Quick Note from MK

[WorldConqueror]

It is a global war and an attack on one is an attack on all,

Except it's not. Unless for example IRON is at war with NG. So, door 1 or 2 my friend?

[Commander shepard]

Except it's not. Unless for example IRON is at war with NG. So, door 1 or 2 my friend?

 "this is most true on the front EvU decided to enter on."

 

I never said it factual and I never implied it, I said it was most true on the front EvU decided to enter meaning that it is not fully true.

Obviously it is less true on the other front.

 

It has exceptions, EvU is not an exception.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Commander shepard

[WorldConqueror]

 "this is most true on the front EvU decided to enter on."
 
I never said it factual and I never implied it, I said it was most true on the front EvU decided to enter meaning that it is not fully true.
Obviously it is less true on the other front.
 
It has exceptions, EvU is not an exception.

Fair enough. But if it switches between true and untrue as a matter of convenience for you guys, how are we to know when and where you are choosing to actually apply that doctrine? It seems a bit ridiculous to have to go and ask your respective gov's exactly who their 'attack on one is an attack on all' doctrine actually applies to. And in that vein, you can't blame EvU for assuming he was a rogue when you apply your own doctrine so inconsistently.

[Lurunin]

I hear a lot of sheep bellowing in this thread against the very glorious Kingdom of Fungus. Just proves the point that they are all sheep.

"If someone performs an act that the entire world disapproves of, then obviously the rest of the world are just doing it because they are told to"

[Azreal]

 "this is most true on the front EvU decided to enter on."

 

I never said it factual and I never implied it, I said it was most true on the front EvU decided to enter meaning that it is not fully true.

Obviously it is less true on the other front.

 

It has exceptions, EvU is not an exception.

 

You used the word true? That implies and pretty much states that it is fact, there is no grey area here. Either an attack on one is an attack on all or it is not. Obviously this has never really been the case and it was more a vain attempt to excuse wanton bandwaggoning and an attempt to force early surrenders. Unfortunatly it didn't quite work out that way so you do some random hand waving and bassicly say "an attack on some, is an attack on some others, but only when its not inconveniant"

[Commander shepard]

Fair enough. But if it switches between true and untrue as a matter of convenience for you guys, how are we to know when and where you are choosing to actually apply that doctrine? It seems a bit ridiculous to have to go and ask your respective gov's exactly who their 'attack on one is an attack on all' doctrine actually applies to. And in that vein, you can't blame EvU for assuming he was a rogue when you apply your own doctrine so inconsistently.

 

It is pretty clear cut, GATO is free game for the front fighting CnG.

Why EvU would think they are not free game given they're a protectorate of GATO is confusing.

 

"An attack on one is an attack on all" doesn't apply when it is your treaty partner.

It was also meant to respect the wishes of your treaty partner( though a certain "competence" alliance abused this).

[Azreal]

It is pretty clear cut, GATO is free game for the front fighting CnG.

Why EvU would think they are not free game given they're a protectorate of GATO is confusing.

 

"An attack on one is an attack on all" doesn't apply when it is your treaty partner.

It was also meant to respect the wishes of your treaty partner( though a certain "competence" alliance abused this).

 

So really why call it "An attack on one is an attack on all" when it clearly isn't? I mean really it was ridiculous at the start out but as you continue to drag it out as an argument as to why your coalition gets to disregard years of CN precedent in warfare but don't actually apply it fully it just makes you look even more ridiculous.

[Ardus]

A sanction war against MK alone would wholly benefit MK; their activity would be decisive in comparison to the vast hordes aligned against them. A sanction war in retaliation against the entirety of Competence for the acts of MK against HoT and Mogar would only sour relations between potentially non-hostile components of each coalition. If eQuilibrium chooses to retaliate with sanctions regularly, it would only be the latest in a long line of extraordinarily stupid decisions. I therefore encourage you to do so.

[WorldConqueror]

It is pretty clear cut, GATO is free game for the front fighting CnG.
Why EvU would think they are not free game given they're a protectorate of GATO is confusing.
 
"An attack on one is an attack on all" doesn't apply when it is your treaty partner.
It was also meant to respect the wishes of your treaty partner( though a certain "competence" alliance abused this).

Yeah Azreal has it right, it just becomes more of a running joke the more you lot try to justify it. And while TBF I haven't watched how all the seperate fronts have developed this war, traditionally protectorates weren't hit alongside their protectors as a matter of course, they were only hit should they chose to explicitly enter on their protectors behalf. But w/e.

Yeah funny that, it's almost like you should have considered that logical conclusion of your little 'attack on all' ploy. As for that last part I don't know what you're referring to.

[Mayzie]

Yeah Azreal has it right, it just becomes more of a running joke the more you lot try to justify it. And while TBF I haven't watched how all the seperate fronts have developed this war, traditionally protectorates weren't hit alongside their protectors as a matter of course, they were only hit should they chose to explicitly enter on their protectors behalf. But w/e.

 

 

They declared on R&R.

[Azreal]

Yeah Azreal has it right, it just becomes more of a running joke the more you lot try to justify it. And while TBF I haven't watched how all the seperate fronts have developed this war, traditionally protectorates weren't hit alongside their protectors as a matter of course, they were only hit should they chose to explicitly enter on their protectors behalf. But w/e.

Yeah funny that, it's almost like you should have considered that logical conclusion of your little 'attack on all' ploy. As for that last part I don't know what you're referring to.

 

I might hazard a guess that its about NG who actually followed their treaties and came to the defence of their allies that where actually attacked in this war, rather than follow the "attack on all" thingy if its not that I have no idea what he is talking about, but I'm sure it will be well thought out and factual.

[WorldConqueror]

They declared on R&R.

 
Oh right, the way he said it I thought they got hit simply for being a GATO protectorate.
 

I might hazard a guess that its about NG who actually followed their treaties and came to the defence of their allies that where actually attacked in this war, rather than follow the "attack on all" thingy if its not that I have no idea what he is talking about, but I'm sure it will be well thought out and factual.

Ah yeah, you might be right there.

[Do Not Fear Jazz]

Methrage quit trying to be important or act like you had anything to do with anything, thanks~

[Diogenes]

What a laugh riot!  "Outside" sure.  "Observer" not hardly.  I know that the last time you visited the OWF OG was part of The Continuum and Senators sanctioned "rogues" with impunity, but--for the most part--we put that behind us. 

You "all that follows" line implies a conspiracy; however, I have posted my exact sanction request in this thread, it was not a complicated scheme between me and HoT (in fact he was entirely unaware), it was a simple matter of applying EU/MK's logic to MK in order to give MK a wake-up call.  "Gone awry?"  The sanction is lifted, MK has acknowledged their mistake (and I appreciate that) and it will not happen again.  Tada!

 

Here, I'll show you "thuggish buffoonery":

 

I'm glad to note that your inflated sense of self is at least partially missing from this contribution to the discussion. If indeed you were aiming to give us a "wake-up call," this was a very poor way to do it, and if certain voices within MK had been heeded, it could immediately have resulted in a full-fledged sanction war. Indeed, I think that you earnestly were hoping for us to initiate a full-fledged sanction war without any kind of public address, allowing you to swoop in heroically and belittle us. Although I have nothing concrete to support it, I think this announcement was something you hadn't fully prepared for, and that at present you are running about trying to save face. 

 

On a somewhat related note, Penlugue "Bob" Solaris and the Dark Templar are members of your coalition.

[ChairmanHal]

A sanction war against MK alone would wholly benefit MK; their activity would be decisive in comparison to the vast hordes aligned against them. A sanction war in retaliation against the entirety of Competence for the acts of MK against HoT and Mogar would only sour relations between potentially non-hostile components of each coalition. If eQuilibrium chooses to retaliate with sanctions regularly, it would only be the latest in a long line of extraordinarily stupid decisions. I therefore encourage you to do so.

 

When you drink the TOP Kool-aid, you just grab the pitcher and chug, don't you?   <_<

 

FYI: MK has stated it wants NO part in a sanction war because it knows while it might benefit your side of the war on a few colors, it would be devastating to them on others and would be of no benefit to them.  But if you want to continue to insist you can win a thermonuclear war Mr. Strangelove, please keep talking.

Edited March 8, 2013 by ChairmanHal

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

It is a global war and an attack on one is an attack on all, this is most true on the front EvU decided to enter on.

When EvU entered they declared war on all of the alliances that signed that DOW, all those nations in those alliances have the right to declare war on EvU.

 

EvU wanting to sanction this nation was either due them being malicious or ignorant of what is going on.

Honestly, you're quickly moving up the shit posting ladder. You're not HoT or Mogar yet but you're definitely aiming for the stars. You'd do your alliance an immense service by not posting.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[SoADarthCyfe6]

lets all just post because we agree with something and not add anything of our own, surely this isnt against forum rules or anything.

I was merely agreeing and throwing in my support for EEJack's beautifully, descriptive and accurate post, was all. Think of it as a jester of moral support for all of the negative things that happen on the OWF. Sometimes a change in pace is necessary.
 

I find it pretty easy.
This war is a war of attacking everyone and anyone.
DH alliance hops all over the place, that is really the most rogue thing, they use this method to attack alliances they should not be warring with.
However most of everyone is attacking everyone everywhere.
 
You attack Superfriends? Sorry pal but you gotta fight the whole coalition because an attack on one is an attack on all.
The senator that sanctioned him is malicious at best or incompetent at worse, given how the senator was also rouging until he moved back to the MK AA the other day.
Rogue behavior? Probably not MK is full dastardly people and this war is showing it.
EEjack is uninformed of this war and such is stuck in the past when there was more decency.

I sincerely hope you become IRON's Secretary of State one day. The very thought of it would be... rather captivating, to say the least. Edited March 8, 2013 by SoADarthCyfe6

[tamerlane]

From hereon out, I will only accept IRON policy as dictated by Commander Shepard.

Edited March 8, 2013 by tamerlane

[Prodigal Moon]

 Although I have nothing concrete to support it, I think this announcement was something you hadn't fully prepared for, and that at present you are running about trying to save face. 

You have Schatt posting a wall of text in response to the announcement within 13 minutes, at 2:20 in the morning. I'd say you have some concrete evidence that he was well prepared for this.

 

 

And I love everyone being intentionally dumb about the attack on one = attack on all thing. As if you've never seen an MDP that says the exact same thing but isn't invoked when it would mean declaring war on another MDP partner. It's a policy statement, a principle - not an assertion of literal fact - and it's applied within a context of common sense.

[WorldConqueror]

And I love everyone being intentionally dumb about the attack on one = attack on all thing. As if you've never seen an MDP that says the exact same thing but isn't invoked when it would mean declaring war on another MDP partner. It's a policy statement, a principle - not an assertion of literal fact - and it's applied within a context of common sense.

And I've long maintained that the 'attack on one party is considered an attack on both' line is ridiculous wording of what is a simple concept. Anyway, the IRON-NG situation was used as an extreme example to demonstrate the flaws in the policy that you guys still choose to doggedly defend. The more practical problems arise when you try to use the 'attack on all' policy as a catch-all defense, like in this sanction situation.

[Commander shepard]

Honestly, you're quickly moving up the shit posting ladder. You're not HoT or Mogar yet but you're definitely aiming for the stars. You'd do your alliance an immense service by not posting.

The DH shit post ladder is for anyone that uses numbers or generally analyses a situation accurately.

It is rather cute that you use such childish words when you have no valid argument or comments to disagree with the situation.

But you think you're winning, it is best we take your words with a grain of salt.

 

From hereon out, I will only accept IRON policy as dictated by Commander Shepard.

 

I'm not using any policy so it would be rather idiotic for you to take my thoughts of the situation as a policy or even connect it to a policy.

 

However it is what happened during this war, it is sorta weird of you to take what happened during this war as a policy.

I'm pretty sure a depiction of events is not a policy, so why you even connect it to a policy is beyond intelligent thought.

Unless I inspire you but I never made any policies in my life, should I start now just for you?

 

 

Secretary of State

 

 

Secretary of state you say? I'd prefer if you offered me the job.

It seems alliance hopping is a touchy subject, apologies for being against you leaving your alliance.

 

 

I might hazard a guess that its about NG who actually followed their treaties and came to the defence of their allies that where actually attacked in this war, rather than follow the "attack on all" thingy if its not that I have no idea what he is talking about, but I'm sure it will be well thought out and factual.

No it is about MK who had 20 of their current top 40 leave their AA to get up to mischief.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Commander shepard

[Diogenes]

You have Schatt posting a wall of text in response to the announcement within 13 minutes, at 2:20 in the morning. I'd say you have some concrete evidence that he was well prepared for this.

 

Oh, he certainly had his fingers in the pie, and I don't doubt that he fully intended to address our handling of the situation. His wall of text is a clear indication of this. However, nowhere in that wall of text did he mention -- or even acknowledge -- that we apologized and admitted wrongdoing for the sanctioning of HoT, or that we instituted counter-sanctions against GOD. His reply was instead focused almost entirely on us officially declaring war on the Cult of Justitia, despite us technically doing so (at least according to your coalition's policy of "an attack on one is an attack on all") whenever we declared war on Equilibrium alliances. It's also worth noting that his "reply" could easily have functioned as an announcement in and of itself -- which I suspect was a contingency in the event that we didn't make any sort of public announcement. I maintain that Schatt did not anticipate this particular response, in short. His aim was not to garner an apology for HoT, but to smear us, and he unequivocally failed at that. 

Edited March 8, 2013 by Diogenes

[Prodigal Moon]

And I've long maintained that the 'attack on one party is considered an attack on both' line is ridiculous wording of what is a simple concept. Anyway, the IRON-NG situation was used as an extreme example to demonstrate the flaws in the policy that you guys still choose to doggedly defend. The more practical problems arise when you try to use the 'attack on all' policy as a catch-all defense, like in this sanction situation.

I'm with you that it could be more precisely worded in both contexts. But I've yet to hear any real arguments against the policy concept itself, which, as you said, is simple. The coalition is a common defensive front, which will respond to attacks on its members with resources from anyone within the coalition. In practice, people are respecting their individual MDP's and not committing resources directly against individual allies.

[Prodigal Moon]

Oh, he certainly had his fingers in the pie, and I don't doubt that he fully intended to address our handling of the situation. His wall of text is a clear indication of this. However, nowhere in that wall of text did he mention -- or even acknowledge -- that we apologized and admitted wrongdoing for the sanctioning of HoT, or that we instituted counter-sanctions against GOD. His reply was instead focused almost entirely on us officially declaring war on the Cult of Justitia, despite us technically doing so (at least according to your coalition's policy of "an attack on one is an attack on all") whenever we declared war on Equilibrium alliances. It's also worth noting that his "reply" could easily have functioned as an announcement in and of itself -- which I suspect was a contingency in the event that we didn't make any sort of public announcement. I maintain that Schatt did not anticipate this particular response, in short. His aim was not to garner an apology for HoT, but to smear us, and he unequivocally failed at that. 

I get the sense that you think the apology was some kind of game-changer. I'd let the comments in this thread serve as an indicator of how much meaning anyone on the EQ side of things is attaching to it, except perhaps as a reminder that the pride goeth before the fall.

[AntyCrist]

 

The doctrine in question is worded thus: "Any counter attacks as a result of this action will be viewed as an attack upon all." [snapback]3078819[/snapback]

What is its effect?  To prevent treaty-based barriers to allocating resources where they are needed within the coalition; for example, using 2 or 3 top tier nations from Bobo Alliance to cover slots on Umbrella even though none of Bobo Alliance's allies chain to Umbrella.

Does this explicitly preclude Bobo Alliance from posting a DoW?  No.  It simply makes that DoW unnecessary.  Why?  Because you all know what is happening based on the policy, and we all know what is happening based on the policy. 

So, if Bobo Alliance does indeed post a DoW once it covers a few slots, is BA or Equilibrium being inconsistent?  No.  The DoWs you have seen are courtesies given due to your extreme reaction to our use of your tactics; these courtesies do not negate or contradict the doctrine, though you are correct in that they are "redundant."

 

 

GOD/CoJ did not initiate this string of events.  MK/EU/GATO initiated it when they recklessly sanctioned HoT55.

 

 

The doctrine in question is worded thus: "Any counter attacks as a result of this action will be viewed as an attack upon all." [snapback]3078819[/snapback]

What is its effect?  To prevent treaty-based barriers to allocating resources where they are needed within the coalition; for example, using 2 or 3 top tier nations from Bobo Alliance to cover slots on Umbrella even though none of Bobo Alliance's allies chain to Umbrella.

Does this explicitly preclude Bobo Alliance from posting a DoW?  No.  It simply makes that DoW unnecessary.  Why?  Because you all know what is happening based on the policy, and we all know what is happening based on the policy. 

So, if Bobo Alliance does indeed post a DoW once it covers a few slots, is BA or Equilibrium being inconsistent?  No.  The DoWs you have seen are courtesies given due to your extreme reaction to our use of your tactics; these courtesies do not negate or contradict the doctrine, though you are correct in that they are "redundant."

And Umbrella wold be fully justified in "recognizing an existing sate of war" (as MK did earlier with i forget).