An Announcement by the Global Alliance and Treaty Organization

[Prodigal Moon]

Civilizations evolve. Personally I have considered the need to have to declare wars through a chain via a chain via a chain etc. to be rather archaic in the kind of wars we fight in Cybernations, where there generally are two clear-cut sides opposing each other. What's the sense for one or the other to limit itself when it is clear who the real enemies are? Especially as you can practically chain anything anywhere in this ridicilous enviroment of treaties we habitate in.

Exactly. I have no idea why people are talking about this as a "moral" issue, as if it's somehow more moral to point out a contrived chain of treaties as the basis for an attack - as if the war is happening in a vacuum to your ally only - rather than acknowledge very clearly up front that you are joining a side. The notifications of joining EQ should be all anyone needs in terms of formal notification that they might be getting hit by a particular AA if they choose to fight against that side. But Old Man GATO needs to cloak his aggression in legalese to give it a veneer of civility and propriety, even when he's launching pre-empts against alliances unnecessarily, or supporting some of the most cruel and destructive alliances this world has ever seen.

[Manis B]

Exactly. I have no idea why people are talking about this as a "moral" issue, as if it's somehow more moral to point out a contrived chain of treaties as the basis for an attack - as if the war is happening in a vacuum to your ally only - rather than acknowledge very clearly up front that you are joining a side. The notifications of joining EQ should be all anyone needs in terms of formal notification that they might be getting hit by a particular AA if they choose to fight against that side. But Old Man GATO needs to cloak his aggression in legalese to give it a veneer of civility and propriety, even when he's launching pre-empts against alliances unnecessarily, or supporting some of the most cruel and destructive alliances this world has ever seen.

GATO acknowledges the reality of this war. That its a blood fueled fued against an alliance that some people dont like. But we also choose to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

Notice how I calmly disagree with you, instead of building a coalition to attack your alliance.

[Land of True Israel]

Spoken like a true tyrant. Refusing to always adhere to the standards of others does not constitute a lack of standards, it just happens to piss off people like you who have no control over the personal policies and actions of people like me.

No, you lack any standards. In all possible fields.

 

[Finnish Commie]

That, my friend, is the question.

 

I don't think that has been a very difficult question to answer in the wars we've had in last few years though. The sides have been generally very apparent even before the wars started.
 

[Finnish Commie]

GATO acknowledges the reality of this war. That its a blood fueled fued against an alliance that some people dont like. But we also choose to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

Notice how I calmly disagree with you, instead of building a coalition to attack your alliance.

 

The standards have changed and your are not a wee bit higher than ours. Nothing is constant.
 

 

Ach frigging double post, my apologies.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Finnish Commie

[Walshington]

Apologies, my multi-quote buttons have disappeared.

 

D34th said:

There no such thing as universally accepted norms of the treaty system, like there are no universally accepted norms for tech raiding. An alliance has the right to declare war in support of another alliance without the need of a treaty to say that, if an alliance share the common opinions and goals of another alliance they have the sovereignty to declare war without the need of a treaty to allow them to.

 

I am not trying to e-lawyer here.  I will concede that there is debate on Bob as to the rules of tech raiding, what constitutes an alliance, etc.  However, some things are well established:  Alliances must DoE to be legit, protectorates are respected, etc.  Chief among these sorts of conventions is the treaty web. When FA stuff gets rough, we all go to the wiki treaty list to determine who may get involved if we go to war. That list was established, of course, by treaty announcements right here on the OWF.  We've all been on the sidelines of a war, waiting until the chain brings us in no matter how badly we wanted to enter so we could be legit. THIS HAS BEEN WELL ESTABLISHED.

 

This is why NSO and NPO were angry at NEW for aiding Kaskus in the Smurf War -- no treaty, so not legit.  NEW claimed they had a special tie with Kaskus, and the world said that dog doesn't hunt.  Sovereignty of NEW was not considered and excuse.

 

This is why INT received scorn when it appeared they DIDN'T support their treaties with LSF and INT.  No one gave them a pass because of sovereignty.

 

This is why people didn't like it when a group of nations in the Dave War entered the war on a PIAT, claiming that aid meant any and all aid, to include direct action in war.  If true, we need no other treaties.

 

I don't think that a DoW with an "all for one" clause satisfies this requirement. That said, it is really a matter of semantics, as a simple MDAP could have been posted 1 second before the original DoW and we'd be right here in this same spot.  To that end, it doesn't seem worth wringing hands over for too long.

 

Sovereignty does give you the right to do whatever you wish, just as in our individual lives.  Nothing stops me from shooting another individual save the conventions in society that would punish me for doing so. Giving up a bit of our sovereignty for societal conventions is what makes us civilized.

 

Try to enforce internal policies to other alliances is stupid, unless the alliance that is trying to enforce it has enough power to do so and right now power is a commodity that is lacking in GATO or in their side.

 

In this you are correct -- all of the societal conventions in the world matter not if there is not might to enforce them.  This is why crime, genocides, and Michael Bay movies happen in this world.  Might never makes right, but it sure makes shit happen.

 

Lurunin said:

back during DH-NPO war, MK/UMB/and even a few like ODN i believe? touted "an attack on one is an attack on all" line. they attacked numerous alliances like Legion/TPF/CoJ/NATO just because they could and noone could stop them. Where was GATO posters when they set the precedent?

 

During Grudge War, GATO itself decided they wanted to expand upon the pre-empt when it was clearly not within the norms of CN to do so. When confronted about it the simplest explanation you could make for it was "might makes right". you basically said "if you can win the pre-empt is when it's legitimate."

 

During Dave War, UMB decided to not only pre-empt Fark, but also declare universally to attack the top tier of any alliance they wished to, even those not fighting their allies or allies' allies. Where was a single GATO poster decrying this as well? You allowed for UMB to smack your own treaty partner in the face when they hit NATO's top tier. I didn't see a single complaint here nor did any others i'm sure.

 

Now when the Equilibrium coalition are using the same "tactics" as your side, you're here screaming "WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE CN LIFESTYLE!!!"? Bullshit. simple as that. the precedent for such actions have been set by your own side. don't complain when they are used against you. This brings me back to the point before...typical GATO...

 

 

If what Lurunin says is true (and I haven't been politically aware long enough to know), then hypocrisy is afoot.  But it is afoot on both sides.  The white cowboy hat is the hardest one to wear, because you have to wear that thing 24/7.  When you use tactics you once decried in the past, you vacate your right to moral umbrage -- if might didn't make right before, why does it now?  In the immortal words of Peter Townshend: "Meet the new boss -- it's the same as the old boss."

 

 

 

TL;DR   Law and Order is dead, and it looks like only the neutral menace can complain about it.

[Branimir]

 I am just curious as to why the majority of people on your side want to return to those days by returning a reformed 1V/Q to power.

All hail the old evil! o/

 

 

You get an EZI! And you get an EZI!

EVERYBODY GETS AN EZI!

 

\o/

[Do Not Fear Jazz]

All hail the old evil! o/
 
 
You get an EZI! And you get an EZI!
EVERYBODY GETS AN EZI!
 
\o/

You never cease to impress me. Thank you for this.

[Caustic]

 or supporting some of the most cruel and destructive alliances this world has ever seen.

 

You are literally supporting NPO, and NpO. Literally. Do I even need to reread you your CN history? Yeah...

[Prodigal Moon]

GATO acknowledges the reality of this war. That its a blood fueled fued against an alliance that some people dont like. But we also choose to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

Notice how I calmly disagree with you, instead of building a coalition to attack your alliance.

As I mentioned, I fail to see how ghost declarations and treaty chaining is a "higher" standard. But I know it's important to GATO to maintain this illusion of being more civil than the rest of these plebians. And at some point (years ago) that may have even had a grain of truth to it.

[Branimir]

You never cease to impress me.

Unfortunately I cant say the same.

 

Scaring people with the return of the big bad 1v/q/NPO is rather passe and fairly uninspiring piece of empty propaganda.

I would expect better things.

 

Keep fighting the good fight xD

 

[Schattenmann]

A "rogue war" hahahahaha. Oh, you guys! Tell me, how does one "handle" a rogue war?

[smurthwaite]

 

You are literally supporting NPO

 

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/A_treaty_you_still_can%27t_refuse

 

'nough said.  Come on.  Why are you decrying a coalition built by YOUR TREATY PARTNER!?!

 

 

[Caustic]

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/A_treaty_you_still_can%27t_refuse

 

'nough said.  Come on.  Why are you decrying a coalition built by YOUR TREATY PARTNER!?!

 

 

 

I'm not. I'm decrying the faux moral @#$*(& that's being spewed by your entire side.

[WhitEarendur]

 

You are literally supporting NPO, and NpO. Literally. Do I even need to reread you your CN history? Yeah...

 

I think it says something about the alliances that were leading before this war that people are willing to gamble with putting them back on top. 

 

Polaris and Pacifica at least take the game seriously and value something, that alone is enough for me to support them over the stupid lulz culture DH spouts off at every opportunity. 

[smurthwaite]

I'm not. I'm decrying the faux moral @#$*(& that's being spewed by your entire side.

 

Logical fallacy:  Oversimplication and Hasty Generalization
 

[Caustic]

I think it says something about the alliances that were leading before this war that people are willing to gamble with putting them back on top. 

 

Polaris and Pacifica at least take the game seriously and value something, that alone is enough for me to support them over the stupid lulz culture DH spouts off at every opportunity. 

 

You understand that for better or worse NPO supports Non Grata right? If you're lumping us in with the moral trashheap that is the "lulzy" doomhouse side then I'm really confused about the percieved "values" that are held. Do tell me...

[Dre4mwe4ver]

A "rogue war" hahahahaha. Oh, you guys! Tell me, how does one "handle" a rogue war?

 

Diplomacy. How do you?

[D34th]

You understand that for better or worse NPO supports Non Grata right? If you're lumping us in with the moral trashheap that is the "lulzy" doomhouse side then I'm really confused about the percieved "values" that are held. Do tell me...

 

Pacifica had a treaty with GOONS 1.0 too, until they were no longer needed.  

[Caustic]

Pacifica had a treaty with GOONS 1.0 too, until they were no longer needed.  

 

But I thought this new Pacifica had "honor and morals" ;)

 

which one is it boys?

[Do Not Fear Jazz]

Unfortunately I cant say the same.
 
Scaring people with the return of the big bad 1v/q/NPO is rather passe and fairly uninspiring piece of empty propaganda.
I would expect better things.
 
Keep fighting the good fight xD

It's not passe if it works my dear friend.

Pacifica had a treaty with GOONS 1.0 too, until they were no longer needed.

Can't believe it, but I agree with D34th. Edited January 30, 2013 by Do Not Fear Jazz

[WhitEarendur]

You understand that for better or worse NPO supports Non Grata right? If you're lumping us in with the moral trashheap that is the "lulzy" doomhouse side then I'm really confused about the percieved "values" that are held. Do tell me...

 

My feelings on Non Grata are mixed.  Some in NG people definitely fall into that category, but others don't.  Regardless, your position in this war is one where you're backing the trashheap.  I don't count NG as one of them but like CnG you have definitely enabled them....

 

 

Edit: DNFJ who on Bob are you convincing with anti-1V posting, exactly?

Edited January 30, 2013 by WhitEarendur

[D34th]

But I thought this new Pacifica had "honor and morals" ;)

 

which one is it boys?

 

I believe that what WhitEarendur said was that NPO "take the game seriously and value something", you're who is talking about honor and morals. 

[Caustic]

values implies honor and morals, as it is the complete antithesis to what you're saying DH lacks

[Do Not Fear Jazz]

Edit: DNFJ who on Bob are you convincing with anti-1V posting, exactly?

Stating the case of what will happen. Basic foundation of my argument is this: Regardless of who wins or loses, a hegemony that commits the same crimes you accuse DH of will arise.