Official announcement from the Legion

[WarriorConcept]

Are people seriously arguing that attacking in defense of an ally is not aggression anymore?

You guys are really on something.

[Heft]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1320200583' post='2836859']
Are people seriously arguing that attacking in defense of an ally is not aggression anymore?

You guys are really on something.
[/quote]
See also: Arguing that initiating a war is not aggression.

The real problem is that for some reason this inane political world of ours has attached moral connotations or judgement to "aggressor" and "defender" when there is no need to, so everyone feels compelled to twist themselves into logical pretzels in order to justify how whichever side they support isn't the aggressor.

[Krunk the Great]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1320200583' post='2836859']
Are people seriously arguing that attacking in defense of an ally is not aggression anymore?

You guys are really on something.
[/quote]

I agree. Declaring war is aggressive.

Not declaring war is passive, by contrast.

However, a *war of aggression* contains two sides: The Aggressors and the Defenders.

The aggressors consist of the alliance who originally declared war (Reasons for declaring not withstanding) And her allies.

The defenders consist of the alliance who was originally declared upon and any allies who come to this alliances [b]defense[/b].

Bit of term confusion going on here on the OWF, I'll give you that much.

[LeonidasRexII]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1320201136' post='2836866']
See also: Arguing that initiating a war is not aggression.

The real problem is that for some reason this inane political world of ours has attached moral connotations or judgement to "aggressor" and "defender" when there is no need to, so everyone feels compelled to twist themselves into logical pretzels in order to justify how whichever side they support isn't the aggressor.
[/quote]

There is no ambiguity here if the following can be accepted: an alliance that declares war isn't necessarily the aggressor, and an alliance that defends an ally isn't necessarily acting in defense.

How would you assign the label of Aggressor and Defender in this situation?
[list=1][*]Alliance A commits an Act of War on Alliance B[*]Alliance B responds by DoW on Alliance A[*]Alliance C attacks Alliance B thereby supporting the original Act of War[/list]With Alliance A clearly in the wrong Alliance C has the choice to either support the Act of War or not. To me since they came to A's defense both A and C are complicit in said Act of War and should be labeled Aggressor.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Kim Jaym Il' timestamp='1320197840' post='2836838']
I'm pretty sure at this point that this is all just a ploy by NSO so that nobody will ever attack them in the future just to avoid this !@#$ that comes along with it every single time they lose a war.
[/quote]

That implies they'll have something to attack at their going rate.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1320201136' post='2836866']
See also: Arguing that initiating a war is not aggression.

The real problem is that for some reason this inane political world of ours has attached moral connotations or judgement to "aggressor" and "defender" when there is no need to, so everyone feels compelled to twist themselves into logical pretzels in order to justify how whichever side they support isn't the aggressor.
[/quote]
Legions war with Tetris could be considered aggressive depending on how you look at it, but that doesn't mean they are in an aggressive war with every alliance who declares war on them as a result. They launched one offensive war, the rest they defended against.

[Rayvon]

When this line of conversation is done, does someone wanna give me a rundown of the stats again?

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Rayvon' timestamp='1320203029' post='2836897']
When this line of conversation is done, does someone wanna give me a rundown of the stats again?
[/quote]
I dunno, but it looks like I'm going to win my bet with TehChron, unless you guys pull something off.

[magicninja]

WTF does aggressive or defensive have to do with anything anyway? Play your political cards and dispense with the !@#$%^&*.

[mrwuss]

[quote name='Flonker' timestamp='1320178785' post='2836658']
[url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105760]Um, no[/url]. But thank you for playing.
[/quote]

You don't have the mental capacity to use these forums.

LOLegion
Roll Polar

[LeonidasRexII]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1320203630' post='2836903']
WTF does aggressive or defensive have to do with anything anyway? Play your political cards and dispense with the !@#$%^&*.
[/quote]

I was just trying to clear things up. Carry on.

Edited November 2, 2011 by LeonidasRexII

[sir pwnage]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1320192021' post='2836793']
Yeah, I really should have added context to that post.

What I should have said in response to him is: 'How could we try and declare unilateral white peace if Legion wanted the war to continue? Peace requires both sides to go along with it, even if the actual act of declaring peace was a unilateral one. So, since no one was actually advocating unilateral white peace, perhaps you should refocus your rant?'.
[/quote]

Ok, I'll try to refocus...

You say that if The Legion continues to attack you if they sign a peace agreement with Tetris, but not you, it would be an aggressive action on their part, correct? In order for it to be an aggressive action on their part, wouldn't the war between NSO and Legion have to have ended? But in order for the war to have ended, wouldn't you and Legion have needed to sign a peace agreement? But the two of you didn't sign a peace agreement. Yet you would claim that the war ended. Isn't that you declaring white peace? Without The Legion having a say in the matter, beyond giving peace to Tetris? And isn't that unilateral white peace?

I tried to break that up as much as possible so you can point out where exactly it is that I went wrong in my reasoning.

I certainly understand that The Legion continuing to attack you after the war ends is silly. But if you refuse to accept their terms for peace, then the war continues. If both of you don't say "The war is over, and this is what's going to happen" then the war is not over. Logic and sanity play no part in it. They've been crying in the corner for the last 40 pages.

[Master Holton]

[quote name='sir pwnage' timestamp='1320230480' post='2836993']
Ok, I'll try to refocus...

You say that if The Legion continues to attack you if they sign a peace agreement with Tetris, but not you, it would be an aggressive action on their part, correct? In order for it to be an aggressive action on their part, wouldn't the war between NSO and Legion have to have ended? But in order for the war to have ended, wouldn't you and Legion have needed to sign a peace agreement? But the two of you didn't sign a peace agreement. Yet you would claim that the war ended. Isn't that you declaring white peace? Without The Legion having a say in the matter, beyond giving peace to Tetris? And isn't that unilateral white peace?

I tried to break that up as much as possible so you can point out where exactly it is that I went wrong in my reasoning.

I certainly understand that The Legion continuing to attack you after the war ends is silly. But if you refuse to accept their terms for peace, then the war continues. If both of you don't say "The war is over, and this is what's going to happen" then the war is not over. Logic and sanity play no part in it. They've been crying in the corner for the last 40 pages.
[/quote]

The last 40 pages are a horrible read and the plot begins to repeat every 20 pages or so...

But what we're say is this (I shall spell it out step by step):

Legion has a war with Tetris. Yes? Yes.

NSO is in said war purely for honoring a treaty with Tetris yes? Yes.

If Legion declares peace with Tetris... What reason would we have to continue?

It's like when NsO surrendered- IAA and BTA also stopped ("stopped" implies a start but hey.)

So if Legion kept up an assault on us- it'd virtually be like starting a new war- CBless.

[generals3]

[quote name='Tiber Septim' timestamp='1320231679' post='2836995']


So if Legion kept up an assault on us- it'd virtually be like starting a new war- CBless.
[/quote]

I must interject, that doesn't seem to make any sense at all. You not having any reason left to be at war doesn't suddenly end the war and you can only start a new war with someone if there isn't already a war ongoing. Like mentioned previously this strangely looks like a unilateral white peace.

You not having any reason left to be at war merely means you [i]should[/i] peace out.

EDIT: on top of that Legion itself isn't at war with you because they declared on Tetris but because you attacked them when honoring a treaty. So while you may have no reason left to fight they still do, they are fighting you because you declared on them, declaring peace with Tetris wouldn't suddenly change that fact.

Edited November 2, 2011 by generals3

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Tiber Septim' timestamp='1320231679' post='2836995']
The last 40 pages are a horrible read and the plot begins to repeat every 20 pages or so...

But what we're say is this (I shall spell it out step by step):

Legion has a war with Tetris. Yes? Yes.

NSO is in said war purely for honoring a treaty with Tetris yes? Yes.

If Legion declares peace with Tetris... What reason would we have to continue?

It's like when NsO surrendered- IAA and BTA also stopped ("stopped" implies a start but hey.)

So if Legion kept up an assault on us- it'd virtually be like starting a new war- CBless.
[/quote]

I seem to recall IAA and BTA signing the peace agreement in the OP of this thread. They did not simply "stop" when NsO surrendered, they agreed to a peace agreement with Legion much as NSO would be required to do to end the war between them and Legion.

You speak utter nonsense in claiming that an agreement between Tetris and Legion to end their conflict automatically ends yours with Legion.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Tygaland

[Coloradia]

NSO is reaching desperately and they appear to think this spin job is the best chance they have.

If this was how it worked then once the main combatants peaced out everyone else in wars would just stop as they had no more reason to fight. While superficially accurate, they do almost all end up agreeing to white peace in many cases, or terms/reps in others. There is no de facto truce in place once the main combatants peace out. The war continues and it isn't a new conflict. Once you hit someone, regardless of the reasoning, you are in it until they agree to terms you set for ending it, or until you agree to the terms they set forth for ending it. They can set the terms however they wish, and they are not obligated to offer similar terms to all of their opponents. Regardless of how unfair you think you can play the terms off as. The war doesn't end until one sides terms are met, the losing side has far more incentive to acquiesce than the winning side, barring superb a super PR job or outside pressures. The PR spins NSO has tried have been pretty lacking, even for NSO. I say that as no fan of NSO throughout it's existance. You guys have even made me agree with Dochartaigh and Timeline. Dochartaigh and I don't get along well in alternate universes, and Timeline... he and I have never agreed as far as I can remember.

I can't be bothered to read through to see if NSO is still pulling the "We are winning/We aren't losing" argument. If they are and if they believe themselves, why the implied threats of calling in allies? If you are winning then just keep doing so until Legion (Whom you despise if I am correct), has to ask you for terms. Let your deeds on the field of battle speak for you. Force Legion into submission and show all their words here to be baseless.

Now if you know that that argument is just a bunch of hot air, sure you can call in RoK or others, it's as much an admission of defeat as the "S" word would be, in fact I would say it's worse as you are trying to fight it even as you admit it. But hey, if you guys think calling in allies to hit Legion will hide the disgrace you feel over losing to them then so be it. Get on with it. You're holding it over Legions head as if it were the Sword of Damocles, trying to pressure them into giving into your demands. For if they do not then *snip* there goes the string and the Sword (RoK) comes down on them. They don't appear to have budged at all. Even as much of fools as some of your allies (from my perspective) are I have trouble believing they are keen to jump into this to save you from your own pride and vanity. Best way out of this, meet the absurd, horrific, and utterly terrible terms Legion has given you. And yes, that was sarcasm.

Now that all of course only applies if you actually want this to end. If you think that you can actually win a PR war preaching the absurd spins that you have tried to far as Legion pounds you into the ground then I suppose nothing can be done about that by anyone. It would make me sad. Not that you would care, probably even amuses you. But truthfully a lot of your posts are absolutely terrible and nigh headache inducing. The logic, while I can appreciate the effort you have put into trying to get these spins to work, is simply lacking.

Edited November 2, 2011 by The Great One

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1320201136' post='2836866']
See also: Arguing that initiating a war is not aggression.

The real problem is that for some reason this inane political world of ours has attached moral connotations or judgement to "aggressor" and "defender" when there is no need to,[/quote]
Ho-ho-holllld on there, hippo. As an IRON Councillor and Pax Pacifica global cesspot you know very well why, because you and your allies spent 4 years creating the system.[quote] so everyone feels compelled to twist themselves into logical pretzels in order to justify how whichever side they support isn't the aggressor.
[/quote]
And thus we have NSO's ~vaunted~ OWF Brigade out in force arguing that Tetris did not commit an act of war on Legion, when they did, and that as such Legion is the aggressor, which they are not, erego NSO is defending Tetris.

Take the eye-rolling to your internal forum.

[Krunk the Great]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1320242171' post='2837022']
Tetris did not commit an act of war on Legion, when they did, and that as such Legion is the aggressor, which they are not, erego NSO is defending Tetris.
[/quote]

Convenient spin there, but no.

We are quite definitely defending Tetris from an aggressive act from Legion. An act of aggression that was provoked is still aggression all the same (Again, the opposite of aggressive is passive.), NSO is bound to Tetris and would definitely defend a friend even without the Defense treaty. Funny thing about defense treaties, they're kind of a promise that you will come to the defense of an ally when said ally is attacked. There is no provision of "Well, if we agree with the CB we don't have to"

They also do not contain a clause requiring you to come to the "defense" of an ally who attacks another alliance and receives a retaliatory declaration. You really don't understand how treaties work, do you?

Edited November 2, 2011 by Krunk the Great

[Schattenmann]

Krunk, Heft is smarter, cooler, and better-looking than you, and he's already said all this posturing about defense and aggression is dumb. And no one agrees with you anyway, or Legion wouldn't have magically grown a cheering section. Give it a rest and get back to losing so we can hurry up and get to the peace thread.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Krunk the Great]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1320244771' post='2837033']
he's already said all this posturing about defense and aggression is dumb.
[/quote]

Only if someone else does it right?

We're too busy not being soundly defeated to really care about how you want to spin this.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Krunk the Great

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Krunk the Great' timestamp='1320243951' post='2837032']
Convenient spin there, but no.

We are quite definitely defending Tetris from an aggressive act from Legion. An act of aggression that was provoked is still aggression all the same (Again, the opposite of aggressive is passive.), NSO is bound to Tetris and would definitely defend a friend even without the Defense treaty. Funny thing about defense treaties, they're kind of a promise that you will come to the defense of an ally when said ally is attacked. There is no provision of "Well, if we agree with the CB we don't have to"

They also do not contain a clause requiring you to come to the "defense" of an ally who attacks another alliance and receives a retaliatory declaration. You really don't understand how treaties work, do you?
[/quote]

I don't think anyone is actually questioning you right to defend Tetris or that you have an obligation to not go full c. 2008 GATO and cancel your treaty with Tetris to express your mock outrage at their behavior while secretly patting yourself on the back for dodging another bullet.

The essential difficulty here is that you absolutely refuse to recognize any difference between a justifiable violent response to aggression and an unprovoked act of aggression and violence.

As someone else commented, the time has come for less semantics, more signing surrender document. The cavalry isn't going to ride over the hill to save you.

[hertugen]

[quote name='Krunk the Great' timestamp='1320244921' post='2837034']

We're too busy not being soundly defeated to really care about how you want to spin this.
[/quote]

How is that working out for you? Whoever is aggressive or passive or what not, your side is still losing, and everyone and their dog can see it.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1320242171' post='2837022']
Ho-ho-holllld on there, hippo. As an IRON Councillor and Pax Pacifica global cesspot you know very well why, because you and your allies spent 4 years creating the system.
[/quote]
Poetic justice is definitely my favorite kind of justice.

[MikeCrotch]

Maybe rather than opt for peace NSO simply want to continue wage war for the hell of it? If GOONS were at war with a bigger alliance you can be sure we'd keep pounding until there was nothing left of our alliance. Not everyone thinks peace is the best option.

I was also going to point out that they might be wanting to do as much damage to Legion as physically possible, but since Legion's NS went up yesterday, they're obviously not doing a very good job of it.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='MikeCrotch' timestamp='1320250649' post='2837062']
Maybe rather than opt for peace NSO simply want to continue wage war for the hell of it? If GOONS were at war with a bigger alliance you can be sure we'd keep pounding until there was nothing left of our alliance.
[/quote]

RAMlins II: Revenge of the Sith.