a question of this war.

[IYIyTh]

All that flowery wordplay can be succinctly stated as "AI wanted to hit Umbrella" and found a reason they could live with and their allies accepted.

 

We have changed in the 6 years since the events happened that you mentioned.  If you  think we're the same alliance, you clearly don't know a thing about us

 

Caliph, I like you. (In before but.) You genuinely seem confused as to how this happened. I don't think you actually believe what you're saying.

 

 

 

But there are many things wrong with your statement(s.)

 

For starters -- Ai didn't seek a reason for this war. It's been affirmed by the moderation staff that Umbrella actually did do what the CB said it did. The intentions therein are pretty secure and air-tight. It's not a horribly unknown secret that Lusitan and other government members of Umbrella have been publicly and privately attempting to roll Ai (or its formerly known entities,) for a period of time that spans over the past few years. The enmity therein sowed has been completely fabricated by you and yours. That Ai acted upon an (disputed even now despite moderation affirmation,) attempt by Umbrella government and core-member alike to goad Ai into what at the time seemed like a strategic blunder (before BFF implosion et al.) This is not "Ai looking for a reason omg!!!," as you have stated and a warranted reaction to deliberate provocation. This is not Everything. Must. NoCB. or "FOR DAVE LOL." This is a war started with a reason, which also had an overwhelming amount of global support due to Umbrella's recent transgressions.

 

Was it convenient? Sure! Was it as you suggest -- something we were actively waiting for? "Oh, I really hope Umbrella delivers an indisputable CB or else we won't be able to act on text book aggression. Crap!" No. Very few people were planning on that luxury.

 

After that -- Umbrella definitely isn't the same alliance it was 6 years ago.

 

It also isn't the same alliance it was 5, 4, 3, 2 years ago as well.

 

 

Umbrella's actions and role in DH coupled with its (past and continued,) bellicosity, recent transgressions amongst former allies and its general hipster-douche attitude towards any and every other alliance are all also very good reasons why Umbrella is in the position it is now.

 

Even if people placate you in the future you're going to have a hard time finding an audience that feels sorry for you.

Edited February 13, 2013 by IYIyTh

[Tick1]

Caliph, I like you. (In before but.) You genuinely seem confused as to how this happened. I don't think you actually believe what you're saying.

 

 

 

But there are many things wrong with your statement(s.)

 

For starters -- Ai didn't seek a reason for this war. It's been affirmed by the moderation staff that Umbrella actually did do what the CB said it did. The intentions therein are pretty secure and air-tight. It's not a horribly unknown secret that Lusitan and other government members of Umbrella have been publicly and privately attempting to roll Ai (or its formerly known entities,) for a period of time that spans over the past few years. The enmity therein sowed has been completely fabricated by you and yours. That Ai acted upon an (disputed even now despite moderation affirmation,) attempt by Umbrella government and core-member alike to goad Ai into what at the time seemed like a strategic blunder (before BFF implosion et al.) This is not "Ai looking for a reason omg!!!," as you have stated and a warranted reaction to deliberate provocation. This is not Everything. Must. NoCB. or "FOR DAVE LOL." This is a war started with a reason, which also had an overwhelming amount of global support due to Umbrella's recent transgressions.

 

Was it convenient? Sure! Was it as you suggest -- something we were actively waiting for? "Oh, I really hope Umbrella delivers an indisputable CB or else we won't be able to act on text book aggression. Crap!" No. Very few people were planning on that luxury.

 

After that -- Umbrella definitely isn't the same alliance it was 6 years ago.

 

It also isn't the same alliance it was 5, 4, 3, 2 years ago as well.

 

 

Umbrella's actions and role in DH coupled with its (past and continued,) bellicosity, recent transgressions amongst former allies and its general hipster-douche attitude towards any and every other alliance are all also very good reasons why Umbrella is in the position it is now.

 

Even if people placate you in the future you're going to have a hard time finding an audience that feels sorry for you.

 

 

Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

[IYIyTh]

Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

 

Feel free to elaborate when you're done kidding yourselves.

[Tick1]

Feel free to elaborate when you're done kidding yourselves.

 

No need to elaborate when you are convinced otherwise; I'd much rather just insinuate your reasoning.

 

The world is flat just so you know.

[Caliph]

Caliph, I like you. (In before but.) You genuinely seem confused as to how this happened. I don't think you actually believe what you're saying.

 

 

 

But there are many things wrong with your statement(s.)

 

For starters -- Ai didn't seek a reason for this war. It's been affirmed by the moderation staff that Umbrella actually did do what the CB said it did. The intentions therein are pretty secure and air-tight. It's not a horribly unknown secret that Lusitan and other government members of Umbrella have been publicly and privately attempting to roll Ai (or its formerly known entities,) for a period of time that spans over the past few years. The enmity therein sowed has been completely fabricated by you and yours. That Ai acted upon an (disputed even now despite moderation affirmation,) attempt by Umbrella government and core-member alike to goad Ai into what at the time seemed like a strategic blunder (before BFF implosion et al.) This is not "Ai looking for a reason omg!!!," as you have stated and a warranted reaction to deliberate provocation. This is not Everything. Must. NoCB. or "FOR DAVE LOL." This is a war started with a reason, which also had an overwhelming amount of global support due to Umbrella's recent transgressions.

 

Was it convenient? Sure! Was it as you suggest -- something we were actively waiting for? "Oh, I really hope Umbrella delivers an indisputable CB or else we won't be able to act on text book aggression. Crap!" No. Very few people were planning on that luxury.

 

After that -- Umbrella definitely isn't the same alliance it was 6 years ago.

 

It also isn't the same alliance it was 5, 4, 3, 2 years ago as well.

 

 

Umbrella's actions and role in DH coupled with its (past and continued,) bellicosity, recent transgressions amongst former allies and its general hipster-douche attitude towards any and every other alliance are all also very good reasons why Umbrella is in the position it is now.

 

Even if people placate you in the future you're going to have a hard time finding an audience that feels sorry for you.

 

If AI wasn't actively seeking a reason for this war, other members of your coalition were. 

 

Now seeking a reason to go to war with people you dislike is fine.  heck we even gave you as good a reason as any to take and attack us for. 

 

You can go on and on about how bad we are and how much bad stuff we did and how all these alliances/people have all these reasons to want to roll us.  We get it, we're fine with that.  We made our bed, we're laying in it.  We aren't complaining about that.  I for one think its awesome that you guys fear us so much that so much of you had to come together for a shot at us. 

 

But that is beside my point. 

 

For whatever reason(s), AI wanted to hit Umbrella.  This is fact, and something you don't even deny.  You list all these reasons why AI should want to hit Umbrella.  Fact is Ai wanted this.  We wanted this too, in a way.  We both know this war would have happened sooner or later, and if it wasn't going on now we would be whining about how this war hasn't happened yet.

 

This war has a purpose.  For EQ there is the purpose of demoslihing Umbrella as best they can.  For us the purpose might be a little different. 

[Charles the Great]

Umbrella caused indirect damage to AI and state do something about it one too many times....this was seen as an act of aggression by a large portion of the CN community. Therefore in our eyes they started the war. Your opinion is yours and purely propaganda. Thank you, CtG

[Caliph]

Umbrella caused indirect damage to AI and state do something about it one too many times....this was seen as an act of aggression by a large portion of the CN community. Therefore in our eyes they started the war. Your opinion is yours and purely propaganda. Thank you, CtG

 

What is acceptable and not is not drawn in stone, but changes depending on who has the masses behind them.

 

You lot wanted a reason to hit us, we gave you one, so you hit us.  It doesn't change that you hit us.  Except your trying to claim that we swong on you first and then you hit us.  We're fine with you hitting us.  I'm not fine with you lying about us attacking you first.

[Tick1]

What is acceptable and not is not drawn in stone, but changes depending on who has the masses behind them.

 

From an ethical standpoint I disagree with you, from an anthropological standpoint I agree with you. So many conflicting arguments from so many viewpoints.

[Caliph]

From an ethical standpoint I disagree with you, from an anthropological standpoint I agree with you. So many conflicting arguments from so many viewpoints.

 

Morality is subjective.  Morality at its core its what a group of people decided is acceptable behavior.  We can see many different views on what moral behavior is around the world. 

 

In this case it was determined that filling a nuclear rogues slots to fulfill an internal Umbrella policy was an action that required a response of full on war against us and our allies.  Previously it was determining that not stopping attacks on Dave right away was deemed worthy of full scale military retaliation. 

 

Both actions were deemed acceptable by some, unacceptable by others, but only the view that those with the most power and/or numbers share gets applied.

[Branimir]

What is acceptable and not is not drawn in stone, but changes depending on who has the masses behind them.

Or, you know, Admin all mighty sets it. So I would advise that nobody repeats it no matter.

[Caliph]

Or, you know, Admin all mighty sets it. So I would advise that nobody repeats it no matter.

 

If the act which sparked you to war is no longer in existence, where does that leave your reason for war?

[ChairmanHal]

doesnt anyone else see the pointlessness in this pathetic war?        or am i the only one?

 

 

give some feed back?

 

 

Pretty much you are it.

 

That said, I've noticed some on the DH side going all Emperor Palpatine trying to convince people on the EQ side that their "rebellion" will be crushed, and is therefore pointless, and DH's mega tech nations will, like the Death Star, destroy whole alliances as they move up and down the NS scale.

 

Whatever.  In reality this is one of those long, grinding wars that can and perhaps will take many months to come to a final conclusion.  I sense no panic from the EQ, only grim determination.  We knew what we were signing up for when this shooting match started.

 

Oh and Caliph...why do you give a rat's ass who "started it"?  You looking for style points here, you have allies waivering that want out and badgering them to stay in is easier if your side is fighting a defensive war or what's the deal?   <_<

 

A member of Umbrella decided to leave Planet Bob (a lie of course...he's still around), tried changing his AA as cover claiming he was roguing his way out for "a couple of rounds" (another lie...oh and your side spends an awful lot of time changing their AAs btw...it's kinda...I dunno...moonbat-ish at this point in an aluminum hat wearing sort of way), then he proceeded to spy on every AI nation in range and report back his findings to whoever was listening.  Don't tell me he wasn't reporting his findings back to Umbrella, I'll be forced to laugh in your face.

 

All that *before* the "our local customs take precedent over international recognized precedent" bovine scatology, which was beyond a CB in and of itself.  No, don't even complain about someone punching you after you spit in their face and call their mom a whore.  Just don't.

Edited February 13, 2013 by ChairmanHal

[Caliph]

Pretty much you are it.

 

That said, I've noticed some on the DH side going all Emperor Palpatine trying to convince people on the EQ side that their "rebellion" will be crushed, and is therefore pointless, and DH's mega tech nations will, like the Death Star, destroy whole alliances as they move up and down the NS scale.

 

Whatever.  In reality this is one of those long, grinding wars that can and perhaps will take many months to come to a final conclusion.  I sense no panic from the EQ, only grim determination.  We knew what we were signing up for when this shooting match started.

 

Oh and Caliph...why do you give a rat's ass who "started it"?  You looking for style points here, you have allies waivering that want out and badgering them to stay in is easier if your side is fighting a defensive war or what's the deal?   <_<

 

A member of Umbrella decided to leave Planet Bob (a lie of course...he's still around), tried changing his AA as cover claiming he was roguing his way out for "a couple of rounds" (another lie...oh and your side spends an awful lot of time changing their AAs btw...it's kinda...I dunno...moonbat-ish at this point in an aluminum hat wearing sort of way), then he proceeded to spy on every AI nation in range and report back his findings to whoever was listening.  Don't tell me he wasn't reporting his findings back to Umbrella, I'll be forced to laugh in your face.

 

All that *before* the "our local customs take precedent over international recognized precedent" bovine scatology, which was beyond a CB in and of itself.  No, don't even complain about someone punching you after you spit in their face and call their mom a whore.  Just don't.

 

Whose complaining, boy?

 

I'm not complaiing, I'm calling people out on lies saying that Umbrella attacked AI so AI had to "defend" against Umbrella.  You wanted to hit us, got a reason for it, and hit us.  Agressively.  As opposd to defensively.  Its fine, your reasons for hiting us are fine, but don't try to twist it and say we hit you first cuz we didn't.

 

 

Edited February 13, 2013 by Caliph

[Thugnationleader]

Pretty much you are it.

 

That said, I've noticed some on the DH side going all Emperor Palpatine trying to convince people on the EQ side that their "rebellion" will be crushed, and is therefore pointless, and DH's mega tech nations will, like the Death Star, destroy whole alliances as they move up and down the NS scale.

 

Whatever.  In reality this is one of those long, grinding wars that can and perhaps will take many months to come to a final conclusion.  I sense no panic from the EQ, only grim determination.  We knew what we were signing up for when this shooting match started.

 

Oh and Caliph...why do you give a rat's ass who "started it"?  You looking for style points here, you have allies waivering that want out and badgering them to stay in is easier if your side is fighting a defensive war or what's the deal?   <_<

 

A member of Umbrella decided to leave Planet Bob (a lie of course...he's still around), tried changing his AA as cover claiming he was roguing his way out for "a couple of rounds" (another lie...oh and your side spends an awful lot of time changing their AAs btw...it's kinda...I dunno...moonbat-ish at this point in an aluminum hat wearing sort of way), then he proceeded to spy on every AI nation in range and report back his findings to whoever was listening.  Don't tell me he wasn't reporting his findings back to Umbrella, I'll be forced to laugh in your face.

 

All that *before* the "our local customs take precedent over international recognized precedent" bovine scatology, which was beyond a CB in and of itself.  No, don't even complain about someone punching you after you spit in their face and call their mom a whore.  Just don't.

why was my quote quoted by you. its feed back not point finger. im seeing the sides of this crazy stupid battle.

[Dochartaigh]

Whose complaining, boy?

 

I'm not complaiing, I'm calling people out on lies saying that Umbrella attacked AI so AI had to "defend" against Umbrella.  You wanted to hit us, got a reason for it, and hit us.  Agressively.  As opposd to defensively.  Its fine, your reasons for hiting us are fine, but don't try to twist it and say we hit you first cuz we didn't.

 

Much as everything else, aggressive and defensive are just as subjective. Thus, it is not twisting, spinning or lying for us to say we entered defensively against Umbrella as much as it is not twisting, spinning, or lying for you to say you were hit aggressively.

 

Morality is subjective as you state, and at the core of the issue is the morality behind Umbrella using BIBO to hit Puppets. Thus, this whole thing is subjective depending on which side you are on and even then, depending on your own personal viewpoint.

 

One could state that Umbrella wanted AI to hit them as much as AI wanted to hit Umbrella. Thus, aggressive and defensive labels really do not matter.

[Namayan]

Whatever.  In reality this is one of those long, grinding wars that can and perhaps will take many months to come to a final conclusion.  I sense no panic from the EQ, only grim determination.  We knew what we were signing up for when this shooting match started.

Why a sudden change of plans if you knew what you signed for?


courtesy of magicninja logs:

[14:55] AuiNur [14:51] AuiNur So in the end, did we resolve anything? Peace everyone above 130k NS?
[14:55] AuiNur [14:51] AuiNur completely forget about 150k+ on their side?
[14:55] hartfw i think that is the point
[14:55] AuiNur so yep
[14:55] AuiNur thats the plan
[14:55] NobodyExpects how many you got
[14:55] NobodyExpects we ignore 20 nations
[14:55] NobodyExpects and bring their whole sphere crashing down
[14:55] NobodyExpects and when CnG peace out
[14:56] Roadie No sense burning resources to go after 20 nations that we can't really handle anyway
[14:56] Roadie I guess I can see that
[14:56] AuiNur K, thats all i needed to know.

[Bob Ilyani]

Whatever.  In reality this is one of those long, grinding wars that can and perhaps will take many months to come to a final conclusion.  I sense no panic from the EQ, only grim determination.  We knew what we were signing up for when this shooting match started.

I always thought you were out of touch with reality, but you didn't have to go ahead and prove it for me.

[Tick1]

Morality is subjective as you state, and at the core of the issue is the morality behind Umbrella using BIBO to hit Puppets. Thus, this whole thing is subjective depending on which side you are on and even then, depending on your own personal viewpoint.

 

I fail to see the morality discussion at hand when discussing. 

 

 

 

BLOOD IN BLOOD OUT

 

For those who don’t know, BLOOD IN BLOOD OUT (BIBO) has been a controversial tradition of Umbrella. Signatories of it agreed to receive nukes if they ever chose to leave Umbrella. Today, we shall bring back this wonderful tradition, in a much greater and stronger form.

All signatories agree to the below if they ever choose to willingly leave (does not include expulsion) the alliance:
-Be subject to any attacks at any time, without warning, by Umbrella members.
-May never retaliate against any of these Umbrella members.
-These attacks may continue so long as the nation is not an official member of Umbrella or exists under the ruler/nation names at the time of signing this document.

Only signatories of BIBO may carry out BIBO attacks. This document will be reinforced by the SBSC, therefore any attempts by the SPD to infringe upon the agreement should be disregarded.

 

This pact is signed by a majority of Umbrella, just because other alliances and admin fail to recognize our pacts doesn't mean they don't exist. Therefor you are infringing on our rights to attack BIBO signatories. No where in the game is it required that you nuke people you are at war. If you want to debate whether or not Umbrella was slot filling go forth and accuse us of it I honestly don't care, but the facts are we will continue to enforce BIBO as we see fit even if our wars are continue-sly deleted under false premises. Until war slot filling is outlined and defined with a policy I will continue to inform you that Umbrella didn't do anything wrong regarding attacking Puppets since there is no policy to enforce with regards to the matter. By definition of a war as long as we inflict damage to Puppets in any form it is therefor a valid war.

 

If you want to actually turn this into a morality debate then the question at hand is as follows;

 

It's always wrong when the rogues previous alliance attacks said rogue.

OR

It's never wrong when the rogues previous alliance attacks said rogue. 

 

Edit: It doesn't vary by alliance since this is a morality debate. If this was an anthropological point of view then sure we could bring cultural variances brought by alliances into the debate.

 

The question at hand with war slot filling also hasn't been answered at all since we have yet to determine at what point a war stops becoming slot filling and starts becoming an actual war. Does it require one ground attack to be considered a war? Does it require two ground attacks to be considered a war? Does it require just one air attack to be considered a war? Or maybe two air attacks? Just because we may or may have not done the bare minimum when it comes to attacking Puppets doesn't make it an invalid war.

 

However this discussion is irrelevant with the current war since answering the problem wouldn't change the current outcome of what has already happened.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Tick1

[Caliph]

Much as everything else, aggressive and defensive are just as subjective. Thus, it is not twisting, spinning or lying for us to say we entered defensively against Umbrella as much as it is not twisting, spinning, or lying for you to say you were hit aggressively.

 

Morality is subjective as you state, and at the core of the issue is the morality behind Umbrella using BIBO to hit Puppets. Thus, this whole thing is subjective depending on which side you are on and even then, depending on your own personal viewpoint.

 

One could state that Umbrella wanted AI to hit them as much as AI wanted to hit Umbrella. Thus, aggressive and defensive labels really do not matter.

I'm not saying its moral or immoral to declare war.  Everyone has made their own peace with what is happening, and that was never my intent to bring any sort of morality.  I don't care about morality, and anyone who knows me here should be able to tell you the same thing. I'm no moralist.  What I care more about is logic.  

 

Agressive and defensive are in no way subjective.  A attacks B.  A is agressor, B is defender.  Does that make B more moral than A?  I don't know and I don't care, that isn't what I'm talking about.  

 

This situation we have alliance Umb attacking nation Pup, Pup attacked alliance AI, and now AI attacking Umb.

Pup fights AI.  Pup is agressor.

Umb fights Pup.  Umb is agressor.

AI fights Umb.  AI is agressor.

 

Simple terms that are in no way subjective.  The way wars had previously chained out, we would see side A declare on Side B, side C hits side A in defense of side B, side D attacking side C in defense of side A, and it extrapolates from there.

 

Do you see where I am coming from now?

 

Agressor and defender are not subject, they are very clearly laid out.  Morality is subjective, but I am making no claims as to who is more moral in this.  Only laying out, plainly, the agressor and defender in this war.

[Dochartaigh]

I'm not saying its moral or immoral to declare war.  Everyone has made their own peace with what is happening, and that was never my intent to bring any sort of morality.  I don't care about morality, and anyone who knows me here should be able to tell you the same thing. I'm no moralist.  What I care more about is logic.  

 

Agressive and defensive are in no way subjective.  A attacks B.  A is agressor, B is defender.  Does that make B more moral than A?  I don't know and I don't care, that isn't what I'm talking about.  

 

This situation we have alliance Umb attacking nation Pup, Pup attacked alliance AI, and now AI attacking Umb.

Pup fights AI.  Pup is agressor.

Umb fights Pup.  Umb is agressor.

AI fights Umb.  AI is agressor.

 

Simple terms that are in no way subjective.  The way wars had previously chained out, we would see side A declare on Side B, side C hits side A in defense of side B, side D attacking side C in defense of side A, and it extrapolates from there.

 

Do you see where I am coming from now?

 

Agressor and defender are not subject, they are very clearly laid out.  Morality is subjective, but I am making no claims as to who is more moral in this.  Only laying out, plainly, the agressor and defender in this war.

 

I saw where you were coming from in the beginning, I simply do not agree with it. The same could be said about any war then. Take spying for example, if Alliance A spies on Alliance B (whether outside of game mechanics or within) does that mean Alliance A is the aggressor? Or is Alliance B the aggressor should they hit Alliance A.

 

To most, Alliance A is the aggressor despite never once DoWing Alliance B and despite Alliance B actually DoWing Alliance A. Thus, your whole rationale is pointless unless you categorically state Alliance B is the aggressor.

 

Another example, Gov member of Alliance A attacks Alliance B. Alliance B DoWs Alliance A? Who is the aggressor? According to what you stated, it could easily be laid out that Alliance B is the actual aggressor, simply because they were the ones who issued a DoW. Alliance A could easily claim rogue. Now, Alliance A attacks gov member after stating he is a rogue. (yes, I am drawing parallels to the Puppets/BIBO circumstance but that is all. Not stating Puppets was gov or any such). So, which one would be the aggressor? Again, according to what you are stating, it is now most definitely B. Now add in a history of hostility between Alliance A and B.

 

Now, this is why I state that it is entirely subjective as to who the aggressor is or isn't.

 

I fail to see the morality discussion at hand when discussing. 

 

 

 

This pact is signed by a majority of Umbrella, just because other alliances and admin fail to recognize our pacts doesn't mean they don't exist. Therefor you are infringing on our rights to attack BIBO signatories. No where in the game is it required that you nuke people you are at war. If you want to debate whether or not Umbrella was slot filling go forth and accuse us of it I honestly don't care, but the facts are we will continue to enforce BIBO as we see fit even if our wars are continue-sly deleted under false premises. Until war slot filling is outlined and defined with a policy I will continue to inform you that Umbrella didn't do anything wrong regarding attacking Puppets since there is no policy to enforce with regards to the matter. By definition of a war as long as we inflict damage to Puppets in any form it is therefor a valid war.

 

If you want to actually turn this into a morality debate then the question at hand is as follows;

 

It's always wrong when the rogues previous alliance attacks said rogue.

OR

It's never wrong when the rogues previous alliance attacks said rogue. 

 

Edit: It doesn't vary by alliance since this is a morality debate. If this was an anthropological point of view then sure we could bring cultural variances brought by alliances into the debate.

 

The question at hand with war slot filling also hasn't been answered at all since we have yet to determine at what point a war stops becoming slot filling and starts becoming an actual war. Does it require one ground attack to be considered a war? Does it require two ground attacks to be considered a war? Does it require just one air attack to be considered a war? Or maybe two air attacks? Just because we may or may have not done the bare minimum when it comes to attacking Puppets doesn't make it an invalid war.

 

However this discussion is irrelevant with the current war since answering the problem wouldn't change the current outcome of what has already happened.

In regards to BIBO, that is an internal pact, not external and thus has absolutely no bearing on other alliances. No alliance outside of Umbrella [i]needs[/i] to recognize BIBO. I never stated anything about war-slot feeling, just that Ai chose to take it as an aggressive act by Umbrella (an Ai internal policy) when Umbrella instituted BIBO (an Umbrellan internal policy). Frankly, I don't care what admin did or did not "recognize". Ai chose to  Ai and her allies, they are acting in a defensive position, this done by internal policies that have been set forth.

 

Umbrella has chosen to see this as an act of war by Ai and chosen, by internal policies that have been set forth, to recognize their position
as one of defense. This has also been the stance of Umbrella's allies.

 

You state we are infringing upon your sovereign rights by not recognizing BIBO, while at the same time, not recognizing AI's sovereign rights in
declaring this a defensive war on AI's behalf.

 

As for morality, I only pulled that in to show how subjective all of this actually is, instead of being some black and white issue that you and
Caliph is making it out to be.

[Tick1]

I saw where you were coming from in the beginning, I simply do not agree with it. The same could be said about any war then. Take spying for example, if Alliance A spies on Alliance B (whether outside of game mechanics or within) does that mean Alliance A is the aggressor? Or is Alliance B the aggressor should they hit Alliance A.

 

To most, Alliance A is the aggressor despite never once DoWing Alliance B and despite Alliance B actually DoWing Alliance A. Thus, your whole rationale is pointless unless you categorically state Alliance B is the aggressor.

 

Another example, Gov member of Alliance A attacks Alliance B. Alliance B DoWs Alliance A? Who is the aggressor? According to what you stated, it could easily be laid out that Alliance B is the actual aggressor, simply because they were the ones who issued a DoW. Alliance A could easily claim rogue. Now, Alliance A attacks gov member after stating he is a rogue. (yes, I am drawing parallels to the Puppets/BIBO circumstance but that is all. Not stating Puppets was gov or any such). So, which one would be the aggressor? Again, according to what you are stating, it is now most definitely B. Now add in a history of hostility between Alliance A and B.

 

Now, this is why I state that it is entirely subjective as to who the aggressor is or isn't.

 

In regards to BIBO, that is an internal pact, not external and thus has absolutely no bearing on other alliances. No alliance outside of Umbrella needs to recognize BIBO. I never stated anything about war-slot feeling, just that Ai chose to take it as an aggressive act by Umbrella (an Ai internal policy) when Umbrella instituted BIBO (an Umbrellan internal policy). Frankly, I don't care what admin did or did not "recognize". Ai chose to  Ai and her allies, they are acting in a defensive position, this done by internal policies that have been set forth.

 

Umbrella has chosen to see this as an act of war by Ai and chosen, by internal policies that have been set forth, to recognize their position
as one of defense. This has also been the stance of Umbrella's allies.

 

You state we are infringing upon your sovereign rights by not recognizing BIBO, while at the same time, not recognizing AI's sovereign rights in
declaring this a defensive war on AI's behalf.

 

As for morality, I only pulled that in to show how subjective all of this actually is, instead of being some black and white issue that you and
Caliph is making it out to be.

 

Just because someone declares war on your alliance does not give you property of their defensive war slots. The basis for AI's declaration was based on the false premises  that we were war slot filling because Admin deleted our wars.

[wes the wise]

its fun. people need to have fun.

[Pingu]

Blessed are the fun-havers.

[Groucho Marx]

Well if what ChairmanHal says is true I'll be waiting for the "Mission Accomplished" announcement from the eQ coalition. Any day now.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Well if what ChairmanHal says is true I'll be waiting for the "Mission Accomplished" announcement from the eQ coalition. Any day now.

 

Dont be impatient. There are many more nukes to buy and launch before that point.