An Announcement from the Mushroom Kingdom

[Bob Janova]

Oh wow, MK just become more ridiculous. It's now the alliance who are ZIing someone's responsibility to confirm every crazy protection rumour their target comes up with?

Let's just review the facts – inconvenient for MK as they may be:
[list]
[*]Dave was actively involved in Rotavele's screenshot procurement. As I pointed out in my [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111469&view=findpost&p=2983574]previous post[/url], the logs posted by Rotavele clearly show that.
[*]Dave agreed to the ZI, and TIO agreed to release him: a sure sign that they believed an offence worthy of that sentence had been committed. CSN are not in a position to have threatened TIO into releasing a member they believed had done nothing wrong by force, after all.
[*]The wars declared on Dave were under the TIO AA, i.e. before MK had any interest in the matter.
[*]CSN's public declaration of the ZI status was posted, at the latest (latest edit time on [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111450]this post[/url]), at 12th June, 21.09. Dave didn't move to the MK AA until 21.06. That is, MK knew that Dave was ZI listed when he was applying (in fact MK acknowledge that in the OP here).
[*]MK's [url=http://mushroom-kingdom.info/boards/index.php?topic=40941.0]admission rules[/url] state that applicants "must not be on any alliance ZI/perma-ZI list" and "must be in no wars". Dave violated both of these criteria.
[*]Having decided to accept Dave despite that (a political decision that must have been made by high gov), MK did not make any contact with CSN to talk about the ZI status.
[/list]

So let's review. MK knowingly accepted a nation that was already on a ZI list, and in active wars, in contravention of their own procedures. Their justification for the royalty exemption which must have been applied is that the ZI sentence is unjustifiable – despite the clear logs of Dave taking an active part in spying, and despite the judgement of two separate alliances actually involved in the situation (CSN and TIO). They then chose not to engage with CSN through any normal channels to attempt to get Dave off the list.

This is absolutely clear cut. MK is condoning Dave's spying, condoning accepting nations on other alliances' ZI lists and completely ignoring longstanding precedent about inter-alliance relations. This is very similar in attitude to Hegemony alliances pre-Karma.

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1339701939' post='2983825']
But I guess, from now on, we all must keep in mind that every communication from a member of MK needs to be treated as if it came from Archon himself.
[/quote]

It's better than that, the communication [i]didn't even come from an MK member[/i]. It was merely a peace offer from the nation that was being ZI'd!

[feardaram]

the protection of dave is of utmost importance, the good guy he is. and bob, i can see your hoohah from here.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1339702343' post='2983832']
Oh wow, MK just become more ridiculous. It's now the alliance who are ZIing someone's responsibility to confirm every crazy protection rumour their target comes up with?

Let's just review the facts – inconvenient for MK as they may be:
[list]
[*]Dave was actively involved in Rotavele's screenshot procurement. As I pointed out in my [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111469&view=findpost&p=2983574]previous post[/url], the logs posted by Rotavele clearly show that.
[*]Dave agreed to the ZI, and TIO agreed to release him: a sure sign that they believed an offence worthy of that sentence had been committed. CSN are not in a position to have threatened TIO into releasing a member they believed had done nothing wrong by force, after all.
[*]The wars declared on Dave were under the TIO AA, i.e. before MK had any interest in the matter.
[*]CSN's public declaration of the ZI status was posted, at the latest (latest edit time on [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111450]this post[/url]), at 12th June, 21.09. Dave didn't move to the MK AA until 21.06. That is, MK knew that Dave was ZI listed when he was applying (in fact MK acknowledge that in the OP here).
[*]MK's [url=http://mushroom-kingdom.info/boards/index.php?topic=40941.0]admission rules[/url] state that applicants "must not be on any alliance ZI/perma-ZI list" and "must be in no wars". Dave violated both of these criteria.
[*]Having decided to accept Dave despite that (a political decision that must have been made by high gov), MK did not make any contact with CSN to talk about the ZI status.
[/list]

So let's review. MK knowingly accepted a nation that was already on a ZI list, and in active wars, in contravention of their own procedures. Their justification for the royalty exemption which must have been applied is that the ZI sentence is unjustifiable – despite the clear logs of Dave taking an active part in spying, and despite the judgement of two separate alliances actually involved in the situation (CSN and TIO). They then chose not to engage with CSN through any normal channels to attempt to get Dave off the list.

This is absolutely clear cut. MK is condoning Dave's spying, condoning accepting nations on other alliances' ZI lists and completely ignoring longstanding precedent about inter-alliance relations. This is very similar in attitude to Hegemony alliances pre-Karma.
[/quote]


Don't be daft, Bobby. CSN is not involved in so many rogue wars they couldn't be bothered to do the diligence. As far as our admission guidelines are concerned, we bend them all the time for special cases which, last I checked, is our sovereign right to do so please don't hang your hat on that argument and expect anyone to give a $%&@. Lastly, who the hell are you to tell us who is and who isn't a spy? Dave93 accepted logs that were taken by a spy. That does not make Dave93 a spy in the eyes of the Kingdom; again, that is up to us to decide. Dont like it? Welp!

Edited June 14, 2012 by tamerlane

[Fallen Fool]

[quote name='feardaram' timestamp='1339702219' post='2983831']i see you've resulted back to those unwritten rules and a lack of common sense to support your argument. common sense dictates that when someone you're attacking says "hey guys i'm now under protection" you stop for a second and think about the situation. saying it's tedious and a waste of time to do so is moronic and can result in your alliance getting crushed (this can serve as a case study).[/quote]I'm referencing the basic rules of decorum that have been in place since time immemorial. The fact that you have made rejecting them a cornerstone of your argument is, really, just a sign of how desperate you all are and anyone with half a brain knows it. But please, keep twittering away if it makes you feel better.

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1339702343' post='2983832']This is very similar in attitude to Hegemony alliances pre-Karma.[/quote]At least they haven't tried to claim their past defeats were victories.

[url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Mushroom_Kingdom#War_Involvement]Oh wai-[/url]

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1339702918' post='2983842']
At least they haven't tried to claim their past defeats were victories.

[url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Mushroom_Kingdom#War_Involvement]Oh wai-[/url]
[/quote]

A rather fantastic record if I may say so myself.

[Bob Janova]

You are welcome to admit a spy [b]who is not in an active war from another alliance[/b] whenever you like, indeed. Jumping in and protecting a nation who is at war with another alliance is a violation of their 'sovereign right'. You know this which is why you demand recompense when someone helps out one of your raid victims while you're still at war with them.

Also, asking someone to take screenshots for you [i]is[/i] spying by any reasonable definition, which is why TIO and Dave agreed to the ZI.

[potato]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1339702343' post='2983832']
[*]CSN's public declaration of the ZI status was posted, at the latest (latest edit time on [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111450]this post[/url]), [b]at 12th June, 21.09. Dave didn't move to the MK AA until 21.06.[/b]

[/quote]

Honest question, Bobby J: am I misunderstanding something or did someone change how time works? Unless I'm mistaken, 21.06 is before 21.09.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1339703077' post='2983844']
You are welcome to admit a spy [b]who is not in an active war from another alliance[/b] whenever you like, indeed. Jumping in and protecting a nation who is at war with another alliance is a violation of their 'sovereign right'. You know this which is why you demand recompense when someone helps out one of your raid victims while you're still at war with them.
[/quote]

:See below:
[quote]
Also, asking someone to take screenshots for you [i]is[/i] spying by any reasonable definition, which is why TIO and Dave agreed to the ZI.
[/quote]

This is the point of contention, we disagree. The rationale for Dave93's ZI is bogus in our eyes and seeing as he saw fit to seek shelter within our ranks, for which we are always grateful to bestow upon such outstanding persons as he, we asked Dave93 to pass the word along that he was under our protection. CSN ignored us, nuked him, and here we are now. It's all, like, subjective, maannnnn.

[Bob Janova]

@potato: yes, 21.06 is before 21.09, but not very much – if you find a public declaration of ZI posted within five minutes of an applicant moving to your AA, you should reject that applicant. That's if the ZI sentence was the last edit in that post, the notice could have been posted much earlier.

But this is not a main point, because your alliance accepts that you knew that Dave was ZI-listed when you accepted him into your protection ("Dave since has applied to MK, and given how blatantly ridiculous this ZI sentence is, we have chosen to accept him to our applicant AA": the OP), and because the material evidence of the ZI (the active wars) were declared well beforehand.

ed: @tamerlane: No, whether Dave is a spy in your eyes or not is [i]not[/i] the point of contention, just another area in which MK is wrong (and, frankly, I don't believe you actually think that). The point of contention is that you should never accept into your protection a nation which is at war with an alliance without clearing it with that alliance first.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Bob Janova

[Fallen Fool]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1339703003' post='2983843']
A rather fantastic record if I may say so myself.
[/quote]Yes, clearly spending a year running from under one rock to the next, and barely avoiding NPO's boot each time you showed yourself, was all part of a well planned strategy to win the game.

[b][i]Clearly.[/i][/b]

[Master Holton]

[quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1339703513' post='2983856']
Yes, clearly spending a year running from under one rock to the next, and barely avoiding NPO's boot each time you showed yourself, was all part of a well planned strategy to win the game.

[b][i]Clearly.[/i][/b]
[/quote]

... Is the "clearly" meant to be sarcasm? Because last time I checked MK is winning the game

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1339703509' post='2983855']
@potato: yes, 21.06 is before 21.09, but not very much – if you find a public declaration of ZI posted within five minutes of an applicant moving to your AA, you should reject that applicant. That's if the ZI sentence was the last edit in that post, the notice could have been posted much earlier.

But this is not a main point, because your alliance accepts that you knew that Dave was ZI-listed when you accepted him into your protection ("Dave since has applied to MK, and given how blatantly ridiculous this ZI sentence is, we have chosen to accept him to our applicant AA": the OP), and because the material evidence of the ZI (the active wars) were declared well beforehand.
[/quote]
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with that. Yes it was known he was ZI listed, and why. It also says in that part you quoted that we don't agree with the ZI sentence. They are within their rights to try and enforce it, just as we are to extend our protection to him. And at that point, CSN had to either accept that, or force the issue. They chose the latter.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1339703513' post='2983856']
Yes, clearly spending a year running from under one rock to the next, and barely avoiding NPO's boot each time you showed yourself, was all part of a well planned strategy to win the game.

[b][i]Clearly.[/i][/b]
[/quote]

It worked.

[D34th]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1339688581' post='2983457']
Ha. Watching you all squirm is more fun to them than any war. You guys have not figured that out yet? I love watching them make you squirm because they are artists and you guys just keep raging and raging and raging all the while they are laughing behind the scenes while being totally serious about their stance here.

It's brilliant and I for one commend them.

Proceed.
[/quote]

If someone kick MK balls will hit this guy mouth instead.

[Seerow]

[quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1339703513' post='2983856']
Yes, clearly spending a year running from under one rock to the next, and barely avoiding NPO's boot each time you showed yourself, was all part of a well planned strategy to win the game.

[b][i]Clearly.[/i][/b]
[/quote]

Despite your mockery it worked. In fact, one could argue that if it were not for NPO and their attitude towards us from the day of our founding, we would not be in the position we are currently.

[smurthwaite]

[quote name='feardaram' timestamp='1339697420' post='2983725']
why is MK the only party here with any sort of responsibility? i don't get it. the people attacking dave knew he was claiming to be protected by MK. [/quote]

That seems like a no-brainer. MK declared an AA-wide war on another AA.

[feardaram]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1339703509' post='2983855']
@potato: yes, 21.06 is before 21.09, but not very much – if you find a public declaration of ZI posted within five minutes of an applicant moving to your AA, you should reject that applicant. That's if the ZI sentence was the last edit in that post, the notice could have been posted much earlier.

But this is not a main point, because your alliance accepts that you knew that Dave was ZI-listed when you accepted him into your protection ("Dave since has applied to MK, and given how blatantly ridiculous this ZI sentence is, we have chosen to accept him to our applicant AA": the OP), and because the material evidence of the ZI (the active wars) were declared well beforehand.

ed: @tamerlane: No, whether Dave is a spy in your eyes or not is [i]not[/i] the point of contention, just another area in which MK is wrong (and, frankly, I don't believe you actually think that). The point of contention is that you should never accept into your protection a nation which is at war with an alliance without clearing it with that alliance first.
[/quote]friends > infra

[Scandalous Rumour]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1339703841' post='2983861']
It worked.
[/quote]

exactly the same fake history bull**** that NPO spouted in it's heyday. but pretty funny anyway.

SR.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]They are within their rights to try and enforce it, just as we are to extend our protection to him.[/quote]
You are not 'within your rights' to interfere with the judicial process of another alliance, which is what a ZI sentence is, or to interfere with a declared war between a nation and an alliance, unless you're falling back on 'might makes right' in which case I'll call QED on the 'New Hegemony' point.

[Beauty]

[Image removed for filter evasion]

Well Nicki Said it best.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Rotavele

[smurthwaite]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1339704174' post='2983870']
You are not 'within your rights' to interfere with the judicial process of another alliance, which is what a ZI sentence is, or to interfere with a declared war between a nation and an alliance, unless you're falling back on 'might makes right' in which case I'll call QED on the 'New Hegemony' point.
[/quote]

Bob, every post you have made in this thread is solid logic. I'm afraid, however, given your audience, that you might be wasting your breath.

[Xander420]

War is never a good thing and i hope this can come to a peacefull solution. Im sure both sides have there reason for going to war but i hope both sides can work out there diffrences and this does not turn into a globel war.

[feardaram]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1339704174' post='2983870']
You are not 'within your rights' to interfere with the judicial process of another alliance, which is what a ZI sentence is, or to interfere with a declared war between a nation and an alliance, unless you're falling back on 'might makes right' in which case I'll call QED on the 'New Hegemony' point.
[/quote]
or, being equally moralist as what you are suggesting is proper decorum, we sought to relieve the injust oppression being asserted on our dear friend dave93. we were willing to put everything on the line for him when others were not. you just sat by and watched them sentence him to ZI without a morally sufficient reason. you've become what you've consistently spoken out against. this is a sad day, when supposedly good men sit back and do nothing. you've changed.

Edited June 14, 2012 by feardaram

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1339704174' post='2983870']
You are not 'within your rights' to interfere with the judicial process of another alliance, which is what a ZI sentence is, or to interfere with a declared war between a nation and an alliance, unless you're falling back on 'might makes right' in which case I'll call QED on the 'New Hegemony' point.
[/quote]
Alliances have no special jurisdiction over external nations, and policies are only effective when they can be enforced. Or should we still be respecting stuff like Yellow #5 and the GOONland Security Act? We stepped in to protect a nation which at worst was an accessory to the spying carried out by Rotavele. A nation which had been sentenced to ZI unjustly. We helped him out, and while we did not extend CSN the courtesy of the diplomatic nicety of informing them directly, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. That they chose to nuke a protected nation of ours is a folly of their own making.