bask in our millions of reparations!

('cause that's what this was really all about - honestly, my <15k NS nation could've sent it all out in 2 aid cycles. Those of you who think it's [i]that[/i] petty are missing the point )


*edit

Edited June 9, 2011 by AmbroseIV

[Heft]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1307604867' post='2727754']
2. I am glad RnR informed Polaris in general and you in particular of the spirit of the agreement. If it doesn't have a time limit nor says it's permanent it only means you don't know how long it will last not that it will last forever. Assuming you know the conditions of a contract between two parties based on the assumption all the information you need is delivered on the OWF is stupid. Again, you being from Polaris should know that better than anyone.
[/quote]
It's a fair assumption that one can know the conditions of a contract by reading said contract. Your argument only makes sense if there are "secret" terms of the contract hidden from public view which extend/modify/contradict the public portion of the contract. I suppose it is entirely possible that there is a secret term that says these terms are only going to be enforced for X number of days/weeks/months or something, but why that would be secret and not public is rather baffling. Assuming that an agreement has secret terms like that is a much stranger assumption than just assuming all the terms are in the publicly released document.

Other than that, it's an argument over "indefinite" versus "permanent."


@Ambrose: Just because you don't like certain words or how people usually use those certain words doesn't mean they aren't relevant or meaningful. There's no point rehashing the last 14 pages now, but if the best argument you can come up with to address the critics (who are widespread, diverse, and numerous) of this agreement is that you're tired of hearing certain words, than you're better off just not saying anything.

[Banksy]

This post...
[quote name='AmbroseIV' timestamp='1307610093' post='2727774']
[/quote]
Great start

[quote name='AmbroseIV' timestamp='1307610093' post='2727774']
Sovereignty, first of all, is quite possibly the most overused term on Bob (hegemony might've overtaken it, but I don't care to count) - ignoring the multitude of scenarios that don't include war (such as the inherent influence of allies an alliance chooses to keep), as soon as one party at war surrenders they have lost their sovereignty. Regardless of any specific terms, they've ceded control of their alliance to an external party; the individual terms may be fair or outrageous, but the exact degree/whether they're asked to write an apology or expel all members over 5k NS [i]really[/i] doesn't matter. [/quote]
Is this guy a Ramarius reroll?

[AmbroseIV]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1307611147' post='2727781']
@Ambrose: Just because you don't like certain words or how people usually use those certain words doesn't mean they aren't relevant or meaningful. There's no point rehashing the last 14 pages now, but if the best argument you can come up with to address the critics (who are widespread, diverse, and numerous) of this agreement is that you're tired of hearing certain words, than you're better off just not saying anything.
[/quote]
You're cranky. I like you.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307611354' post='2727783']
This post...

Great start


Is this guy a Ramarius reroll?
[/quote]
You're witty - I like you too.

Sadly, I'd much prefer if you didn't dismiss my comments by throwing a delicious new spin on 'em - I didn't say anything against the opinion of the critics, I only suggested they choose their words more appropriately 'cause it doesn't do much for their credibility (and on that note, oh the irony of me using emotes! )