Jump to content

Official Announcement from Colossus and WAPA


Bob

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Mayzie' timestamp='1325763534' post='2893277']
You don't agree with our reasons, that's fine. What we should've done is forced an apology, make them vote for our senator & decommission all of their nukes, you'd have no problem with that.
[/quote]
Think again, hotshot.

[quote name='monkeybum' timestamp='1325779306' post='2893348']
if you seriously think that you need to be told that when you receive aid from an alliance you shouldn't then go and attack that same alliance's ally (in a war which they are fighting for them) then you seriously lack a basic understanding of simple social morals.
[/quote]
Ahahaha. We are the arbiters of social morals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 226
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1325783971' post='2893381']
Think again, hotshot.


Ahahaha. We are the arbiters of social morals.
[/quote]

I'm fairly sure that this was the issue of the entire war. Weirdly I don't remember anyone claiming that IRON/TOP couldn't attack because they hadn't inserted a clause into their agreement with NpO that they may not stab them in the back if it was convenient. It is extremely weird that Colossus, standing up to some fairly awful behavior on the part of KoH is being asked to find such a narrow legalistic excuse.

To put it bluntly - common sense needs not be a clause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='monkeybum' timestamp='1325785929' post='2893393']
I'm fairly sure that this was the issue of the entire war. Weirdly I don't remember anyone claiming that IRON/TOP couldn't attack because they hadn't inserted a clause into their agreement with NpO that they may not stab them in the back if it was convenient. It is extremely weird that Colossus, standing up to some fairly awful behavior on the part of KoH is being asked to find such a narrow legalistic excuse.

To put it bluntly - common sense needs not be a clause.
[/quote]
You can continue to try and defend the indefensible with these water-thin legalistic arguments, but they are just that: thin. And in the face of Colossus' ever-changing story (it's not reps, it is, it was aid, it was tech deals) you are a monkey playing their tune on an accordion. If it was aid, aid is an act of goodwill, not a tool of enslavement. If it was tech deals, that Colossus needed to wait for alliances that are bigger and better than them to wreck KoH's support system before Colossus could seek redress, Colossus needs to assess its position in the world. In any event--whatever the story, whatever the case--Colossus' punitive extortion is just that, and their incessant whining in this thread is pitiful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story has remained constant - and isn't even a matter of dispute.

You can keep trying to turn this into something it isn't. However at least take the time to read the thread and the facts before you post. I'm also amused that you are claiming I am using legal excuses, when the whole line of argument I've been using, is explaining why the legalistic arguments are absurd.

You do get points for the Monkey playing the accordion line. I chuckled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1325786272' post='2893396']
You can continue to try and defend the indefensible with these water-thin legalistic arguments, [...]
[/quote]

I don't think that word means what you think it means... in fact I'm pretty sure it means the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ferdinand I' timestamp='1325739431' post='2893068']
Not to mention the way KoH behaved in the beginning of the war, taunting us with that mentioned aid and saying how good friends we are in order to try to convince us not to help WAPA. This is not how decent alliance should act. And to remind you KoH used the OPTIONAL agression pact to jump on anti-wapa bandwagon so you can hardly talk about honouring the treaty. If they were so honourable they wouldn't have attacked our good mutual defence (Note, not optional!) allies for s*it and giggles after trying to be oh so good friends to us. Friends don't attack each other friends for fun.
[/quote]

I can't quite begin to fathom how full of fail this post is. Anyone who claims we taunted you with the aid you gave us is a liar and, quite frankly, stupid. You countered us within 5 (give or take) hours from our declaration on WAPA. If we were going to attempt to have you not counter us, the last thing we would do is taunt you. That's just silly. We never attempted to convince you to not help your allies, and I commend you for doing so. I do not commend you, however, for making things up like in the above post and making a fool of yourself in this thread.

Also, how is it not honoring a treaty by using an optional clause? The way you speak of it, one would think we just attacked WAPA out of the blue for no good reason at all. We were requested to declare war on WAPA when NpO did so we could relieve STA's front and offer them some support. I'm not sure about you, but I don't lead my alliance into a war for "s*it and giggles." I'm not going to deny that I have good friends in Colossus, but this war hasn't changed my attitude towards them in the least bit. If anything, it has only given me more reason to talk to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heya, Merk. :wub:

Not calling Ferd a liar here but I was not present during any of the aforementioned "tauntings". Granted, I have been in and out a lot due to the holidays and illness. I will say that throughout the war there has been a lot of spirited banter/joking between our alliances on IRC. Perhaps this is where the confusion comes from.

[quote]I'm not going to deny that I have good friends in Colossus, but this war hasn't changed my attitude towards them in the least bit. If anything, it has only given me more reason to talk to them.[/quote]

And you'll always have good friends in Colossus. It was fun and I am glad we got a chance to catch up a bit. I hope you guys'll come around more now that things have been sorted.

I guess it's best to leave those who were not there and do not know the relationship between our alliances to their speculating. I don't really care what any of you think of me or my alliance. I know we made the right move and I shall rest easy tonight (after update, of course :/). But if anyone mentions "exploitation" again, I'll have their legs broken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='nosoup4you' timestamp='1325780235' post='2893354']
Ummm...Polaris declared on WAPA (buried on like page 13 of an entirely unrelated thread) and then KoH came in on an oA.
[/quote]

Right, and KoH came in to help Polar. Polar was indeed trying to help out STA, but KoH was coming in to help polar via a treaty chain. This is in fact your own side's standard of conduct as evidenced by WAPA oAing in. Whether or not this standard is proper or not is irrelevant since AZTEC and WAPA can't really claim it's improper when they themselves are upholding that standard.


[quote name='monkeybum' timestamp='1325780921' post='2893359']
You don't need to find a "clause" to uphold common decency. That is the entire story here. KoH acted in unusually bad way, and hence Colossus wanted their aid given in "friendship" back.
[/quote]

But KoH has a higher responsibility to their treaty partners. Furthermore, it's really not indecent to declare war on a friend of a friend in all cases. As long as it's done without malice and done just to assist an ally in a war, I wouldn't consider it indecent. Now, attacking Colossus itself might've been, but again since you never specified a non-aggression agreement I would say that even that, while regrettable, would've still been a "decent" action since a treaty partner obligation trumps that.

In other words: You're basically arguing that it's [i]obvious[/i] that an alliance should not attack an ally of a non-ally when a treatied ally requests that they do so in the context of an ongoing war. Not only is it supposedly obvious, but it's so obvious that you say it's common decency. That's weird; the situation described is so unusual and complex that there's no way you could seriously say that a deviation from what you would do in said situation is indecent.

[quote name='Hymenbreach' timestamp='1325788285' post='2893412']
Can't we all just feel the love and continue to put the entire STA into ZI?
[/quote]

Love you too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jyrinx' timestamp='1325795578' post='2893472']
Furthermore, it's really not indecent to declare war on a friend of a friend in all cases. As long as it's done without malice and done just to assist an ally in a war, I wouldn't consider it indecent. Now, attacking Colossus itself might've been, but again since you never specified a non-aggression agreement I would say that even that, while regrettable, would've still been a "decent" action since a treaty partner obligation trumps that.

In other words: You're basically arguing that it's [i]obvious[/i] that an alliance should not attack an ally of a non-ally when a treatied ally requests that they do so in the context of an ongoing war. Not only is it supposedly obvious, but it's so obvious that you say it's common decency. That's weird; the situation described is so unusual and complex that there's no way you could seriously say that a deviation from what you would do in said situation is indecent.

[/quote]

Lets be exact..they were attacking an ally who declared with Colossus from the beginning of this war.. - not an ally fighting an unconnected war. In other words they were trying to stop the war Colossus was fighting. This really is clear cut. And they did it on an oA treaty. So..they get free aid from an alliance, and then attack that alliances ally who is backing that alliance up in a war. Sorry, it is clear cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='monkeybum' timestamp='1325796515' post='2893478']
Lets be exact..they were attacking an ally who declared with Colossus from the beginning of this war.. - not an ally fighting an unconnected war. In other words they were trying to stop the war Colossus was fighting. This really is clear cut. And they did it on an oA treaty. So..they get free aid from an alliance, and then attack that alliances ally who is backing that alliance up in a war. Sorry, it is clear cut.
[/quote]

A few independent points there:

1) Either going in on an oA clause is okay to help an ally, or it isn't.

a) If it's not okay, then fine but neither was WAPA's entrance. You can claim that they're different circumstances (and that's fine to claim that), but in that case the fact that it was an oA clause is not relevant to your point as much as why you think they're different circumstances
b) If it's okay, then all of this is moot

2) Why does the fact that the ally of the non-ally was fighting on the same front matter?

3) For the sake of argumentation, let's assume your standard is clear cut and obvious and should be the universal norm. In that case, at what point would KoH be free from your stipulation that they never attack an ally of Colossus? After six months? A year? Never? This line in particular:

[quote]
So..they get free aid from an alliance, and then attack that alliances ally who is backing that alliance up in a war.
[/quote]

It sounds like you expected quite a lot from KoH due to that aid. Higher than what I would expect without someone explicitly stating so (if I, for example, was in charge of KoH)

4) The fact that it's clear cut [i]to you[/i] is not my point; my point is that the situation is very complex to many others (as judged by the comments from members of various alliances in this thread). I would be one of those; whether or not the action of KoH was wrong or not being put aside, the situation is not "clear cut" as it involves

a) A treaty partner
b) A non-treaty friend
c) Assistance given by the non-treaty friend
d) An expectation by said non-treaty friend that was never explicitly communicated
e) An explicit request from a treaty partner
f) An ally of the non-treaty friend

Again, [i]ignoring whether or not KoH's actions were wrong or not[/i], the situation itself is very complicated regardless of if you were to side with or against KoH. To make my point: how many other examples of this could you come up with right off the top of your head?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jyrinx' timestamp='1325795578' post='2893472']
Right, and KoH came in to help Polar. Polar was indeed trying to help out STA, but KoH was coming in to help polar via a treaty chain. This is in fact your own side's standard of conduct as evidenced by WAPA oAing in. Whether or not this standard is proper or not is irrelevant since AZTEC and WAPA can't really claim it's improper when they themselves are upholding that standard.[/quote]

No one's claiming coming into a war on oA is a problem; the issue is using oA to attack the close ally of a friend (as well as the ally of an ally).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Woref' timestamp='1325797236' post='2893488']
No one's claiming coming into a war on oA is a problem; the issue is using oA to attack the close ally of a friend (as well as the ally of an ally).
[/quote]

Monkeybum actually seems to for some reason from his line that "And they did it on an oA treaty", as if the oA treaty aspect is relevant. Hence my point on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jyrinx' timestamp='1325797351' post='2893489']
Monkeybum actually seems to for some reason from his line that "And they did it on an oA treaty", as if the oA treaty aspect is relevant. Hence my point on that.
[/quote]

It [i]is[/i] relevant. If it were mandatory that would be one thing; holding a mandatory treaty clause over a friendship is understandable. However, they [i]had a choice[/i] of whether or not to attack us, and thus essentially start a war with Colossus. The fact that it was oA means they had no obligation to take the action they did.

Edited by Woref
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[center][b]The "No One Steals KoH's Lunch Money but Us!" Pact[/b][/center]

[quote]Monday morning and we were on the playground before any of the others. We stood in the chill morning and watched as you eyed them nervously climbing down from the bus. They made it to class but we saw how you stared at them during recess, calculating your odds. Times were that this field was big enough that we could all share in the bounty that filled it, but that time is no more. There were once easy pickings around every slide, behind every swing set, but the fat have thinned down and the skinny have bulked up. Even the socially awkward have banded together for protection. No, these are no longer those days. We will protect what we have worked so hard to build. Our reputation depends on it, and in the bully game reputation is everything. So hear us now, and hear us well... KoH's lunch money is ours! Colossus officially declares KoH off limits to any form of agression for the next 60 days. A wedgie performed on the weakest of their members will be seen as being perpetrated on the strongest of us. Be warned, for we are watching.

[b]Signed for Colossus:[/b]

Auctor, Triumvir
Elfriede, Triumvir
Alfred von Schliefen, Triumvir


[b]Signed for the Kingdom of Hyrule:[/b]

His Majesty, King of Hyrule, Merk
Duke of Internal Affairs, Sheogorath
Duke of Defense, Caleb[/quote]

Edited by nosoup4you
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Merk' timestamp='1325801430' post='2893519']
Ewww! You're all so horrib.... Erm, I for one approve of our new Colossus overlords :v:
[/quote]
Remember Bob is our viceroy so in turn DT is your new overlords as well. :ph34r:
O/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Hymenbreach' timestamp='1325788285' post='2893412']
Can't we all just feel the love and continue to put the entire STA into ZI?
[/quote]
I wish you had a higher NS, so I could declare on you when I leave peace mode. Boohoo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Rakari' timestamp='1325804348' post='2893549']
I wish you had a higher NS, so I could declare on you when I leave peace mode. Boohoo.
[/quote]

I had a higher NS. Some Tigers came around and we had a party. I'm still bitter about the stains on the carpet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Hymenbreach' timestamp='1325806493' post='2893566']
I had a higher NS. Some Tigers came around and we had a party. I'm still bitter about the stains on the carpet.
[/quote]You mean, you declared on Tigers and they ripped your throat out, leaving you bleeding on the carpet? Unfortunate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...