A joint announcement and a few housekeeping notes from UCR

[Sabcat]

What Rigas and Craig said. We've turned into a parody of ourselves. It's fun though.

[Mongol Swede]

"Twisted treaty language," otherwise known as living in a global community and seeking consensus between all stakeholders. You know, the concepts we commonly associated with the ideals of anarchism. As always, you use ideology as a mask to hide your selfish motivations. You refuse compromise, you refuse to see the other side. Your stand on principles has ALWAYS been a lie. You selfishly demand your way or no way, and then you smugly pat yourself on the back for it.

This is you; this is me; this is the relationship between LSF and INT in a nutshell. You refuse to make tough decisions and you call it integrity. I make tough decisions and am vilified for it.

And I see you've rejoined LSF once again. You never miss an opportunity to jump in front of a parade.

-Craig

Would that be the kind of parade which involves black flags, masks, bullets, kettling, beat-downs and suicide by cop? Or to put it in more CN-friendly terms, complete and total obliteration of one's lands at the behest of that principled stand? Because that's the sacrifice I made, just as you did a long, long time ago when there wasn't even a CPCN to speak of, even in hushed tones.

Regardless, the LSF, no matter how you diminish its role, always put itself in that very parade, at the behest of its allies, no matter where, no matter when. And that's no lie.

Don't make this personal. INT attacked an ally. We responded, as we always have, by defending that ally. Maybe your time on the global stage, with the big red phones sitting on your desk, have made you cynical to that historical principle. But you need only take the time to check the history.

And believe it or not, there is a place for the Left to move forward again, Cata. Rigas. But we've got a defense to prosecute.

[Ayatollah Bromeini]

Jesus fuck, how much of a blast from the past is this thread to the rest of you? Reminds me of the old Silent threads where everyone in the CN left was at each other.

[Rush Sykes]

We don't vote on MD clauses. We vote on signing the treaty, once we've signed it there's nothing to vote on, we enter. If it was an OA clause, we'd have voted as well.

 

 

There is so so much irony in the last sentence of this statement.

[supercoolyellow]

There is so so much irony in the last sentence of this statement.

 

Not really, he has a perfectly valid point. An alliance should commit to a treaty when they sign it, not once its ready to be activated.

Edited February 1, 2013 by supercoolyellow

[RevolutionaryRebel]

Jesus fuck, how much of a blast from the past is this thread to the rest of you? Reminds me of the old Silent threads where everyone in the CN left was at each other.

 

Something something 'betraying GATO', somethething something 'foreign volunteers'. :P

[Grigoris Lambrakis]

The Silent threads were loads of fun. I didn't lose a single one of them, posting as passionately as M-S does now. Who would think back then that, instead of fighting, so many of us would end up in the same alliance?

 

 

The Left will heal from this as it has from everything else.

 

 

-Rigas

Edited February 2, 2013 by Grigoris Lambrakis

[Mr Garcia]

What Rigas and Craig said. We've turned into a parody of ourselves. It's fun though.

 

It was already a parody in 2006. To name a few things:

 

- Openly-endorsed factionalism in the ICSN (with a little subforum for each faction).

- Hare-brained espionage against the "imperialists" that could only ever lead to one thing.

- The language of the denunciations on the public forums after the whole thing had blown up (traitors, counterrevolutionaries, etc.).

- The "unity" conference forums that often led to bickering anyway.

- The role played by the differences between anarchism, M-L, Trotskyism, etc.

- "Socialism in one alliance", the "ICP (M-L)", etc.

 

I'm sure people can think of more.

[Azreal]

 
Not really, he has a perfectly valid point. An alliance should commit to a treaty when they sign it, not once its ready to be activated.

That sailed over your head there didn't it.

[Hereno]

It is probably more that nobody actually buys the line that aiding a rogue is a declaration of war and we figured you all would drop that line once you realized how stupid it made you look - whether it ended up working at the time due to political influence [that you no longer have] or not.

[Charles Stuart]

Pathetic. This treaty, which you use to add yourself to a dog pile against comrades, was not active at the time LSF declared on Int and ODN. Your DoW has no legal basis. No practical value. No moral consistency. Pathetic.

If they view the treaty as being retroactive then it is retroactive.

[Azreal]

It is probably more that nobody actually buys the line that aiding a rogue is a declaration of war and we figured you all would drop that line once you realized how stupid it made you look - whether it ended up working at the time due to political influence [that you no longer have] or not.

Funny that they buy that LSF consider those guys rogues though seeing as it allows them to paint us in the negative light, it's almost as if they'll spin the situation to their advantage. But I'm done with this argument, hell I'm surprised you haven't tried to spin our attack on NATO as being a terrible ally because it was according to eQulibrium and attack on IRON, so keep believing your fair tales about the big bad INT and I'll see you when we are done with this war.

[Hereno]

Funny that they buy that LSF consider those guys rogues though seeing as it allows them to paint us in the negative light, it's almost as if they'll spin the situation to their advantage. But I'm done with this argument, hell I'm surprised you haven't tried to spin our attack on NATO as being a terrible ally because it was according to eQulibrium and attack on IRON, so keep believing your fair tales about the big bad INT and I'll see you when we are done with this war.

 

Yeah, the truth is just hilarious, isn't it?

 

So is this completely fabricated screenshot of a thread posted the day SpaceMonkey and Titanrain went rogue, that I am clearly using to "spin" things to suit my story.

 

 

 

No, the Elesufis are honest in what they do and have been honest about the situation from day one. It is a liar and a thief who distrusts others and had a padlock on his door at night. It is the disgusting behavior of you and yours that has lead to your position here being fucked in the ass by half of the planet. You'd think this would cause a re-evaluation of the behavior that got you here.

 

[ooc] edit: admin please fix spoiler tags thank you [ooc]

Edited February 2, 2013 by Hereno

[Crownguard]

I say only that you have a selective memory. I am sure it is very convenient to fit your world-view into it, but thankfully how things actually went are slightly more complicated than us nervously wringing our hands over how to best screw poor LSF. The same LSF who is happy to join said dogpile. Your morality and your crocodile tears of outrage are incredible, and thankfully it is only those who would want to have some feel-good delusion to their dogpile that listen to what you're peddling. I even talked to you in the chats during the incident itself. The fact you can still feel outraged even when part of the group trying (emphasis there) to destroy us is truly amazing.

[supercoolyellow]

That sailed over your head there didn't it.

 

If some one tries to make point that doesn't work, and someone then points out it doesn't work, the point isn't sailing over anyone's head, its just a bad point. 

[supercoolyellow]

I say only that you have a selective memory. I am sure it is very convenient to fit your world-view into it, but thankfully how things actually went are slightly more complicated than us nervously wringing our hands over how to best screw poor LSF. The same LSF who is happy to join said dogpile. Your morality and your crocodile tears of outrage are incredible, and thankfully it is only those who would want to have some feel-good delusion to their dogpile that listen to what you're peddling. I even talked to you in the chats during the incident itself. The fact you can still feel outraged even when part of the group trying (emphasis there) to destroy us is truly amazing.

 

LSF attacking you now and getting justice, has nothing to do with whether or not you were responsible for the treaty you had with them at the time of the last war. If you sign a treaty you should be willing to follow your word. If you don't follow that a treaty you sign, don't be surprised when people are upset with you.

 

Also all the word smithing in the world does you no good if you don't have decent logic to back it up,.

[Grigoris Lambrakis]

LSF attacking you now and getting justice, has nothing to do with whether or not you were responsible for the treaty you had with them at the time of the last war. If you sign a treaty you should be willing to follow your word. If you don't follow that a treaty you sign, don't be surprised when people are upset with you.

 

Also all the word smithing in the world does you no good if you don't have decent logic to back it up,.

 

I fought in the LSF-NoR war and even did the peace negotiations and prepared the peace treaty for LSF before quitting to join Int. You got it wrong sir. Only seldom are things painted black and white and I can tell you that this picture was mostly grey.

 

 

Your powindah efforts to fuel a sad conflict between leftists has been dully noted. But please bear in mind that interfering in familly bussiness is not a gentleman's way.

 

-Rigas

Edited February 2, 2013 by Grigoris Lambrakis

[supercoolyellow]

I fought in the LSF-NoR war and even did the peace negotiations and prepared the peace treaty for LSF before quitting to join Int. You got it wrong sir. Only seldom are things painted black and white and I can tell you that this picture was mostly grey.

 

 

Your powindah efforts to fuel a sad conflict between leftists has been dully noted. But please bear in mind that interfering in familly bussiness is not a gentleman's way.

 

-Rigas

 

Would you care to give any details about how I got it wrong?

[Grigoris Lambrakis]

Would you care to give any details about how I got it wrong?

 

Orite, I'll walk right into your trap and sum up some of the info and arguments that are already well known.

 

Int's side:

 

1) An oA is optional.

2) Rogues??? Where's my CB???

3) It's hard to attack the treaty partner of our allies just based on an oA, without a CB and with NoR offering peace.

4) We tried nevertheless.

5) Wtf was that IRON thingy? And a secret message, really???

6) Trot, wtf?

7) I thought you had some more allies?

 

LSF's side:

 

1) Trot said you'd back us.

2) We are LSF, your brothers of always, they are NoR...

3) Ghost us or sth, we are being stomped...

 

These are the two sides' arguments. I call this grey because I'm a softy when it comes to LSF.

 

-Rigas

Edited February 2, 2013 by Grigoris Lambrakis

[The R00STER]

O/ good luck guys!!!!

[Subcomandante VL]

Orite, I'll walk right into your trap and sum up some of the info and arguments that are already well known.

 

Int's side:

 

1) An oA is optional.

2) Rogues??? Where's my CB???

3) It's hard to attack the treaty partner of our allies just based on an oA, without a CB and with NoR offering peace.

4) We tried nevertheless.

5) Wtf was that IRON thingy? And a secret message, really???

6) Trot, wtf?

7) I thought you had some more allies?

 

LSF's side:

 

1) Trot said you'd back us.

2) We are LSF, your brothers of always, they are NoR...

3) Ghost us or sth, we are being stomped...

 

These are the two sides' arguments. I call this grey because I'm a softy when it comes to LSF.

 

-Rigas

 

INT:

1 is true, though debatable over whether or not it was an oA.

 

2 presupposes it was an oA. It's easier to find a way out if you choose to view it as requiring activation.

 

3 uh no. NoR was not directly tied to any of our allies, but to the allies of our allies. The last part was really the reason things escalated; NoR started declaring wars during attempted peace discussions.

 

4 is vague, but I think I know what you're getting at.

 

5 was completely ridiculous I agree.

 

6 uh yeah. But you can't throw everything on his shoulders when he had an approving vote from the gov that was then unnecessarily moved to the Congress. Part of his job was to relay his thoughts.

7 doesn't really apply. Said allies were being drawn into the other war that was just starting, as was INT itself (debatably due to this one).

 

LSF:

 

1 uh yeah. And he was right, at least at the time he said it.

 

2 is all (or should be/have been) true.

 

3 did happen to a very limited extent.

 

 

More than anything it all comes down to how one views the way things unfolded between NoR and LSF, and whether or not LSF were aggressors. The opinions in both gov and the membership shifted from obligation to option over the course of a few days, due to a combination of other priorities, a lack of clarity in events, and general cowardice.

 

Why does INT think that none of the elected gov that was involved (save Lexie, who also left and then came back) is still in INT anymore? I know three or four of us in the Central Committee regret the way things went, and we even had 3 secretaries resign right then (including Azrael, which I find ironic considering he's defending actions he was staunchly against at the time).

 

Now, I've just given my account of what happened, but there's ultimately no way we're ever going to be in agreement about the events that took place because they happened so quickly and confusingly that everyone views them in a different way.

 

I guess the real question we have to ask ourselves at this point is whether or not we even want to heal the wounds inflicted on us all in the past year or so. If the answer is yes, the only way we'll ever move on is just by forgiveness and letting go of grudges. Continued analysis of all that BS won't get us anywhere, and neither will this war.

 

Edit: And before I get a quip saying "then why did you start it?" We didn't, and neither did LSF. Mutual defence means mutual defence, and dual-membership means de facto war. Were some of us gunning for a shot at INT out of lasting frustration and anger? Sure. And are some of us starting to regret this? Absolutely. But did we have a choice? Not really.

Edited February 2, 2013 by VladimirLenin

[Crownguard]

INT:

1 is true, though debatable over whether or not it was an oA.

 

2 presupposes it was an oA. It's easier to find a way out if you choose to view it as requiring activation.

 

3 uh no. NoR was not directly tied to any of our allies, but to the allies of our allies. The last part was really the reason things escalated; NoR started declaring wars during attempted peace discussions.

 

4 is vague, but I think I know what you're getting at.

 

5 was completely ridiculous I agree.

 

6 uh yeah. But you can't throw everything on his shoulders when he had an approving vote from the gov that was then unnecessarily moved to the Congress. Part of his job was to relay his thoughts.

7 doesn't really apply. Said allies were being drawn into the other war that was just starting, as was INT itself (debatably due to this one).

 

LSF:

 

1 uh yeah. And he was right, at least at the time he said it.

 

2 is all (or should be/have been) true.

 

3 did happen to a very limited extent.

 

 

More than anything it all comes down to how one views the way things unfolded between NoR and LSF, and whether or not LSF were aggressors. The opinions in both gov and the membership shifted from obligation to option over the course of a few days, due to a combination of other priorities, a lack of clarity in events, and general cowardice.

 

Why does INT think that none of the elected gov that was involved (save Lexie, who also left and then came back) is still in INT anymore? I know three or four of us in the Central Committee regret the way things went, and we even had 3 secretaries resign right then (including Azrael, which I find ironic considering he's defending actions he was staunchly against at the time).

 

Now, I've just given my account of what happened, but there's ultimately no way we're ever going to be in agreement about the events that took place because they happened so quickly and confusingly that everyone views them in a different way.

 

I guess the real question we have to ask ourselves at this point is whether or not we even want to heal the wounds inflicted on us all in the past year or so. If the answer is yes, the only way we'll ever move on is just by forgiveness and letting go of grudges. Continued analysis of all that BS won't get us anywhere, and neither will this war.

 

Edit: And before I get a quip saying "then why did you start it?" We didn't, and neither did LSF. Mutual defence means mutual defence, and dual-membership means de facto war. Were some of us gunning for a shot at INT out of lasting frustration and anger? Sure. And are some of us starting to regret this? Absolutely. But did we have a choice? Not really.

 

Fact check on a few of those.  I'll let Triky argue the points he brought up in return but there are a few points you require clarification on:

 

Lexie: left with you to UCR to help fix things up, then came back and floated to Shangri-La for a short time before returning to INT.

Jacob: Left for Shangri-La because he wanted a change of pace, decided it wasn't his jam, came back to INT briefly and then went to LSF.

Trotsky: Left for NG, then came back for a few weeks and eventually decided to go to MK.

Craig: Went to MK the past few weeks for a change of pace as well.

 

All of whom save for Jacob still hang around our chatroom and the like.

 

The vote that ended up being posted (as the OP I would know) was to prepare for war.  That vote failed by some key votes, to include the same members (Jacob and Trotsky who votes Yes then changed it to No) who were no longer around.

 

In fact, the government that remained ended up being up-jumped active players (myself), suddenly active old members (soultaker, Cocache, Momentum), and Sir Pwnage and Sovyet Gelibolu.  *We* took the reins to try to salvage something from the situation and moved the alliance forward since almost every single active person involved in the debacle was no longer around.  I always found that kinda funny, because the people who generally wanted to go in were those who remained in INT...it was the people who said "No" to going in that generally left The International.

 

 

-----------------------------------------

 

Of course, to me and the most of us it is a moot point.  At the time I wanted to defend LSF...but after the fact all that idealism faced the reality of how people were acting.  Like many I was pissed about leaked logs from Trotsky and so and have told him such.  I understand his viewpoint and know he was trying to play the game correctly. 

 

You felt we should have defended them, instead you declare on us to destroy us.  I have no pity or regrets at what happened now; sentimentality kinda went out the window when you decided you wanted to take a shot directly at us, knowing how close the vote was and who actually made those decisions.  Whatever happens happens, but the same line you're telling us about not having a choice in having to attack is unintentionally ironic given the circumstances.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Crownguard

[Ayatollah Bromeini]

Yeah, the truth is just hilarious, isn't it?

 

So is this completely fabricated screenshot of a thread posted the day SpaceMonkey and Titanrain went rogue, that I am clearly using to "spin" things to suit my story.

 

 

 

No, the Elesufis are honest in what they do and have been honest about the situation from day one. It is a liar and a thief who distrusts others and had a padlock on his door at night. It is the disgusting behavior of you and yours that has lead to your position here being fucked in the ass by half of the planet. You'd think this would cause a re-evaluation of the behavior that got you here.

 

[ooc] edit: admin please fix spoiler tags thank you [ooc]

 

 

o7 Scarlet Sally 

 

 

 

This affair couldn't possibly deliver any more than it has now at this particular moment in time.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Ayatollah Bromeini

[Hereno]

Fact check on a few of those.  I'll let Triky argue the points he brought up in return but there are a few points you require clarification on:

 

Lexie: left with you to UCR to help fix things up, then came back and floated to Shangri-La for a short time before returning to INT.

Jacob: Left for Shangri-La because he wanted a change of pace, decided it wasn't his jam, came back to INT briefly and then went to LSF.

Trotsky: Left for NG, then came back for a few weeks and eventually decided to go to MK.

Craig: Went to MK the past few weeks for a change of pace as well.

 

All of whom save for Jacob still hang around our chatroom and the like.

 

The vote that ended up being posted (as the OP I would know) was to prepare for war.  That vote failed by some key votes, to include the same members (Jacob and Trotsky who votes Yes then changed it to No) who were no longer around.

 

In fact, the government that remained ended up being up-jumped active players (myself), suddenly active old members (soultaker, Cocache, Momentum), and Sir Pwnage and Sovyet Gelibolu.  *We* took the reins to try to salvage something from the situation and moved the alliance forward since almost every single active person involved in the debacle was no longer around.  I always found that kinda funny, because the people who generally wanted to go in were those who remained in INT...it was the people who said "No" to going in that generally left The International.

 

 

-----------------------------------------

 

Of course, to me and the most of us it is a moot point.  At the time I wanted to defend LSF...but after the fact all that idealism faced the reality of how people were acting.  Like many I was pissed about leaked logs from Trotsky and so and have told him such.  I understand his viewpoint and know he was trying to play the game correctly. 

 

You felt we should have defended them, instead you declare on us to destroy us.  I have no pity or regrets at what happened now; sentimentality kinda went out the window when you decided you wanted to take a shot directly at us, knowing how close the vote was and who actually made those decisions.  Whatever happens happens, but the same line you're telling us about not having a choice in having to attack is unintentionally ironic given the circumstances.

 

I can greatly sympathize with being stuck defending actions you don't agree with to outsiders for the sake of unity and such, and for what it's worth I genuinely feel bad for those almost 50% of you who wanted to go in and are now bearing the brunt of all of this abuse on the OWF.

 

Although "declare on us to destroy us" is a silly line. Even if they were going in with that intention (they aren't), you know as well as I do that there's no chance you lot would disband anyway.

 

 

 

o7 Scarlet Sally 

 

 

 

This affair couldn't possibly deliver any more than it has now at this particular moment in time.

 

Hahahahaha, yes I thought you and the guys from LSF would particularly like that screenshot.

[Sovyet Gelibolu]

I can greatly sympathize with being stuck defending actions you don't agree with to outsiders for the sake of unity and such, and for what it's worth I genuinely feel bad for those almost 50% of you who wanted to go in and are now bearing the brunt of all of this abuse on the OWF.

Well, thanks.