Let a goon talk long enough . . .

[trimm]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1330484169' post='2930364']
This is a word raid, thank you very much!
[/quote]

Will it escalate if my friends loan me a dictionary?

[Beefspari]

[quote name='trimm' timestamp='1330484386' post='2930367']
Will it escalate if my friends loan me a dictionary?
[/quote]
Apparently that depends on who you ask.
[img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisL6.jpg[/img]

[trimm]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1330484454' post='2930368']
Apparently that depends on who you ask.
[img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisL6.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

Am I allowed to ask, or will that cause angrier words to be directed at me?

[Beefspari]

[quote name='trimm' timestamp='1330484509' post='2930369']
Am I allowed to ask, or will that cause angrier words to be directed at me?
[/quote]
I'm not sure, but maybe Schat will make a thread about it.
[img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisL5.jpg[/img]

[trimm]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1330484590' post='2930371']
I'm not sure, but maybe Schat will make a thread about it.
[img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisL5.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

Does that mean we get to have a debate over what words are acceptable and aren't? Or will it be a debate about when a word is not a word?

I know, we can have a hundred page thread where everyone says the same two words over and over again, only with exclamation points!

[AlmightyGrub]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1330481106' post='2930328']
Well sure, except for the fact that we fought in 4 different fronts that last war. We do not fear combat, we embrace it.

Grub's arrogance and Polaris' enabling of him burned away any care I had, and any feeling of obligation I had to them.
[/quote]

I think it is just a little rich to call me arrogant from your position.

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1330478411' post='2930282']
But please, tell me, how going in on Europa's front in the last war we were in advances MK's interests, for example?
Ask MK or Umbrella high gov if my views are wholly in favor of one alliance over another?
Ask PB if I act as vassal of MK.
I'm speaking semi-rhetorically of course, because I know you will never do any such thing that would provide proof which would counteract this preciously simple world you imagine the proper side of the treaty web to be.
So shine on, moralist, were your claims grounded in reality, perhaps I'd take you seriously.
[/quote]
I don't really feel like spending hours going back and forth about this, but mind if I point out two examples that pop into my head? Well, even if you don't...

1. After the VE-NpO war, you signed a treaty with CSN. After a few months of being hassled from MK and co., you cancelled on them. Move on a few more months, you pre-empt them. Great friend.

2. You don't really like DT, to say the least - you can deny it here in public, I don't care, we both know it - and they drop a CB on you by aiding Hizzy, an EoG. You didn't roll them even when you knew you would be able to save (or at least delay) your then-allies CSN from being rolled in the next war. You did nothing, presumably because it interfered with MK's agenda.

Want to explain those two examples? Thanks in advance.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Gibsonator21

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1330486458' post='2930404']
I don't really feel like spending hours going back and forth about this, but mind if I point out two examples that pop into my head? Well, even if you don't...

1. After the VE-NpO war, you signed a treaty with CSN. After a few months of being hassled from MK and co., you cancelled on them. Move on a few more months, you pre-empt them. Great friend.
[/quote]
It was nothing personal. The cancellation did not arise because anybody ordered us to, nor was it outside pressure that did it, it was simply because the government of GOONS did not feel a strong enough connection to CSN to warrant a treaty of that magnitude.
[quote]
2. You don't really like DT, to say the least - you can deny it here in public, I don't care, we both know it - and they drop a CB on you by aiding Hizzy, an EoG. You didn't roll them even when you knew you would be able to save (or at least delay) your then-allies CSN from being rolled in the next war. You did nothing, presumably because it interfered with MK's agenda.
[/quote]
No, I let that fly to further my own agenda, using the refusal to send goodwill reps as ammunition to justify keeping them on the outer tier of a planned new black order which didn't materialize. I don't recall even mentioning it to MK.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Sardonic

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1330465565' post='2930180']
You're asking the wrong question, but the right answer is that there is nothing [i]un[/i]reasonable about it, and it's correct because it fits their needs and protects their interests. However, the same applies to any opposite viewpoints or juxtapositioned policies as well. Where you really wanted to go with this is the 'good' portion, but 'good' doesn't factor into it. In normal circumstances, such as here, the way an alliance applies internal standards, interprets a word, etc isn't an issue of right or wrong even where the application of those standards leads to conflict with an opposing viewpoint and ultimately war. [/quote]

Spoken like a Pacifican.

Moral relativism is how we ended up with the Karma War. Some things are wrong. Whether you have the courage to say they are and not dance around them is what's in question.

[quote]In short, it's just not a big deal. People do things differently and both approaches to these detail based issues can be, and usually are, absolutely fine. There isn't always something outrageously wrong[/quote]

Which is why this topic is now up to 11 pages and growing....

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1330488926' post='2930433']
It was nothing personal. The cancellation did not arise because anybody ordered us to, nor was it outside pressure that did it, it was simply because the government of GOONS did not feel a strong enough connection to CSN to warrant a treaty of that magnitude.[/quote]

Then why did you sign it in the first place? It clearly wasn't political, so there had to be a relationship there.

[quote]No, I let that fly to further my own agenda, using the refusal to send goodwill reps as ammunition to justify keeping them on the outer tier of a planned new black order which didn't materialize. I don't recall even mentioning it to MK. [/quote]

Meh, could have done both. Would've helped your then-ally a lot.

Edit: Now that I think of it, what they did is worse than what MONGOLS did. They aided an EoG rather than just your everyday raid target.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Gibsonator21

[Sardonic]

[quote]
Edit: Now that I think of it, what they did is worse than what MONGOLS did. They aided an EoG rather than just your everyday raid target.
[/quote]
Admittedly it was a lapse of judgement on my part to use a soft touch regarding that incident.

[Supa_Troop3r]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1330488926' post='2930433']
It was nothing personal. The cancellation did not arise because anybody ordered us to, nor was it outside pressure that did it, it was simply because the government of GOONS did not feel a strong enough connection to CSN to warrant a treaty of that magnitude.

No, I let that fly to further my own agenda, using the refusal to send goodwill reps as ammunition to justify keeping them on the outer tier of a planned new black order which didn't materialize. I don't recall even mentioning it to MK.
[/quote]
Good to know. Although color blocs don't interest us none too much anymore. So I doubt we'd really feel left out due to your justification.
Anyways, back to lurking.

[Mergerberger II]

If anyone cares, allow me to share my take on this issue.

First, I think that the original message of the OP has been skewed. We are no longer asking if GOONS are hypocrites for the reason of inconsistency with the definition of a war and a tech raid, but instead are asking if GOONS are hypocrites in their raiding policies themselves. As these are two different issues, I will address each separately. As to the possibility of GOONS' raiding policy making them hypocrites, no it does not make them hypocrites. GOONS are a sovereign alliance, no matter how much that upsets some people, and therefore are free to set their policies as they wish. If GOONS wishes to have their alliance backing up any action taken against a raider (aside from military retaliation from the target nation, as has been pointed out as not being given), then that is their decision. While some may not agree with this policy, think it to be unfair or whatever else, it is by no means hypocritical. As Sardonic said, it is consistent.

Moving back to the original issue, the reason that GOONS are being called out for hypocrisy in this instance is that their views regarding the relationship of a war and a tech raid appear inconsistent and highly malleable in a short period of time when dealing with two similar scenarios. One involves their allies conducting what is clearly defined by their allies as a large-scale raid. GOONS supported this definition, in that certain members of their government stated clearly that a 'war' and a 'tech raid' are two different things, which is a fair statement and a fair assessment. Where the inconsistency appears, however, is on the issue with MONGOLS. Several members of GOONS' government clearly state that a war and a tech raid are the same thing. This is a very different view than was expressed by different members of the same government a short time earlier. This is where the hypocrisy exists and this is where it was originally argued to exist.

Building on that, I have a question for Sardonic or whomever else would like to answer. If a member of GOONS conducts a tech raid, and then the raid victim is sent aid by some third party, does this then change the tech raid into an alliance war?

[trimm]

[quote name='Mergerberger II' timestamp='1330490611' post='2930457']
Building on that, I have a question for Sardonic or whomever else would like to answer. If a member of GOONS conducts a tech raid, and then the raid victim is sent aid by some third party, does this then change the tech raid into an alliance war?
[/quote]

I won't pretend to speak for GOONS, but they certainly seem to treat an uninvolved third party aiding one of their raid vict...er, targets as a serious escalation if I understand them correctly.

Edited February 29, 2012 by trimm

[Ernesto Che Guevara]

[quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1330481786' post='2930333']
FIXED

<3

--

I swear we're just going round and round in circles.
[/quote]

!@#$, you've got log proof and everything.

I was wrong. I apologize.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='trimm' timestamp='1330490973' post='2930463']
I won't pretend to speak for GOONS, but they certainly seem to treat an uninvolved third party aiding one of their raid vict...er, targets as a serious escalation if I understand them correctly.
[/quote]

Only if they have enough power to do so. If it's someone even halfway scary they'll just sweep it under the rug, or not invite them to some color bloc.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Mergerberger II' timestamp='1330490611' post='2930457']
does this then change the tech raid into an alliance war?
[/quote]
Nein comrade, an alliance war by our definition is only between sovereign alliances. Never individuals, and if one of the alliances involved is sovereign and recognized but the other isn't, that's where the 'mass tech raid' category comes in. Anyhoo, the act of somebody sending aid to an individual can lead to an alliance war, as we've seen here, if the sovereign government of the alliance the aiding nation belongs to does not agree to reparations. This does not mean it has become an alliance war, the refusal to come to terms of the sovereign government of the aiding alliance makes it an alliance war, plenty of times we have come to simple diplomatic agreements with these sorts of incidents. Additionally, in this scenario, the tech raid has not [I]Become[/I] an alliance war so much as sparked one. For all my distaste for unaligned, the unaligned in this case is for all intents and purposes, an innocent bystander in the whole thing, who can leave the situation by merely joining a valid alliance. (unless he launches an aggressive war on GOONS, of course).

Edited February 29, 2012 by Sardonic

[trimm]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1330491219' post='2930466']
Only if they have enough power to do so. If it's someone even halfway scary they'll just sweep it under the rug, or not invite them to some color bloc.
[/quote]

I didn't say it made sense to me, I just said that's how they seemed to feel about it.

Not to mention that there's practically no one on Bob who just rolls out on general principal these days without a fairly ironclad chance of success, I wouldn't single GOONS out there.

[Vanilla Napalm]

[quote name='Mergerberger II' timestamp='1330490611' post='2930457']
If anyone cares, allow me to share my take on this issue.

First, I think that the original message of the OP has been skewed. [/quote]
It was skewed to begin with, following a faulty premise based on a statement lifted from an unrelated discussion over the distiction between an alliance war versus a co-ordinated tech raid.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1330491219' post='2930466']
Only if they have enough power to do so. If it's someone even halfway scary they'll just sweep it under the rug, or not invite them to some color bloc.
[/quote]
I'm curious what wars we chickened out of. We'd go to war all the time if we could get away with it. Sardonic can tell you we're constantly trying to get him to ease up on his rules so we can hit more people. The thing is, there are political gates that prevent us from just attacking whoever we want without good reason. And even if we do have a really good reason, people complain about how we shouldn't've gone to war. In threads like this one.
[img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisL3.jpg[/img]

[trimm]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1330492364' post='2930486']
I'm curious what wars we chickened out of. We'd go to war all the time if we could get away with it. Sardonic can tell you we're constantly trying to get him to ease up on his rules so we can hit more people. The thing is, there are political gates that prevent us from just attacking whoever we want without good reason. And even if we do have a really good reason, people complain about how we shouldn't've gone to war. In threads like this one.
[img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisL3.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

I don't think you really need to defend your war performance to someone from ODN. That's just me though.

[Mergerberger II]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1330491349' post='2930469']
Nein comrade, an alliance war by our definition is only between sovereign alliances. Never individuals, and if one of the alliances involved is sovereign and recognized but the other isn't, that's where the 'mass tech raid' category comes in. Anyhoo, the act of somebody sending aid to an individual can lead to an alliance war, as we've seen here, if the sovereign government of the alliance the aiding nation belongs to does not agree to reparations. This does not mean it has become an alliance war, the refusal to come to terms of the sovereign government of the aiding alliance makes it an alliance war, plenty of times we have come to simple diplomatic agreements with these sorts of incidents. Additionally, in this scenario, the tech raid has not [i]Become[/i] an alliance war so much as sparked one. For all my distaste for unaligned, the unaligned in this case is for all intents and purposes, an innocent bystander in the whole thing, who can leave the situation by merely joining a valid alliance. (unless he launches an aggressive war on GOONS, of course).
[/quote]

That's a fair stance, and I respect it. You are acknowledging the difference between a tech raid and a war and I'd argue that it's definitely a fair distinction that you make. It's your business the way that you consider the outside interference of aid. It is, however, inconsistent with the views expressed by other members of your government during the issue with MONGOLS, namely that a war and a tech raid are the same thing.

[quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1330491682' post='2930476']
It was skewed to begin with, following a faulty premise based on a statement lifted from an unrelated discussion over the distiction between an alliance war versus a co-ordinated tech raid.
[/quote]

Any post by anyone will be inherently skewed towards one viewpoint or another, because true objectivity in any description is impossible. However, the discussion that was alluded to is not terribly relevant anymore, because all we need to do is look at this discussion and we see the position that a tech raid and a war are two different things being maintained.

[D34th]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1330492364' post='2930486']
I'm curious what wars we chickened out of. We'd go to war all the time if we could get away with it. Sardonic can tell you we're constantly trying to get him to ease up on his rules so we can hit more people. The thing is, there are political gates that prevent us from just attacking whoever we want without good reason. And even if we do have a really good reason, people complain about how we shouldn't've gone to war. In threads like this one.
[/quote]

It's easy go to war when you have the powers who rule the political scene behind you and the success is guaranteed, that's one of the reasons why ODN didn't canceled one treaty to avoid war yet since they joined CnG, because they know they are going to win the war, the hard thing is go to war when you doesn't know the result. I'm not saying that GOONS are cowards, but brag about all the wars that you took part in when in all of them the victory was certain even before the war started doesn't make you brave.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Mergerberger II' timestamp='1330494005' post='2930493']
That's a fair stance, and I respect it. You are acknowledging the difference between a tech raid and a war and I'd argue that it's definitely a fair distinction that you make. It's your business the way that you consider the outside interference of aid. It is, however, inconsistent with the views expressed by other members of your government during the issue with MONGOLS, namely that a war and a tech raid are the same thing.
[/quote]
My government members aren't speaking literally, they are speaking generally without regard for specific 'legal' definitions, hence the confusion and the opening for the OP to cast us as disingenuous. I too have on occasion used imprecise language, so I am guilty of this as well.

[Phineas]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1330495052' post='2930508']
My government members aren't speaking literally, they are speaking generally without regard for specific 'legal' definitions, hence the confusion and the opening for the OP to cast us as disingenuous. I too have on occasion used imprecise language, so I am guilty of this as well.
[/quote]

Having read all of this, this might be the most relatively reasonable response I've seen yet. Can this inarticulate variable hold as an acceptable answer from you to the OP?