Quick Note from MK

[wickedj]

So, in summary:

[Ardus]

It's all about the long game isn't it? You of all people know that, are you surprised I'm thinking about this war in those terms?

 

no its about weapons of war and how your coalition has double standards about them.

You cannot claim to be a simple player of the great game and forgive the tortfeasor only to then seize faux-outrage and condemn his friends for his own act.  Further, no, I am not surprised that you are doing a poor job of asserting moral outrage.

[WorldConqueror]

no its about weapons of war and how your coalition has double standards about them.

So sanctions are a weapon of war now? Interesting admission. Anyway, it seems your coalition has double standards about them too. You'll always find differences when you spread your net so broadly.

[Mogar]

You cannot claim to be a simple player of the great game and forgive the tortfeasor only to then seize faux-outrage and condemn his friends for his own act.  Further, no, I am not surprised that you are doing a poor job of asserting moral outrage.

You've yet to give an explanation on how sanctioning a member of RIA that RIA government explicitly stated on these forums was somehow justified(yeah you apologized but lets not pretend you meant it, or else you'd have done something more than a post on these forums), and yet when big z sanctions your sides "rogues" it's somehow a crime, I personally hope we start sanctioning every single person currently at war not on their true AA.

 

 

So sanctions are a weapon of war now? Interesting admission. Anyway, it seems your coalition has double standards about them too. You'll always find differences when you spread your net so broadly.

Up until this war I had never seen anyone be sanctioned for ghosting, nor for "roguery" when on an AA that publicly acknowledges them as a member.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Mogar

[HeroofTime55]

The OP says there were no attempts to contact MK from RIA or GOD, therefore it was safe to assume that he was indeed a rogue because they had not been told otherwise. The apology came after it was communicated to MK (by use of sanctions) that HoT was not a rogue, is it not logical for an apology to come after it is apparent someone has been wronged?

 

 

There was a public thread made as soon as I noted the incident, in which RIA made a public statement that I was still a member (duh) and, most notably, which many MK gov including oyababy came to mock the fact that I was sanctioned.

The public record speaks for itself, your lies are quite hollow.

 

You're missing the point. If they wanted to start a sanction war with GOD or RIA they would have sanctioned an obvious member of GOD or RIA (like one wearing the actual AA). Stop with the melodrama about ~horrible precedents~ it was a misplaced sanction not genocide.

 

Like this nation perhaps?

[Ardus]

You've yet to give an explanation on how sanctioning a member of RIA that RIA government explicitly stated on these forums was somehow justified(yeah you apologized but lets not pretend you meant it, or else you'd have done something more than a post on these forums), and yet when big z sanctions your sides "rogues" it's somehow a crime, I personally hope we start sanctioning every single person currently at war not on their true AA.

I am not a member of MK, nor did I have any role in the authorization of the sanction, nor did I have any role in this apology.  Frankly I find this entire debate to be mind numbing and beneath me.  I merely appeared to prod here and there.  I have succeeded.

 

The Peace Mode Champion[sup]TM[/sup] is ever victorious!

[WorldConqueror]

Up until this war I had never seen anyone be sanctioned for ghosting, nor for "roguery" when on an AA that publicly acknowledges them as a member.

 Ok, and what does that have to do with what I said?
 

There was a public thread made as soon as I noted the incident, in which RIA made a public statement that I was still a member (duh) and, most notably, which many MK gov including oyababy came to mock the fact that I was sanctioned.

Oyababy isn't gov, sorry buddy!

[Master Holton]

You cannot claim to be a simple player of the great game and forgive the tortfeasor only to then seize faux-outrage and condemn his friends for his own act.  Further, no, I am not surprised that you are doing a poor job of asserting moral outrage.

 

This is gold. Seriously 1400 dongs per ounce GOLD.

[Ardus]

This is gold. Seriously 1400 dongs per ounce GOLD.

I am here to quash all the rumors and set facts to the record.

 

I do indeed shit gold.

[Mogar]

 Ok, and what does that have to do with what I said?
 Oyababy isn't gov, sorry buddy!

if you are using sanctions against your enemies while at war with them, that makes it being used as a weapon, unless you consider bullets to just be ensuring those on the opposite side of the battlefield have enough lead in their diet.

 

o ya baby is your senator and at the very least someone your government trusts to act out their will.

[Ogaden]

Ardus apparently you left and took MK's brain with you

[WorldConqueror]

if you are using sanctions against your enemies while at war with them, that makes it being used as a weapon, unless you consider bullets to just be ensuring those on the opposite side of the battlefield have enough lead in their diet.
 
o ya baby is your senator and at the very least someone your government trusts to act out their will.

'Weapon of war' implies something that can and should be used in warfare. Perhaps you should be more careful with your labels in future.

Yes, senator. Not gov member. I'm sure you can manage to understand the distinction.

[HeroofTime55]

Again, why would they apologise for sanctioning HoT if it was not made obvious to them that he was actually a member of an alliance by officials from the alliance in question? This could have been all settled behind closed doors if that happened, neither alliance attempted to resolve this amicably because it's in neither of their interests to do so.

 

It's clearly RIA's fault that you decided to shoot first and ask questions later.

 

My advice to MK to avoid future confusion is to, oh I don't know, check the alliance affiliation of a nation to figure out which alliance they are affiliated with.

 

Then again, given your tactics, i'm not entirely surprised your coalition doesn't understand how the AA field works.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

So your guys off AA are cowards?

 

 

Took the words out of my mouth.  I've already fought one TOP government member who has been hopping AAs regularly.  But, I'm sure they'll have some explanation of why it's ok for them to do it.

 

 

As others have stated, TOP has been participating in this very act mate. Unless Genland is no longer part of TOP and would not be allowed back into TOP after the war (that usually happens to nations who leave an alliance in the midst of a war). Considering I doubt that will happen, you stating this is rather amusing considering what TOP itself is doing.

No.

 

What I wrote isn't that being off your AA is an act of cowardice. You might want to go back and read again. What I wrote is this:

1)If you declare a war while being off your regular AA but your government insists you are still a full member, then they should either acknowledge the alliance they are at war with (so, if I leave my AA to attack a member of, say, TTK, I'm saying TOP should acknowledge its state of war with TTK) OR they should label me as rogue.

 

What I then said is that this new double standard where an alliance doesn't recognize (or announce) its wars is one that reeks of cowardice. People using fake AAs, in themselves, aren't cowards. It's a valid war tactic to escape staggers, one that has proven to be effective to some extent. The cowardice is at the government level for not assuming wars, not at the individual level for declaring them. Notice the difference?

 

The difference is that, for example, MK recognizes itself at war with GLoF. I have no problem if they (MK) send members to the "lol.AA" and "dbdc" and "allarchon" AAs and DoW on GLoF: MK recognize them as full members AND recognize war with GLoF. What I have a problem with is HoT DoW'ing on EvU from his AA, his AA insisting he's still a member but acting like that war never happened and they're not at war with EvU. 

 

Now, Doch pointed out a good example. We indeed have a member of TOP who did that very thing by attacking a member of IRON. I wish that he didn't do it and now I wish that we would assume that war but I'm afraid I am not a member of TOP's executive government.

 

I'm against it for the bad precedent it sets. I'm against it because it will definitely be abused in the future. I'm against it because it was a good tradition to have alliances acknowledge and declare their wars publicly.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[trimm]

You know as well as anyone else that has ever dealt with TOP that our members are free to express their opinions even if it isn't the official position of TOP. Now if we supported the use of sanctions as a legitimate tactic wouldn't you think that we would have, you know, sanctioned some of the people we are fighting?I know, it must be hard to be declaring 90% of the wars, constantly keeping us in anarchy and still not being able to win despite being on the bigger side.

Given what went on about sanctioning Vlad, I find this post to be the most hysterical thing ever.

[Mogar]

'Weapon of war' implies something that can and should be used in warfare. Perhaps you should be more careful with your labels in future.

Yes, senator. Not gov member. I'm sure you can manage to understand the distinction.

they can and are being used as a weapon as war and have been in the past, the majority of the time receiving quite a bit of negative backclash due to it, simply because I believe sanctions should only be used in the cases of explicit nuclear rogues, doesn't mean I can expect you to hold the sanctity of trades and sanctions to the same standard.

 

He posted after Ogaden posted acknowledging he was a member, and should have removed the sanction because of that.

[Gingervites]

Trixie shows up and you rebuff her.  Truly you have learned nothing about friendship.

If Trixie showed up to HoT's door it wouldn't be for friendship, she is a mean pony.

[HeroofTime55]

The difference is that, for example, MK recognizes itself at war with GLoF. I have no problem if they (MK) send members to the "lol.AA" and "dbdc" and "allarchon" AAs and DoW on GLoF: MK recognize them as full members AND recognize war with GLoF. What I have a problem with is HoT DoW'ing on EvU from his AA, his AA insisting he's still a member but acting like that war never happened and they're not at war with EvU.

 
RIA has not insisted that we are not at war with EvU.  They stated the exact opposite, that we have been at war from the moment they declared on our MADP partner.  Which shouldn't even have to be stated but you guys are so thick and literally make shit up as you go.
 
Unless your insinuation is that RIA doesn't get to decide who is and is not a member of RIA.

[Schattenmann]

Your reply to me is the typical one I get when I don't respond to a persons liking or in a way that they disapprove of.   

My reply is the typical one you will get when you call someone an idiot.

 

Sanctioning has never been an acceptable form of warfare and you know it.

You're correct, which is why Equilibrium was dismayed when ~Competence~ started sanctioning combatants. 

 

 

I expected better of you. At the very least you could have attempted to talk to MK leadership to find out what was going on. But you didn't do that.

I do not owe MK anything, much less diplomacy in the middle of a war.  But I can understand why you would think so.

 

 

You went to the alliance that perhaps hates MK the most and got them to go along with your foolish little plan.

I went to the Maroon, Red, Yellow, Blue, White, Orange, Pink, Black, Green, Purple, and Aqua Senators, just as I always do in the case of rogues.  But I wouldn't expect you to understand that MK doesn't get along with GOD because MK has been screwing with SF for 2 years.

 

 

MK issued an apology to HoT. Was it late yes? Was it probably forced by the sanctioning of MK nations? Possibly. But that is not something I have information on.

Then for your information (not that you are open to information) the MK went running to NPO to broker talks (just like old times, we love it), which talks CoJ was willing to oblige to bring this situation to an end.  Or do you think I did this thoughtlessly?

No, if it were up to you MK would still be sanctioning nations for giggles with your tacit approval.

 

 

I hope I never see the day where sanctioning becomes an acceptable tactic to use against an opponent in this world.

Dear Archon,

I hope I never see the day where sanctioning becomes an acceptable tactic to use.  But when it does, I will be completely silent on the issue as long as it is MK: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/115591-rogue-senators-and-the-sanction-war

 

Hugs and kisses,

AirMe

 

 

But it was allowed to be removed and he was not re-sanctioned.

Oh thankee massa MK fo' lettin' us po' little people remove them sankshuns.

 

 

So let me reiterate: I think you are an idiot for the course of action that you took. I would still think you are an idiot for this course of action even if you did so against one of my enemies.

I'm sure you think I'm an idiot for doing the exact same thing your allies did.

 

Your ally began this sanction war, your allies mock our objections to it, your allies redefined "rogue" to suit them, your allies sanctioned without first speaking to anyone, your allies, your allies, your allies.

But I'm the idiot. 

 

You're a fool, AirMe, a piteous fool whose redeeming traits are muted by his blind loyalty.  You are a witless toadie.  You are the worst kind of partisan: An oblivious one.  Your silence is MK's currency.  We stand where you shrug, and we have stopped what you dared not even speak up about.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Schattenmann

[King Louis the II]

 
They may have "apologized," but let's not forget, this open apology is only after sanctions were put on MK.  They intertwined an apology with also trying to make GOD look bad for doing a similar act.  Had they came out and openly apologized for their "mistake" when it happened, or without using it to help throw mud at another alliance, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt, but that didn't happen.  Only reason they're doing so is to make them look like they're the ones in the right, instead of being the bad guys

Quote for truth.


Use sanctions as a weapon of war, change alliance names to avoid staggering.... Classic.

[HeroofTime55]

There is no mistaking that sanctioning HoT was a screw-up on our end of things. Broadly, we do not like HoT or his alliance, but he should not have been sanctioned and that is something we will readily admit. Regardless of the opinions of the individual members of our coalition, the Mushroom Kingdom does not support the use of sanctions as a tool of war.

Our issue with GOD is linked directly to this fact; our sanctioning of HoT was, while wrong, an accident resulting of miscommunication. Conversely, GOD's sanctions placed against our nations were calculated and purposeful -- made purely to spite us. We do not desire a sanction war, but we will retaliate to attacks on our alliance and its members.

 

You did not and do not "readily" admit to the error.  First you openly mock the incident, and then, once it becomes apparent it's going to wind up causing you damage, you begrudgingly admit to it, all the while spinning and backpedaling so hard that it defies comprehension.

 

There was no "miscommunication," there was zero communication whatsoever.  The event was certainly not an "accident."  You don't know what the word "accident" means if you think that this was at all an accident.  Sure, the consequences you now reap were unintended, but that is because you can't see more than half a second into the future of your actions.

[AirMe]

Have NPO represent you at the sanction negotiations; maybe it'll turn out better.

 

It would turn out better. Because NPO isn't full of idiots.

[Instr]

MK's big crime, all considered, is that it refuses to roll up and get crushed. I'm sure everyone on all sides of the aisle will agree with me here.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Instr

[Indian Bob]

No.

 

What I wrote isn't that being off your AA is an act of cowardice. You might want to go back and read again. What I wrote is this:

1)If you declare a war while being off your regular AA but your government insists you are still a full member, then they should either acknowledge the alliance they are at war with (so, if I leave my AA to attack a member of, say, TTK, I'm saying TOP should acknowledge its state of war with TTK) OR they should label me as rogue.

 

What I then said is that this new double standard where an alliance doesn't recognize (or announce) its wars is one that reeks of cowardice. People using fake AAs, in themselves, aren't cowards. It's a valid war tactic to escape staggers, one that has proven to be effective to some extent. The cowardice is at the government level for not assuming wars, not at the individual level for declaring them. Notice the difference?

 

The difference is that, for example, MK recognizes itself at war with GLoF. I have no problem if they (MK) send members to the "lol.AA" and "dbdc" and "allarchon" AAs and DoW on GLoF: MK recognize them as full members AND recognize war with GLoF. What I have a problem with is HoT DoW'ing on EvU from his AA, his AA insisting he's still a member but acting like that war never happened and they're not at war with EvU. 

 

Now, Doch pointed out a good example. We indeed have a member of TOP who did that very thing by attacking a member of IRON. I wish that he didn't do it and now I wish that we would assume that war but I'm afraid I am not a member of TOP's executive government.

 

I'm against it for the bad precedent it sets. I'm against it because it will definitely be abused in the future. I'm against it because it was a good tradition to have alliances acknowledge and declare their wars publicly.

 

I definitely got a different meaning from your use of the word assume in your first post.  Thanks for the clarification. 

 

As for what you're complaining against, hoping AA's to try and avoid taking responsibility for an alliance war, it appears that your side of the fence are the one's doing it, if not exclusively, at least in the vast majority of the cases.  

[TIEIXIAIS]

Hasn't MK rouged every alliance "competance" is at war with?