Will the Real Ragnarok Please stand up?

[Jacapo Saladin]

[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1328479559' post='2915115']
How does it feel to be putting so much effort into defending someone who if asked to do the same to you would respond after about 10 minutes of dead silence and "ums" would finally respond something to the effect of "He's really a good person!".


You may have your issues with Bob/Joe, but seriously the leader you guys put in their place is worse. At least Bob and Joe seemed to have some idea of what they were doing, even if you disagreed with their direction.
[/quote]


[i]uhhh I didn't even think about it, he's just my friend![/i]

[Poppa Clam]

My butt itches really bad...

[Hepzibah3]

Awesome thread. o/

[Joe Stupid]

[quote name='Da DreadLord' timestamp='1328477800' post='2915111']
Your ass must be so hurt to be kicked out by a worthless person then. And btw, all the above have done more for RoK than you ever did. So I'd show some respect, though I doubt you know the meaning of that word.
[/quote]

See that's just plain hilarious. You've never done !@#$ for Rok nor have you held a significant gov't role. You literally weren't worth anything besides being our only senate option which we rarely won anyway. So for you to be talking about "worth" makes me happy.

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='Blacky' timestamp='1328405430' post='2914643']
Bob Ilyani and Joe Stupid who sanctioned the attacks never said you were now off limits. By the time Adel was in power due to the coup (OOC: because the forums were taken down and they were demasked), the war had already been escalated to a nuclear war and you had been readmitted into Rok without having had the war cleared up. As I have previously stated in this thread, the failure to resolve the issue has de-facto escalated it to a state of war between two alliances. Of course, MK is still reasonable and has not responded to the escalation as of yet and is continuing negotiations with an inexperienced leader who is making matters more difficult.[/quote]
The same nations continuing their fight with the same resources and means does not qualify as an escalation. Where an escalation comes around is if Ragnarok deemed fit to assert protection over this person for these wars specifically. Personally, I wouldn't as the war pre-dates membership. Still I would grant them protection on any actions by others in general or by those who declared these wars when these wars expire. That's quite a reasonable position to take. Let the nations fighting it out do so, or sign peace of their own accord. In the mean time even if negotiations continue, that is not synonymous with an armistice. There are many occasions where negotiations commence or are ongoing with shots still being fired so to assume in this case it would automatically lead to that isn't sensible. Over all, Ragnarok should have confronted the Mushroom Kingdom with what their stance on Kait would be from the start, whether it's to let the wars continue or their desire to see peace. If they approached you with a desire for peace and an armistice was put on the table by them while negotiations commence then they should have confronted her. If however an armistice wasn't ever mentioned by them then well the only thing wrong with her nuking your nations is the assumption you held.

There's certainly plenty of other things to cast on Ragnarok's shoulder but escalation; unless I skipped stuff through my only reading sporadically, I just don't see it. It just seems like you're upset at her attacking the aggressors in a conflict when an assumption was made - with nothing affirming it - that there would be a cease-fire during negotiations. I could understand frustration at it but if it's the case then that frustration is better directed at yourselves.

[Stewie]

[quote name='Joe Stupid' timestamp='1328482729' post='2915131']
See that's just plain hilarious. You've never done !@#$ for Rok nor have you held a significant gov't role. You literally weren't worth anything besides being our only senate option which we rarely won anyway. So for you to be talking about "worth" makes me happy.
[/quote]

Didn't DDL take the forums offline?

[Dr William Westcher]

What part of

/thread?

[Systemfailure]

[quote name='Dr William Westcher' timestamp='1328492666' post='2915175']
What part of

/thread?
[/quote]
we had left over popcorn from the war, we have to used it up somehow

[Blacky]

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1328491693' post='2915170']
*snip*
[/quote]
You're wasting my time. I've already addressed everything in your post.

The use of nuclear weapons is not an escalation. Even arguing that point would be ridiculous, nukes are nothing more than a tool for war, much like all the others. So that part of your contention is gone. The escalation on Rok's part comes from accepting (or readmitting) a nation at war with the MK.

In terms you would understand: Initially the nation we were at war with had only it's own nation as it's resource with which to wage war. After Rok admitted the nation, it now has at it's disposal the resources of an entire alliance (be they war guides, military/financial/moral support, rebuilding aid, etc.) As such, accepting a nation into your alliance that is at war without resolving the conflict has historically been viewed as an escalation. That isn't even a point of contention.

[King Wally]

[quote name='Blacky' timestamp='1328494895' post='2915199']
As such, accepting a nation into your alliance that is at war without resolving the conflict has historically been viewed as an escalation. That isn't even a point of contention.
[/quote]

Cant argue with that although I would go as far as to say that MK had a duty as well to see the conflict resolved before allowing BIODAD AA members to rejoin the MK AA. If those BIODAD attackers were still MK applicants like they should be this would be a very different negotiation story correct?

[Charles Stuart]

[quote name='King Wally' timestamp='1328497956' post='2915215']
Cant argue with that although I would go as far as to say that MK had a duty as well to see the conflict resolved before allowing BIODAD AA members to rejoin the MK AA. If those BIODAD attackers were still MK applicants like they should be this would be a very different negotiation story correct?
[/quote]

Correct, it goes both ways.

[Voytek]

[quote name='King Wally' timestamp='1328497956' post='2915215']
Cant argue with that although I would go as far as to say that MK had a duty as well to see the conflict resolved before allowing BIODAD AA members to rejoin the MK AA. If those BIODAD attackers were still MK applicants like they should be this would be a very different negotiation story correct?
[/quote]
They never "actually" left MK. The five minutes it would have taken to query an MK government member and ask them would have been five minutes well spent.

[King Wally]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1328499972' post='2915230']
They never "actually" left MK. The five minutes it would have taken to query an MK government member and ask them would have been five minutes well spent.
[/quote]

Some would say Kait never "actually" left RoK as well. At least her actual Alliance Affiliation never changed from the actual AA.

Edited February 6, 2012 by King Wally

[Blacky]

[quote name='King Wally' timestamp='1328497956' post='2915215']
Cant argue with that although I would go as far as to say that MK had a duty as well to see the conflict resolved before allowing BIODAD AA members to rejoin the MK AA. If those BIODAD attackers were still MK applicants like they should be this would be a very different negotiation story correct?
[/quote]
As Voytek pointed out we remained members of MK throughout the entire affair. KaitlinK and RoK were both aware of that fact, we were only on the AA a short time. However, even if we weren't still in MK, the conflict was with a "ghost" or a non-member and not with an alliance. The circumstances were very different.

[quote]Some would say Kait never "actually" left RoK as well. At least her actual Alliance Affiliation never changed from the actual AA[/quote]
That would be a ridiculous argument to make. The government of Rok sanctioned the attack on Kait as a non-member, as such during the rule (end of the rule) of Bob Ilyani and Joe Stupid she was no longer a member of Rok. She was only readmitted as a member after they were couped by the new government (after being involved in a war with MK).

Edited February 6, 2012 by Blacky

[Thorgrum]

You people are idiots.

[Voytek]

[quote name='King Wally' timestamp='1328500983' post='2915240']
Some would say Kait never "actually" left RoK as well
[/quote]
do you actually think this is a valid comparison to try and make work or what

[King Wally]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1328504653' post='2915278']
do you actually think this is a valid comparison to try and make work or what
[/quote]

I think your both at fault. I'm just pointing out that RoK could be trying to lay out spin if they wanted to (ie. Bob's verdict that Kait was a ghost was made for illegal OOC reasons against the RoK charter and as such she was never a ghost and that new RoK gov could be claiming to not reinstate her memebership but instead rule that Bob's original claim of non-member status was never legitimate to start with as a result Kait was always a member). I wouldn't like their spin any more then yours to be honest though. Valid Comparison? Well I honestly think both parties are at fault and have accepted in nations at war to be honest. Both MK and RoK should have cleared up a peace plan for this war before either AA declared the combatants to be full members in my opinion.

[Crowdog07]

[quote name='King Wally' timestamp='1328505406' post='2915284']
I think your both at fault. I'm just pointing out that RoK could be trying to lay out spin if they wanted to (ie. Bob's verdict that Kait was a ghost was made for illegal OOC reasons against the RoK charter and as such she was never a ghost and that new RoK gov could be claiming to not reinstate her memebership but instead rule that Bob's original claim of non-member status was never legitimate to start with as a result Kait was always a member). I wouldn't like their spin any more then yours to be honest though. Valid Comparison? Well I honestly think both parties are at fault and have accepted in nations at war to be honest. Both MK and RoK should have cleared up a peace plan for this war before either AA declared the combatants to be full members in my opinion.
[/quote]

But we didn't accept a member at war. We had a member go to war. How many times do you need to hear that they were still in MK before you understand that? Would it require us to abandon the entire MK AA just to show you that MK exists beyond the in game screen?

[Scooby Doo]

The following PM came from Bob. He deserves whatever pain he receives. Nothing pleases me more. By the way, the issue was Bob's demand that tech be traded at 3 million for 150 tech. Good Riddance to Bob and those that supported him.

[quote]Let me give you a little lesson on how things work here in Ragnarok:

As an alliance with a large base of players, we can understand that not everyone will be passing through government at any point of their CN lives. Yet, the idea of whether one is in government service or not should be irrelevant, because it is the duty of each and every RoK member to help their alliance in whatever way they can.

Another rule (it's not exactly specified but it's common practice) is that, when a member, be it a member of government or a Warrior or an Academy Student, expresses a continual dissatisfaction with a current state of events, we invite them into the planning areas of said operation and ask them to provide input and work in improving the department that they have issues with. We work with them, as a member of Ragnarok, in order to make this alliance the best possible place it can be.

As you might be able to tell, I'm referring to the fallout of a certain thread that you posted in the Tech Selling area that was subsequently locked. Following the discussion in that thread (as well as numerous people explaining the issue with your point of view and giving reasonable counter arguments to it), it was determined that we should invite you and ask you to provide input as well as help make the Finance department the best it can be. So, we locked your thread (it had outlived it's purpose) and Adel sent you a PM detailing some of the actions you should take in order to help us improve the department. We were under the impression that, despite your delay of the assignment, you were going to make due on what was requested and provide the list that Adel had specified you would compile.

Instead, you gave her a steaming pile of !@#$ in her PM box. That's where this scenario goes into baaaaaad !@#$@#$ territory, because it's when high gov gets involved.

Your antiquated beliefs on "freedom of speech" on the Internet are ill-formed, as you were given the option to free speech as well as free assembly. If we were trying to censor you we would have locked the thread much earlier. Instead, we gave you more than adequate time to present your ideas, solutions, and to listen to counter arguments, and all we were given in return was a bare-ass to the face, courtesy of you. Your definition of "Freedom of Speech" is irrelevant, because the very concept is flawed and open to perception. In this case, freedom of speech extends as far as it does not become derogatory to anyone else, via because of their sex, color, view, whatever. That thread entered dangerous territory as soon as it became clear that you would rather just !@#$ on our current tech system than actually listen to others and work on a solution, so we closed it. It's not a question of debate and it's not in your rights to debate the decision as to why the thread was locked; not a single one of your "rights" was infringed upon.

Go ahead and feel free to argue with me on that point... I'm a lawyer IRL, and I look forward to you trying to pull what you did with Adel on me.

What I'd like from you are the following things:

1) An apology to Adel for your continual disrespect of her wishes, especially the request she made of you via PM last week.
2)
Quote

If you honestly have this much of a problem with slot useage among other things then get started. Your job now is to find buyers and sellers with empty slots. Rather than starting a thread !@#$%*ing about something that shouldn't even matter to you at this point, you are now required to do something productive. I want a list PM'd to me by Tuesday.

You still haven't done what Adel asked you to. PM the list to her by Wednesday.
3) PM Rampage3 (our new Lord of Finance) and have a legit talk with him about what you and him want for the future of the Finance department. Be open to compromise and listen to his ideas; he just might know a little more about CN economics than you do, and there is plenty to learn.

As a last request, do yourself a favor and actually listen to what we're saying. I don't want to come back here, because if I do, I'll be angry, and then you won't want me to come back either.

Bob[/quote]

[Velocity111]

[quote name='Scooby Doo' timestamp='1328506156' post='2915295']
The following PM came from Bob. He deserves whatever pain he receives. Nothing pleases me more. By the way, the issue was Bob's demand that tech be traded at 3 million for 150 tech. Good Riddance to Bob and those that supported him.
[/quote]
How is any of this relevant?

Anyway, as far as I can tell, the entire government of RoK supported Bob on this issue (or at least, that's what the PM makes it seem like). To pin the blame for this, whatever this is, entirely on Bob is merely shooting the messenger. I recommending shooting all of RoK government.

[King Xander the Only]

[quote name='Scooby Doo' timestamp='1328506156' post='2915295']
The following PM came from Bob. He deserves whatever pain he receives. Nothing pleases me more. By the way, the issue was Bob's demand that tech be traded at 3 million for 150 tech. Good Riddance to Bob and those that supported him.
[/quote]
So Bob put you in your place and you've come here to cry about it?

[Crymson]

[quote name='Scooby Doo' timestamp='1328506156' post='2915295']
The following PM came from Bob. He deserves whatever pain he receives. Nothing pleases me more. [b]By the way, the issue was Bob's demand that tech be traded at 3 million for 150 tech.[/b] Good Riddance to Bob and those that supported him.
[/quote]

Trading at $3m/150 could have helped win RoK sellers a measure of popularity and goodwill amongst buyers. This sort of thing can be a useful step for an alliance that is in extreme danger of being rolled.

That said, I didn't read your post.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Crymson

[USMC123]

[quote name='Scooby Doo' timestamp='1328506156' post='2915295']
The following PM came from Bob. He deserves whatever pain he receives. Nothing pleases me more. By the way, the issue was Bob's demand that tech be traded at 3 million for 150 tech. Good Riddance to Bob and those that supported him.
[/quote]

OH GOD BOB YOU ARE SO TERRIBLE HOW DARE YOU!

Seriously, you must be mad bro. This is hardly condemning and appears to be a pretty normal and rationale response to some sort of dickish PM you sent to Adel.

[Horo the Wise Wolf]

[quote name='Scooby Doo' timestamp='1328506156' post='2915295']
The following PM came from Bob. He deserves whatever pain he receives. Nothing pleases me more. By the way, the issue was Bob's demand that tech be traded at 3 million for 150 tech. Good Riddance to Bob and those that supported him.
[/quote]
I don't quite see what the problem is, although you seem to have messed something up.

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='Blacky' timestamp='1328494895' post='2915199']
You're wasting my time. I've already addressed everything in your post.[/quote]
That's entirely possible as I've only skimmed pages here and there. I saw multiple others make the same point as you that the war was escalated though with some differing points and none arguing the other side. Rather than going through the entire thread picking or pulling all of them out I just went with the last one I saw and decided to make my post covering a few things I saw questionable. I do apologize for not clarifying this earlier.

[quote]The use of nuclear weapons is not an escalation. Even arguing that point would be ridiculous, nukes are nothing more than a tool for war, much like all the others. So that part of your contention is gone.[/quote]
This part of my post wasn't a contention with you but with another poster who asserted the use of nuclear weapons by Kait after negotiations had commenced was an escalation.

[quote]The escalation on Rok's part comes from accepting (or readmitting) a nation at war with the MK.

In terms you would understand: Initially the nation we were at war with had only it's own nation as it's resource with which to wage war. After Rok admitted the nation, it now has at it's disposal the resources of an entire alliance (be they war guides, military/financial/moral support, rebuilding aid, etc.) As such, accepting a nation into your alliance that is at war without resolving the conflict has historically been viewed as an escalation. That isn't even a point of contention.
[/quote]
Escalating a conflict or dispute differs significantly from behaving in a provocative manner. One can do something which is viewed provocative while not actually changing how things will play out and this seems to be the point of confusion here with yourself and others. Views historically held by this community will never change reality either. Claims of escalation by another party in a dispute can be a great sales pitch to third parties or might help one in private affairs by giving the impression that you mean business in a much more threatening tone. Fighting it is something that requires both will and thought which even then isn’t guaranteeing you a victory on the podium so it could all be for nothing given that those who make such a claim are more likely to be in a position of strength over the other. Really what needs to happen is just to take a look at the situation on its own merit instead of looking at what others label it and work from there.

I can't speak for how strong a fighter Kait is. She's led a nation for quite a while and was in her alliance immediately before this incident occurred. Her alliance has been in six wars over the past two and a half years and fighting at a national level really isn't all that complicated. She's had ample opportunity to learn the war system and copy any guides she so desires - heck I still have guides of all sorts saved and I no longer actively participate. I don't find admitting a seasoned player who has experience with that aspect to require the help you claim they are receiving. I do concede it is possible but then I wonder how significant an impact it would be having. I also wonder if you're going to look at all of the nations and alliances who post here or on the wiki and claim they're escalating the conflict with all of the information on the war system that they've made publicly available. Everything is already out there if you know how to look and one that is active who hasn't even seen a guide could easily decipher good strategy from the bad just by reading the threads every day.

That last portion also goes to your asserting that giving moral support is somehow escalating a conflict. The dynamics don't change because one declares their support and admitting someone during a raid doesn't even imply they have it. That's just a connotation people get out of admittance because people are too afraid to admit people with exceptions to the protection granted. Wasn't there a player in TOOL or TPF in the past that was on a ZI or PZI list which was admitted on the condition that their protection wouldn't extend to those whose list they were on but would to those they were not? In such a case moral support isn't granted in the least bit way to that player. There's no condoning their actions it's indifference; assistance isn't being given either way. Where any moral support might come in is with the negotiations for this particular case but since the Mushroom Kingdom appeared to want an end to this fighting soon after Kait was re-admitted so whether she actually has moral support or the negotiations are for another reason entirely isn't exactly certain. Though I have seen people argue it was a dick move to kick her out I can't say I've seen anyone try to argue she wasn't a valid target in the eyes of a typical raiding alliance. To the point how would moral support reliably cause an escalation and is it a reasonable expectation that it does?

The wars being discussed were tech raids. These typically last seven days and with admittance would cease after that period has elapsed. With the nature of tech raids being a short adventure there is only one way rebuilding aid could be considered as helping to escalate a conflict and that's if the warring nation who was promised said aid is short of funds and was holding back to conserve what money they have left. In this case the promise of aid would allow them to breathe much easier with the knowledge that they could now spend all of their money fighting the war. This would incidentally cause the war to intensify for the raiders. There are plenty of nations out there who are short on their war chest and in that position the promise of rebuilding aid would have just that kind of effect. In this case however, if she has a war chest able to withstand the seven days of unrestricted warfare, then there is no escalation with such a promise.

Admitting a member makes escalation far more likely as members of an alliance wish to assist one another in good times and bad. In most cases it would lead to an escalation if not by the alliance who accepted them then by the alliance that is at war with the new member as a preemptive measure. It does not however guarantee an escalation will take place. The intensity, scale or scope of conflict is not certain to increase by simply adding someone to your member list therefore it is not an escalation of said conflict unless such a change occurs.