TALVISOTA

[Banned]

Lol sure bro, I never said making them admit to bullshit claims a surrender term was a bad idea.

Edit: on top of that TLR is your ally, NG was not, so there's a difference.

Not really.  An attack on one is an attack on all right?  That is your coalitions coin-phrase this war is it not?

[ShamWOW]

Schattenmann, as always, your posts say volumes about your character.  The OP already said they were pre-emptively attacked by RnR, with no just cause.  Sure, you can beat on them as long as you want... assuming of course that CoJ is going to run in to declare on them.  Otherwise, they recognize hostilities with RnR, which are in no way tied to political blaziblah of the existing war between coalitions.  Makes perfect sense to everybody else.

It was not a pre-emptive attack on them by R&R. All of those alliance members except RAC were on the Hooligans AA and jumped over the day before the war. That leads to the logical assumption that the Hooligans members had just jumped AA's to avoid combat (Note again that the only member with more than 1 day seniority was not attacked). That combining with the fact that the Hooligan Government says they were kicked out while RAC's claim is that it's because of internal hooligans problems. And finally RA members returning to the hooligan AA also causes confusion in the situation moreso. Ego and RAC both made it clear that they are both willing to come to more or less of the same diplomat ending to this conflict. Many people here are trying to make this into something it's not. And it's clearly not a pre-empive attack as those members were viewed at as Hooligans members who declared war on us.

[Azreal]

It was not a pre-emptive attack on them by R&R. All of those alliance members except RAC were on the Hooligans AA and jumped over the day before the war. That leads to the logical assumption that the Hooligans members had just jumped AA's to avoid combat (Note again that the only member with more than 1 day seniority was not attacked). That combining with the fact that the Hooligan Government says they were kicked out while RAC's claim is that it's because of internal hooligans problems. And finally RA members returning to the hooligan AA also causes confusion in the situation moreso. Ego and RAC both made it clear that they are both willing to come to more or less of the same diplomat ending to this conflict. Many people here are trying to make this into something it's not. And it's clearly not a pre-empive attack as those members were viewed at as Hooligans members who declared war on us.

 

If they ended up in a war anyway why wouldn't they return if they left because they didn't want to be in the war then brining the war to them made that point moot did it not? Lets be honest here R&R messed up, and yeah the circumstances make that understandable, but rather than admit you didn't double check before attacking you try to force statements of nuetrality? Like I said I'm more than a bit disappointed with R&R to be honest.

[ShamWOW]

 If they ended up in a war anyway why wouldn't they return if they left because they didn't want to be in the war then brining the war to them made that point moot did it not? Lets be honest here R&R messed up, and yeah the circumstances make that understandable, but rather than admit you didn't double check before attacking you try to force statements of nuetrality? Like I said I'm more than a bit disappointed with R&R to be honest.

There were only a few people within R&R who were aware of any of this, and Egofreaky being someone who told those of us involved that we were welcome to declare a ceasefire until the matter was solved. i explained many of the reasons this was suspicious in the last post, one person attacking one of their guys with no knowlege of the situation is hardly the catastrophe that people here are trying to make.

[SoADarthCyfe6]

In b4 the crap pile jumps in on SRA!!

Poor show, RnR, I think it's safe to say that many thought better of you then this. Granted, I didn't.

[Lurunin]

In b4 the crap pile jumps in on SRA!!

Poor show, RnR, I think it's safe to say that many thought better of you then this. Granted, I didn't.

And we all know just how important and valuable it is to have your blessings.


Honestly this ranges anywhere from a true misunderstanding to those hooligans members deliberately choosing SRA for a safe haven (though Walsh is too traditional to allow that unless told a different story imo)

For 1/5 of hooligans members and gov to jump to another AA while in peacemode is suspicious enough. Add in that their coalition has been doing it since day 1 and you has just cause to attack those nations, not any other than those who switched over though

[Walshington]

It was not a pre-emptive attack on them by R&R. All of those alliance members except RAC were on the Hooligans AA and jumped over the day before the war. That leads to the logical assumption that the Hooligans members had just jumped AA's to avoid combat (Note again that the only member with more than 1 day seniority was not attacked). 

 

ShamWOW -- as stated, I acknowledge your suspicion, understand your reasons for attacking and both appreciate and recognize the message sent by the fact that I was not attacked.  Still, I think it was a pre-emptive attack.  The members all left Hooligans before you were at war with them.  Had it been after -- yup, fair target.  But thy were at peace with you both before and after they came to my AA -- I have the same rules as most other alliances: don't join with an active war.

 

No act of war was committed on R&R from anyone on the SRA AA -- we were all in war mode, no war improvements, no war preps.  You attacked us on the assumption that we would eventually attack you, with no attempt at diplomacy that I am aware of.  That is the very definition of a pre-empt.  Even if all your suspicions were 100% accurate.  This is probably more of a semantics argument than anything else -- I think we both agree on what happened, just not what to call it.

 

 

That combining with the fact that the Hooligan Government says they were kicked out while RAC's claim is that it's because of internal hooligans problems.

 

Just a point of clarification: I gave examples of why members may leave an alliance that didn't involve desertion, but I noted that I would not comment on the actual reasons because it would not be appropriate to do so.

[ArneS]

All but 1 nation had 1 day or less seniority when hooligans attacked us. All but said one nation where targeted. All SRA had to do was sign a declaration that they would not enter the conflict or aid alliances in the competence coalition and agree that any nation that switched back after said agreement to hooligans to enter the war from the hooligans AA would not be included in any eventual peace settlement between Hooligans and R&R (just like PoW's aren't included when they surrender and then switch back to continue the fight). Said offer still stands.

 

What kind of logic is this? To prevent being attacked they would have to sign an agreement about not entering a war in which they were not involved, and about a peace agreement between 2 other alliances?

[Ogaden]

What kind of logic is this? To prevent being attacked they would have to sign an agreement about not entering a war in which they were not involved, and about a peace agreement between 2 other alliances?

 

What are you babbling about, did you even read what he said.

[Bob Ilyani]

What are you babbling about, did you even read what he said.

Seems as though he did, because whatever Ego said made absolutely no sense.

[Ogaden]

Seems as though he did, because whatever Ego said made absolutely no sense.

 

Well clearly not, but I thought MK were the brains of this operation.

[Darth Banana]

In b4 the crap pile jumps in on SRA!!

Poor show, RnR, I think it's safe to say that many thought better of you then this. Granted, I didn't.

 

You're implying that we care about your input, sadly we don't. If you want to talk about bandwagons, look to the fools who are crying about us supposedly hitting a small alliance with no reason when they really don't know what they are talking about. Are you going to cry that we are currently beating HB after their pathetic blitz next?

[EgoFreaky]

Well, in my opinion, R&R certainly could.  I'm not at war with anyone else.  I'm almost certain my war will be resolved before the World War is resolved, so that probably won't be an issue. And there really isn't any posturing -- my choices were pretty limited.  I had diplomacy (which I tried), I could have taken it, which I did for a few days, or I could fight.  Point me to the happy ending of those three, and I'll take it.


 
Look, I will take on 194 Nations with a powerful middle tier with two nations in what is clearly a hopeless cause, but I am no fool, sir.  I will not war on the Great Ubuntu.  The reps would be easy, sure, but I would have to change the AA to "Quiet Good Red Posteriors".  NOT worth the risk.
 


 
Scorn -- you know I love them boys.  However, your post made me glad it was not RIA who attacked me, old frenemy.
 


 
Vuk -- How I miss your old Avatar!  Thanks for the hail -- if I'd have chosen the target, I'd have chosen differently, but the target chose me.
-- o7 Vuklandia 




 
I was surprised by that myself -- didn't consider I was violating rules, and that was not my intent.  Also, there were plenty of Finnish aircraft available, but I chose the Buffalo in the hopes that somebody, somewhere, would appreciate it.  Thanks for the vindication!  I am, however, a little butthurt that no one noticed the little ampersand victory markings beneath the cockpit.....

I actually did notice the ampersand markings, didnt comment on it but nice touch :P

Anyway, send you an ingame message, our war was never with you and we can end it whenever you want (though i do understand if you want to throw in a few shots first :P We'll even include the nation that showed you the loyalty to stick on your AA.
 
 

EgoFreaky --
I get where your head is at entirely.  There was a time I was faced with an FA conundrum similar to yours, and I ended up getting $%*&ed around by a line of B%*$*&*#t that I shouldn't have.  That is why I said this in the OP:
 

 

I see your position.  But I am a law and order guy -- maybe that is my problem.  my main problem. One of my many problems. the issue here.  The way I see it is thus:  Five Hooligans nations joined me prior to them declaring on you.  None of them jumped back or gave aid to Hooligans.  And you attacked us.  I get the suspicion -- but until an act of war occurs, I really don't see your right to attack me. I have no treaty with Hooligans. We weren't gearing up for war -- we were all in Defcon 5.  
 
As to why they left the alliance...   I could comment on that, but I won't.  Let me just say this:  there are plenty of reasons to leave an alliance on the eve of war that don't involve alliance hopping or desertion.  I left an alliance on the eve of the Dave War, and I was not either of those.  Let me give some options:
 
1. Disagreed in principle with war.
2. Had considered leaving previously.
3. Were disenchanted with direction of alliance.
4. Were not inclined to shed blood for current war.
5. The leader of SRA is a charismatic, Svengali-like presence whose force of will creates an irresistible pull...  I swear, Lurunin was this close to joining.
 
Now, I KNOW why they came. And I am not going to tell why.  Because you never leave for another alliance for good reasons, and the fact that I am privy to the inside workings of Hooligans -- whom I love -- is worth more to me than saving my own skin.  FULL DISCLOSURE:  If they came to my alliance for all the reasons you thought they did, I wouldn't tell you that either. So your disbelief is understandable.
 
My point is, the reason they joined doesn't really matter.  None of them hopped back, or gave aid to Hooligans, or committed any act of war against you, until you attacked Screaming Red Asses.  You attacked based on an assumption, and never knocked on my door to say "Hey, you know, if any of those people go back to Hooligans, we're holding you responsible."  Or "Hey, what are your intentions regarding the war?"  You instead assumed that I was collecting the 200K NS that would be your ultimate undoing and sought to stop it. And attacked us, unprovoked, IMHO.
 
I appreciate the fact that you attacked only them and not me. That was an honorable move.  But when you say "All SRA had to do was sign a declaration that they would not enter the conflict or aid alliances in the competence coalition and agree that any nation that switched back after said agreement to hooligans to enter the war from the hooligans AA would not be included in any eventual peace settlement between Hooligans and R&R" -- It surprises me, because I think I said something to that very effect to ShamWOW, who was nothing but cordial, on the IRC.  It certainly wasn't received by me in any other form.
 
I will not dump logs here, as that always strikes me as unseemly.  Queries on IRC can create an environment of assumed privacy, so I will send you a screenshot of that to you in a PM.  In fact, this whole thing is getting very close to diplomacy, and diplomacy is best not undertaken on the OWF.  The audience and perceived audience never helps.  I look forward to discussing the issue with you in private communications.
 
P.S.  The wiki entry on this war represents my side fairly I believe, probably because I wrote it.  It is supposed to be evenhanded, not propaganda, so please review it to ensure your point of view is represented accurately.  I feel it does, but you'd be surprised how easily that comes when you write something yourself. ;)

 
Well I don't really mind how the Wiki shows it, I just want to point out we ONLY hit nations who left hooligans 1 day or less before the war. We do recognize SRA's sovereignty just not the legitimacy of the new 'members' and we considered them hooligan members hiding out for the duration of the war. If you want to reflect that on the wiki, great if not i'll live :)

The notion that this is not part of the Eq War is a laughable farce.  Period.

 
Actually i tend to agree with Walsh on this, R&R (more exactly I) made a decision to hit the nations we considered Hooligan nations, hiding from the war, all but one of them strengthened that suspicion by running back to hooligans when we hit them. The remaining SRA members declared on us no in defense of anyone at war but in defense of who they perceived as members making it a separate war from their perspective. Seeing the big strenght differences between alliances i see no need to drag anyone else in and no reason not to agree with their request to see this as a separate war. Therefor I ask the other equilibrium alliances not to add these nations to their target lists because it isn't needed and will only complicate finding a resolution to this.

Not really.  An attack on one is an attack on all right?  That is your coalitions coin-phrase this war is it not?

 
It is, but what i mentioned happened in a previous war. So why now bitch about our attack on one is an attack on all while admitting it has been done in the past. Are you for it or against it? Or is it more as most people expect anyway, it's cool as long as its your side doing it.

 

If they ended up in a war anyway why wouldn't they return if they left because they didn't want to be in the war then brining the war to them made that point moot did it not? Lets be honest here R&R messed up, and yeah the circumstances make that understandable, but rather than admit you didn't double check before attacking you try to force statements of nuetrality? Like I said I'm more than a bit disappointed with R&R to be honest.

 
Didn't I admit we didn't double check? Well let me oblige. We did not double check. Reason for not double checking: The only people that know the truth are hooligans government and the nations we declared on. We had no reason to trust any answer given by any of those people simply because they would deny even if we were right. So we made a decision and i would make the same one again. People may not like the decision made but I have seen nothing to show that it was the wrong decision. If anything them running back to hooligans after they got attacked as well as several messages with some of the nations we targeted have strengthened my believe that our assumption was correct and thus we made the right move.

People disappointed about us? So be it, I suspect most of those people are on the other side of the war, not a lot of friends over there anyway. And even if more people are disappointed, we're not in this war to please other people or to score brownie points with anyone on either side. A lot of people think they can avoid both war and the econ damage PM brings. I think the point that they are assuming wrong has been made.
 

ShamWOW -- as stated, I acknowledge your suspicion, understand your reasons for attacking and both appreciate and recognize the message sent by the fact that I was not attacked.  Still, I think it was a pre-emptive attack.  The members all left Hooligans before you were at war with them.  Had it been after -- yup, fair target.  But thy were at peace with you both before and after they came to my AA -- I have the same rules as most other alliances: don't join with an active war.
 
No act of war was committed on R&R from anyone on the SRA AA -- we were all in war mode, no war improvements, no war preps.  You attacked us on the assumption that we would eventually attack you, with no attempt at diplomacy that I am aware of.  That is the very definition of a pre-empt.  Even if all your suspicions were 100% accurate.  This is probably more of a semantics argument than anything else -- I think we both agree on what happened, just not what to call it.

Just a point of clarification: I gave examples of why members may leave an alliance that didn't involve desertion, but I noted that I would not comment on the actual reasons because it would not be appropriate to do so.

One correction, the majority of the jumpers actually had war improvements and/or DefCon to 1.

I agree there are many reasons to leave an alliance, yet all but one jumped back to hooligans after they got hit. There is no added benefit for them to be in hooligans instead of SRA (on the contrary i think our war with hooligans will take longer than the one with SRA) So the only believable explanation is that they where avoiding the war. Which gives 2 options:

1. I'm right and they just wanted to avoid pm yet not fight (actually 1 nation has admitted himself that he only jumped to SRA because he was unable to go back into PM before hooligans declared war).
2. They don't want to fight this war, we had no desire to fight the last 2 wars either wars we lost against coalitions that those same hooligan nations were a part of, yet no one gave us the choice. They had their chances to give a beating, now its their turn to take one.

Either way, I'm not gonna feel sad for them.

[angryraccoon]

Wow .. bad move by R&R..    I would have expected better.  Its not like the nations would not have been covered if they had actually joined the war rather then join a alliance that was not involved.  For shame.

[Azreal]

People disappointed about us? So be it, I suspect most of those people are on the other side of the war, not a lot of friends over there anyway. And even if more people are disappointed, we're not in this war to please other people or to score brownie points with anyone on either side. A lot of people think they can avoid both war and the econ damage PM brings. I think the point that they are assuming wrong has been made.
 One correction, the majority of the jumpers actually had war improvements and/or DefCon to 1

Bolder part makes me a bit sad :(

[ShamWOW]

Seems as though he did, because whatever Ego said made absolutely no sense.

Of course ot makes no sense if you are completely ignorant of the situation. Wanting a group of ex-hooligans who were either kicked out or willfully left or are just AA jumping to sign something saying they won't enter the war or aid our enemies makes quite a bit of sense to any rational thinking person. If DH/NG would have just stayed on there AA like everyone then this kind of situation would never arise.

[Garion]

R&R: better commies than the official CN commies. And we have Finnish Commie. Best of luck, your announcements are always entertaining.

[Finnish Commie]

Happy winter war war.

[Cataduanes]

R&R: better commies than the official CN commies. 

 

Care to elaborate? 

[Taget]

May Ukko throw thunder from the skies and smite the enemies of SRA.

[Garion]

Care to elaborate? 

 

It seems we're the Stalinist aggressors this time, so I guessed I should official announce that we picked up the baton from The International.

[hobbies0310]

4)      The Screaming Red Asses do not consider this war a front of the Equilibrium War, nor themselves a part of the “Competence Coalition”. Whatever the cause of the current world war, that cause is not ours.

 

Awesome, so we can keep attacking you after the rest of them surrender?

I get where you're coming from, but the posturing is silly given the context.

What are you saying? Your terrible alliance CoJ isn't at war with them.

Edited March 2, 2013 by hobbies0310

[Schattenmann]

What are you saying? Your terrible alliance CoJ isn't at war with them.

 

Perhaps you're familiar with the use of the plural pronoun we in reference to coalitions.  Perhaps your native language is pygmy.

[Rebel Virginia]

4)      The Screaming Red Asses do not consider this war a front of the Equilibrium War, nor themselves a part of the “Competence Coalition”. Whatever the cause of the current world war, that cause is not ours.

 

Awesome, so we can keep attacking you after the rest of them surrender?

I get where you're coming from, but the posturing is silly given the context.

So, SRA gets attacked for no reason other than RnR incompetence and they attempt to explain they have no wish to involve themselves in this war, and here you are making cutesy threats about keeping them in a permanent state of war. Whatever happened to your trademark moralism, eh, Schattypoo?

[Schattenmann]

So, SRA gets attacked for no reason other than RnR incompetence and they attempt to explain they have no wish to involve themselves in this war, and here you are making cutesy threats about keeping them in a permanent state of war. Whatever happened to your trademark moralism, eh, Schattypoo?

 

My dear RV, you've know me long enough to know that moralist has always been a label applied to me, not claimed by me.

Moralist is a diminutive insult whipped up by the Continuum and adopted by their heirs.  Moralism is not a philosophy practiced by any alliance. 

 

I am a Justitian, which philosophy OsRavan says will destroy the world.  I agree.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Schattenmann