Goldie Posted September 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 I don't know why people are speculating about us up and hitting people, this is merely a statement that says yes, we still protect GOP, and that protection means that we have the right to defend them should they come under attack as a result of getting themselves involved with MQ. Their war with MQ isn't our war, but it is something we believe they have a right to do. This thread hasn't changed anything, but we appreciate all of the support we have received from all corners of the globe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 No surprise here. Respectable move VE as always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCRABT Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 (edited) Yeah man, GOP was sure endangered! GOP is a neutral alliance. MQ and LPH arbitrarily attacked a neutral alliance because they are neutral. GOP thinks that arbitrary attacks on neutral alliances may be a threat to them because they are a neutral alliance. GOP moves to neutralise MQ. VE says hands off GOP because they aren't neutral but do like neutralising folks for their friends. Everything seems perfectly legit to me, so stop whining your spoiling the glory of MQ's martyrdom. Edited September 23, 2013 by MCRABT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Vicarious Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 (edited) There is literally nothing correct about that statement. MQ is quite clearly a real, if not formal alliance, and they don't have to have official ties to justify action. GOP declared an offensive war and that doesn't exempt them from the rules of war just because you say MQ isn't real. You can justify it however you want but you're setting yourself for a fall you don't deserve. You seem incredibly upset about GOP choosing to hit MQ instead of DBDC and then their very shrewd choice to have VE back them up if you hit them from your DBDC AA. Doomhouse in general and MK and Umb in particular bent and twisted the norms of CN. Are you really bitching and moaning about another alliance making intelligent moves that allow them their best shot at achieving their goals? When you have to try to e-lawyer another alliance's treaties and charter, you've already lost. Edited September 23, 2013 by Mr Vicarious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted September 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 DBDC is also composed of up-until-recently allies of ours, and had GOP proposed hitting them, we would have told them that. Disadvantage or not, I'm not in the business of seeing ex-members of our oldest ally get hit by our protectorate. They have business with MQ because of what MQ has stated on the subject and their actions, and we are here to protect them should things escalate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevolutionaryRebel Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 I accept this logic if VE is defending GOP from parties not already at war with said Alliance. Ergo; that VE will not declare war on nations defending fellow alliance members from the GOP. I was under the impression that VE would be using this statement as an excuse to declare on nations for doing what is expected of an Alliance member during wartime; aiding fellow members under attack. If so, you may as well declare war on MQ and be done with it. If not, then I have no further objections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tayloj7 Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 Well it certainly can't be said that VE isn't loyal to its treaties. However given that this is an offensive war by GOP such a statement is rather strong for a protectorate level treaty (particularly one in which the protectee is composed of some of the largets nations in the game). An interesting move for sure :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 (edited) 1)If it only 'seems' to be so, then you may agree with the propositions that first, there is no singular definition for a rogue and secondly, that opinions on what is a rogue may vary. I am willing to accept that your opinion of what a 'rogue' is may be different to my own, but in lieu of defined criteria (and given its subjectivity), I must consider any arguments that rely upon that label to be inadequate. 2)As it stands, that definition is a little loose. For instance, if an Alliance suffers a coup, and members ejected from that Alliance banded together against the usurpers, they could be considered 'rogues'. Those at war with them would certainly say so. Given the term's implied negative connotations, would this not be misleading? Hopefully this helps to illuminate my reasons for disliking that terminology. 3)My consternation was/is at how MQ was being treated as a 'bunch of rogues' and not an Alliance, when there is nothing to say it could not be both, and the resultant use/misuse of the term/label 'rogue' to frame VE's actions as 'defence' of GOP. I have heard the term 'rogue alliance' used before, for instance. If MQ members defend themselves from GOP, they would be acting like an alliance, and that should be considered the same as an alliance that has been declared upon. As such, VE's Mutual Defence clause would not be activated. Herein lies my one and only issue with this announcement. If they active the Optional Aggression clause, then the point is moot. But it would also ruin all that hard work spent by VE's FA department. 1) I say that because the definition of the word rogue does not exactly smoothly cross over into CN, although you could argue some aspects are the same. 2)You could definite them as rogues if you tried but there is better words to describe what they would be doing, attempting to start a coup for instance. In the definition of the word rogue they certainly would meet some of the criteria but I think it would be misuse considering what they would be trying to do. 3)The question is what does other alliances consider a functioning alliance. 4)I now know why you're so loose with the word "rogue", you can't seem figure out what an insult even is. You never replied to this, you only posted a quote of mine which contained no insults. Read below and anwser.. I don't believe I have insulted you once, if you could tell me how I insulted you then please do. Merely you would see things differently if it was your alliance being attacked. Edited September 23, 2013 by Commander shepard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 (edited) Fixed. All conflicts are engaged for self-interest. Other than that, your definition is a good outline for what is generally accepted as 'rogue'. Now, let's examine if Mq fits the definiation. Did they seperate themselves from their alliances? Nope, they existed prior to MK's disbandment. Are the 'someone'? Nope, they have 51 friggin members! Are they engaging in a conflict against a legitiment alliance? Yes, well, kind of. I question whether or not neutrals should actually count. We'll give you the benefit of the doubt though and say yes. 1 out of 3 matches? I don't know, does that qualify them? Seems like all non-neutral alliances would be rogue by that definition. Oh, I know... let's extend the definition: Wait, no, crap. Mq defies even that definition. Anyway, as RevolutionaryRebel is trying to explain to you, Shepard - the word rogue is used as a derogatory weapon by the institutions of the world to help keep members in line, and sway public opinion against small groups that oppose them. The only thing that truly seperates them from the "legitimate" is power. By the way, I've been attacked by rogues 3 times. I'll go back over that again. 1)MQ before this conflict was merely just an alliance name MK members who never really quit MK went to, to call them an alliance on the same standing as most others is not correct. A one man AA has more legitimacy as an alliance. 2)It doesn't matter how many there are on the AA, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50. And before you say I am doing a retcon, no I didn't think it was necessary to type more than I did for people to get the idea. Honestly I'm not even sure why we talking about this when people on the AA consider themselves rogues. Edited September 23, 2013 by Commander shepard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 GOP is a neutral alliance. MQ and LPH arbitrarily attacked a neutral alliance because they are neutral. GOP thinks that arbitrary attacks on neutral alliances may be a threat to them because they are a neutral alliance. GOP moves to neutralise MQ. VE says hands off GOP because they aren't neutral but do like neutralising folks for their friends. Everything seems perfectly legit to me, so stop whining your spoiling the glory of MQ's martyrdom.But GOP, by their own admission, are not exactly neutral. They have a protector. They weren't in danger, because they have VE taking care of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted September 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 I accept this logic if VE is defending GOP from parties not already at war with said Alliance. Ergo; that VE will not declare war on nations defending fellow alliance members from the GOP. I was under the impression that VE would be using this statement as an excuse to declare on nations for doing what is expected of an Alliance member during wartime; aiding fellow members under attack. If so, you may as well declare war on MQ and be done with it. If not, then I have no further objections. VE hasn't declared any wars in game or on the forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wes the wise Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 But GOP, by their own admission, are not exactly neutral. They have a protector. They weren't in danger, because they have VE taking care of them.And? I don't understand why people are debating this still. GOP is doing their thing, VE is doing theirs, just like MQ made the choices they made. I think people are surprised that TDO has as much support as it does, but it should come as no surprise, this is exactly the kind of situation that GOP reserves the right to involve themselves in. If people would just leave neutrals alone we wouldn't be doing this right now. If anyone is lamenting the destruction of Mushqaeda that badly, I'm sure one of their trusted loyal allies will jump at the opportunity to defend them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 DBDC is also composed of up-until-recently allies of ours, and had GOP proposed hitting them, we would have told them that. Disadvantage or not, I'm not in the business of seeing ex-members of our oldest ally get hit by our protectorate. Identical acts should engender identical responses, Goldie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted September 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 Identical acts should engender identical responses, Goldie. No two acts are completely identical. It's not my place to speculate on things like that, but my understanding was the core issue was the 'jihad on neutrality' declared by MQ. The rhetoric seems to have played a key part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 No two acts are completely identical. It's not my place to speculate on things like that, but my understanding was the core issue was the 'jihad on neutrality' declared by MQ. The rhetoric seems to have played a key part. It is, but it also appears that Doombird Doomcave has joined MQ in that jihad against The Democratic Order. I understand and share your affinity for them as ex-allies, but they should probably be subject to the same general condemnation as MQ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 one of their trusted loyal allies will jump at the opportunity to defend them. We don't have allies. But the one group that joined us scares you guys so much that you pretend they don't exist... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted September 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 It is, but it also appears that Doombird Doomcave has joined MQ in that jihad against The Democratic Order. I understand and share your affinity for them as ex-allies, but they should probably be subject to the same general condemnation as MQ. I don't believe I have condemned anyone, this is simply a statement of support for our ally who is fighting for what they believe in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wes the wise Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 (edited) We don't have allies. But the one group that joined us scares you guys so much that you pretend they don't exist... cute dolphin :) Oh, that's right, Your alliance disbanded and your former allies refuse to protect rogues. My bad. As for the Doom birds, they are awfully scary. Even their name sounds scary. :/ I've lost too many wars in recent history to even be in their range anyway. Also, the buffet is first come first served, DBDC must wait their turn in line behind the Mushlims. Edited September 23, 2013 by wes the wise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pericles Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 Always good to see people banding together to stand up against senseless combat. Attacking people who wish to remain neutral is a deplorable tactic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tayloj7 Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 Its okay Sir Hoppington just pigs out at the salad bar which isn't too busy usually. Which reminds me Sir Hoppington wanted me to declare DBDC's protection of lettuce. As for MQ, they ain't no rogues, rascals definitely, but certainly not rogues Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krashnaia Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 The Viridan Entente acts with Honor, as always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 Mushqaeda is not a long-term organization; there are no long-term plans.Thank you.What role do you have in MQ? Has the alliance an identified leadership or organization or structure besides the Owner/Heir roles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted September 23, 2013 Report Share Posted September 23, 2013 An alliance consists of more than a grouping of nations. It also requires organization. To what extent MQ is organized is debatable, but I highly doubt this is some elaborate conspiracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBRaiders Posted September 24, 2013 Report Share Posted September 24, 2013 DBDC is also composed of up-until-recently allies of ours, and had GOP proposed hitting them, we would have told them that. Disadvantage or not, I'm not in the business of seeing ex-members of our oldest ally get hit by our protectorate. They have business with MQ because of what MQ has stated on the subject and their actions, and we are here to protect them should things escalate. DBDC is also composed of MQ (ex-MK) members. One AA is as good as another when you are fighting the same war. No two acts are completely identical. It's not my place to speculate on things like that, but my understanding was the core issue was the 'jihad on neutrality' declared by MQ. The rhetoric seems to have played a key part. ...and we all know it is nothing more than role-playing/rhetoric. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted September 24, 2013 Report Share Posted September 24, 2013 (edited) Thank you.What role do you have in MQ? Has the alliance an identified leadership or organization or structure besides the Owner/Heir roles?As far as I am aware, there is no government structure. Think of MQ as an extremely militant LSF.You could, however, count our prophets as spiritual leaders. The mouthpieces of Allarchon have led us to salvation, and many of us shall soon be free to rest with our great creator. Edited September 24, 2013 by Neo Uruk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.