Recognition of Hostilities

[RevolutionaryRebel]

I hear a lot of whining about me not giving peace fast enough. If you don't like it, you shouldn't of declared on Limitless Nexus. Simple as that.

We're not a target for you to get some quick raids in and then peace out right away. I'm sure RR thought we would be so intimidated by his attacks, we'd peace out immediately. Sorry, but things don't work that way around here.

There we go again. 'Raid'; another cheap, emotive word. Opportunism is okay when you engage in it, and not for anyone else. :rolleyes:

And yes, the same failed rhetoric. "shame on you for interrupting our crusade to ZI rey, we'll make you pay", etc.

 

There is a hole in your brain if you thought that war which ended months ago was still ongoing. LPH didn't even exist at the time, yet you pulled all of them into this because you couldn't let go of a grudge.

And then, there's the reflex 'oh, if they accuse us of something, we better accuse them of doing the same thing, without any form of proof'.

Grudges are only bad, when you're not the one holding them, right? :rolleyes:

 

As painful as you think this is on my end, the more you act like a child, the more worthwhile it is from my perspective.

[Neo Uruk]

There is a hole in your brain if you thought that war which ended months ago was still ongoing. LPH didn't even exist at the time, yet you pulled all of them into this because you couldn't let go of a grudge.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/122418-a-post-rehab-announcement/?p=3270722

The war didn't end.

[RevolutionaryRebel]

Rey, thanks for that link. I forgot why I specifically refused to recognise LN as an Alliance, and you found it for me.

[Sephiroth]

There we go again. 'Raid'; another cheap, emotive word. Opportunism is okay when you engage in it, and not for anyone else. :rolleyes:

And yes, the same failed rhetoric. "shame on you for interrupting our crusade to ZI rey, we'll make you pay", etc.

 

And then, there's the reflex 'oh, if they accuse us of something, we better accuse them of doing the same thing, without any form of proof'.

Grudges are only bad, when you're not the one holding them, right? :rolleyes:

 

As painful as you think this is on my end, the more you act like a child, the more worthwhile it is from my perspective.

I'm not big on grudges, but I never declare war without expecting them to last at least until expiration. So why do I hear more whining from you about the war than anyone else? I really don't care about this Rey nonsense, give it a rest. For now we are at war, simple as that. When we're ready for peace, you'll know.

 

I'm not going to accept any proposal for peace before my members are also ready for peace. Since you wanted your war bunched up with the rest, I'll discuss peace with your alliance when we're ready to peace out everything.

[Sir Kiloist]

I'm not big on grudges, but I never declare war without expecting them to last at least until expiration. So why do I hear more whining from you about the war than anyone else? I really don't care about this Rey nonsense, give it a rest. For now we are at war, simple as that. When we're ready for peace, you'll know.

 

I'm not going to accept any proposal for peace before my members are also ready for peace. Since you wanted your war bunched up with the rest, I'll discuss peace with your alliance when we're ready to peace out everything.

 

We've been over this Methrage, Rey didn't drag LPH into this, you did when you threatened us in our DoE thread (this is before we attacked - which was in response to your threat).

 

edit: way too lazy to quote the right line.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Sir Kiloist

[Mister black]

layton offered a truce.
so did rey.

methy refused.

time to try again.

accept thus here peace.

#reyreynmethypeace

[Sephiroth]

King Conrad and I know each other in person and coordinate heavily. If it is required, you could have his word personally that no further attacks on LN (unless in defence) will happen. If that is the issue, we can arrange that. I think I'm being quite accommodating. If you wish to negotiate peace in a few days, I'm not sure if I may be in a mood to offer the same agreement (pending Rey accepting it too). Kashmir has already gotten its pound of flesh from stonewall. If you wish for a separate agreement with LPH, that's fine too. But in reality, there's nothing you can really offer us other than peace with LPH. 

With how many times you've ZIed individuals, I don't see why your so resistant to Rey receiving the punishment his own gov agreed to. Rey is almost ZI now, if no one interferes this could be done with soon. I don't like the idea of third parties involving themselves to try forcing an altering of the deal, but Rey only has about 80 Infra left. If you want to agree on something like this after his sentence has been carried out properly, then everyone can likely walk away with no grudges.

[King Conrad]

I'm affecting a shift in foreign policy. There are more.. interesting things to do than pick at Stonewall. I've already peaced out with him, and yet you're still talking as if we're at war. If ZI was what I was going to continue going for, then why would I stand down? Why wouldn't I just, say, go off on my own? SirWilliam asked me nicely, and that's part of it, but in the long run, I've found that there are better hobbies to pursue. I'm willing to sign off on Jack's accord if you wish. That can be done, and you won't hear from me again so long as you hold to the terms. And you can consider that an agreement to specific terms, since I know you like things official. Jack's exact terms, and nothing more or less.

[Jack Layton]

With how many times you've ZIed individuals, I don't see why your so resistant to Rey receiving the punishment his own gov agreed to. Rey is almost ZI now, if no one interferes this could be done with soon. I don't like the idea of third parties involving themselves to try forcing an altering of the deal, but Rey only has about 80 Infra left. If you want to agree on something like this after his sentence has been carried out properly, then everyone can likely walk away with no grudges.

 

We defend our allies no matter the cost. From what I can see, this agreement you mention no longer appears to be in effect. It's a veritable mess of negotiated, partially-accepted, and rescinded agreements. As such, we are inclined to defend LPH. Put it this way. You can accept the terms I have presented to you today in full and be guaranteed of no further attacks from either LPH or War Jesus. And if LPH decides to violate the agreement, they will not have our backing. Or you can destroy the 80 infra Rey has left and come back to the negotiating table and have nothing to offer us and not be guaranteed of no further War Jesus attacks (especially against stonewall). Consider this as a swap of the grudge being dropped against stonewall if you extend the same to Rey. I'm trying to kill two birds with one stone for you here and I think I've been rather reasonable. If you and Rey agree to this, we can all walk away and never deal with this crap again.

[Sephiroth]

We defend our allies no matter the cost. From what I can see, this agreement you mention no longer appears to be in effect. It's a veritable mess of negotiated, partially-accepted, and rescinded agreements. As such, we are inclined to defend LPH. Put it this way. You can accept the terms I have presented to you today in full and be guaranteed of no further attacks from either LPH or War Jesus. And if LPH decides to violate the agreement, they will not have our backing. Or you can destroy the 80 infra Rey has left and come back to the negotiating table and have nothing to offer us and not be guaranteed of no further War Jesus attacks (especially against stonewall). Consider this as a swap of the grudge being dropped against stonewall if you extend the same to Rey. I'm trying to kill two birds with one stone for you here and I think I've been rather reasonable. If you and Rey agree to this, we can all walk away and never deal with this crap again.

If that is your response, then I'll have no choice but to consider ourselves still at war with Kashmir and treat it as such.

 

With both LN and LPH being sovereign alliances, you can't force a decision upon either alliance one way or the other. That you're trying to force your will upon both alliances over 80 infra is absurd and you would risk everything important to you by doing so. With your threats clear, even after he reaches ZI I'll want agreement from you not to attack Stonewall further before peace is given.

[WorldConqueror]

If that is your response, then I'll have no choice but to consider ourselves still at war with Kashmir and treat it as such.
 
With both LN and LPH being sovereign alliances, you can't force a decision upon either alliance one way or the other. That you're trying to force your will upon both alliances over 80 infra is absurd and you would risk everything important to you by doing so. With your threats clear, even after he reaches ZI I'll want agreement from you not to attack Stonewall further before peace is given.

Right, because things went so well for you last time you danced with RPK.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Okay, now y'all being ridiculous. Let's just handle the disingenuous assertions one at a time.

Those screaming about 'rogues', please identify what a rogue is, and why you think x is a rogue in this context.

Those claiming that this war is about anything other than a) methrage's conduct, or b) the war LN initiated against LPH, please explain why you believe such.

We're over the cycle. He isn't. We offer white peace, he declines. That's basically where we're at. Methrage would rather use allies as meatshields than give up a feud. He was like this with GOONS, I don't see this being too different.

 

Here's my definition of a rogue. A rogue is someone who will not be governed by agreements.

 

What civilization there is here is about keeping your agreements, after all. The agreements that form alliances, and the agreements between the alliances. Someone who ignores that, who functions on the basis of brute force instead, that is a rogue.

 

Usually, but not always, a rogue is someone that takes off his AA in order to launch a self-consuming pyrotechnic display. But if he forgets to take off his AA he's still a rogue, as long as that AA disavows him. And they must disavow him or they deserve to join him.

 

What's going on here is that we came to an agreement with Kashmir to extinguish their claims on Stonewall and end that war permanently. Now we have members of Kashmir coming back and attacking him anyway. They are not taking off their AAs first, and Kashmir is not disavowing them.

 

My conclusion is their word is worthless, their agreements void. There is no point in talking with them, it does not matter what agreement you reach, because that agreement, like previous ones, will be disregarded whenever 'War Jesus' feels like it. They are a rogue alliance.

 

 

The use of the word 'Rogue' implies a lack of control, or ill-discipline. It also seems to depend on context. For instance, if an ally is attacked and your alliance decides not to go to war, should individual members honour the treaty or not? According to your definition, they would be 'rogues', but surely, wouldn't that be an honourable thing to do in context?

OOC: I was involved in an instance like this in a past life waaaay wwaay back during the GATO-1V war. Ancient history now. CPCN didn't defend GATO, but individual members decided to support them anyway.

The question is; are there causes that may give individual nations a reason to fight without the protection of an alliance?  If it's with good intentions, is roguing 'good'?

 

If these nations say they are fighting due to the ongoing conflict between LN and LPH (which was strongly in LN's favour before our involvement, then a peace deal would end their involvement. If their cause for war was simply to attack for the sake of attacking, then that would become immediately obvious, and they wouldn't have anywhere near as much support.

 

In this case any individual members who feel moved to intervene should resign from their alliance and join the one they wish to defend, or form into a 'foreign legion' style AA if they prefer. For them to take action without first moving off the AA would be to violate the trust of their own alliance.

 

 

Now, I'm sure that Kashmir occasionally messes around, nobody is a saint. However, in this particular situation, the rationale why certain Kashmir nations involved themselves was due directly to the fact that LPH was being rolled by LN

 

 

ROTFLMFAO! I dont know what you have been smoking but it must be out of this world.

 

Did you even bother to look at the war declarations?

 

LPH attacked LN, not the other way around. It appears Rey is just fascinated by Meth and could not bear being at peace with him. (And, to be fair, Meth was running his mouth. But these two have been running their mouths at each other for ages, that was nothing new. )
 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2014 by Sigrun Vapneir

[RevolutionaryRebel]

In truth, a rogue is whatever anyone thinks it is; it's a label for many different things (almost overwhelmingly negative), making it almost worthless without an understanding of what the labeller actually means.
 

What civilization there is here is about keeping your agreements, after all. The agreements that form alliances, and the agreements between the alliances. Someone who ignores that, who functions on the basis of brute force instead, that is a rogue. Usually, but not always, a rogue is someone that takes off his AA in order to launch a self-consuming pyrotechnic display. But if he forgets to take off his AA he's still a rogue, as long as that AA disavows him. And they must disavow him or they deserve to join him.

So in other words, you despise anyone that doesn't act in the way you want them to, or chooses to act in ways not prescribed, or spoon-fed to them? That would render alliances and their members nothing but machines, following orders.

These definitions are personal; not everyone hold the same convictions, or ideas as you do, but rather than attempt to understand differences, some would rather hold fast onto their own.

 

Defending others without a treaty makes people like methrage flip out, which is entertaining. Why? Because they immediately become defensive and vulgar, foaming about 'unprovoked attacks' and 'raiding', since they need to invent labels to overcome their myopia. I can accept my mistakes, but rather than accept his, he projects them onto his enemies.

 

What's going on here is that we came to an agreement with Kashmir to extinguish their claims on Stonewall and end that war permanently. Now we have members of Kashmir coming back and attacking him anyway. They are not taking off their AAs first, and Kashmir is not disavowing them.

I'm pretty sure that the attacks were not made on behalf of the alliance as  whole. You'd realise this if you read what's actually been said, and looked at the war screen. They were both explicitly told by their alliance-mates not to continue. LN can 'recognise' that as a full-scale conflict, but they haven't thus far. Probably because they know what the consequences would be.

 

So, your misunderstanding of Kashmir's actions and structure(whereby individual members have more sovereignty than the norm), leads you to draw false conclusions, like this one;

My conclusion is their word is worthless, their agreements void. There is no point in talking with them, it does not matter what agreement you reach, because that agreement, like previous ones, will be disregarded whenever 'War Jesus' feels like it. They are a rogue alliance.

... because you fail to recognise that disconnect between Kashmir members, and the alliance itself.
 
 

In this case any individual members who feel moved to intervene should resign from their alliance and join the one they wish to defend, or form into a 'foreign legion' style AA if they prefer. For them to take action without first moving off the AA would be to violate the trust of their own alliance.

 Which is clearly why they peaced-out. Had they continued, things may have been different.
 

LPH attacked LN, not the other way around.

Fortunately, some people actually back things they say up.

Like this guy.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/122418-a-post-rehab-announcement/?p=3270722

Statements in that thread clearly show that LN not only chose not to regard LPH as an alliance (hence why I brought it up earlier, to highlight the hypocrisy of demanding recognition while refusing it), but stated that they considered themselves at war with LPH members. LPH engaging after a DoW is pretty understandable, in my book.

 

I get the deal; you're defending methrage publicly because you're his 'ally', irrespective of 'right' or 'wrong'. There are many cases where this happens, so I don't hold it against you.

 

Your lack of decorum does however highlight the folly of seeking positive spin on the OWF. some people just don't appreciate dialectics..

[Lex Quintus]

+1 repute to Revolutionary Rebel

 

It's a lot easier to get us when you remember we eschew the beaten path, treading instead the Kashmir Way.

 

Those who avoid understanding our mystery are doomed to repeat it.

[DoorNail]

It's like dirty boxing, not supposed to do it but you are doing it anyway.


Not once have I seen anyone from Kashmir or anyone else deny rogue actions and rogue harboring, yet you expect your allies to treaty in on your behalf.

You play like dirtbags, but everyone else must be bound by their honor and word.


I think you need to wash your bags, cause they are dirty. :)

Edited August 25, 2014 by DoorNail

[RevolutionaryRebel]

Just as long as nobody confuses 'understanding Kashmir' with condoning any actions of theirs in the past, present or future. Or approval of that alliance model, to be honest. Giving players too much freedom can have negative consequences, particularly when not everyone has a similar perspective, but if it works, good for them. Diversity and expression are valuable assets that benefit everyone.
 
You wouldn't believe how many people make this mistake. I have had some contact with stonewall and while we will never be on the same page, I now have some understanding of him on an individual level. Doesn't mean I won't disagree with him, as I have here.
 
Knowing isn't the same as believing.

Edited August 25, 2014 by RevolutionaryRebel

[Master Hakai]

It's like dirty boxing, not supposed to do it but you are doing it anyway.


Not once have I seen anyone from Kashmir or anyone else deny rogue actions and rogue harboring, yet you expect your allies to treaty in on your behalf.

You play like dirtbags, but everyone else must be bound by their honor and word.


I think you need to wash your bags, cause they are dirty. :)

Nothing here means anything. Is that what you were going for, or is there a message that can be extracted from these words and sentences?

[DoorNail]

Nothing here means anything. Is that what you were going for, or is there a message that can be extracted from these words and sentences?

 

I'll try to explain it better, admittidly what I say usually takes some common sense to understand, which you seem to lack.  :)

 

 

It means you guys are playing with dirty bags and the only way to combat that, is to drop our honor and give you a dose of your own medicine. This is shit you started, yet you are attempting to weasel out of it, leaving everyone else holding your dirty bags, including your own allies.

Edited August 25, 2014 by DoorNail

[Bernkastel]

It's like dirty boxing, not supposed to do it but you are doing it anyway.
Not once have I seen anyone from Kashmir or anyone else deny rogue actions and rogue harboring, yet you expect your allies to treaty in on your behalf.
You play like dirtbags, but everyone else must be bound by their honor and word.
I think you need to wash your bags, cause they are dirty. :)

We have treaties? This is news to me! When did this happen? Or I should say, how? I blame Hakai.

Also, I take dirtbag as a compliment. It's pretty hard not to deny that. ;)

[DoorNail]

We have treaties? This is news to me! When did this happen? Or I should say, how? I blame Hakai.

Also, I take dirtbag as a compliment. It's pretty hard not to deny that. ;)

 

What's interesting is that none of you deny playing dirty and then literally dare people to come kick the crap out of you.

 

And since there's no need to worry about a treaty, looks like you guys are proudly suggesting that nobody has the balls to attack your dirty bags. Which is odd, considering there are plenty of people in this game that can mop the floor with you.

 

edit..Is that really want you are askng for? You want your head stomped in,  You know what they say,..Be carefull what you wish for, you just might get it.

Edited August 25, 2014 by DoorNail

[King Conrad]

We have friends. We don't have treaties. We have people who we know and interact with, and not people who agreed to sign papers with us because it would be expedient. The disadvantage you have is that you can't just Google who might come to our aid.

[DoorNail]

We have friends. We don't have treaties. We have people who we know and interact with, and not people who agreed to sign papers with us because it would be expedient. The disadvantage you have is that you can't just Google who might come to our aid.

 

I googled "who wants to aid a bunch of losers" and nothing came up. Is there a differnt search engine I could try? :)

 

 

Just want to clarify, you guys are saying that you're the baddest of the bad and nobody can do anything about it, right?

Edited August 25, 2014 by DoorNail

[WarriorSoul]

Jesus, Kashmir, just clean your bags and he'll shut up!

[Lex Quintus]

Well, aiding losers would be loser-ish, I wouldn't recommend that to anybody.

 

I'm still trying to wrap my head around dirty bags but I think it's vaguely distasteful and a little unsettling.  To me personally, that is, not suggesting you stay away from that imagery if it works for you.

 

As for daring others to come kick the crap out of us, why that would be just un-neighborly.

[Neo Uruk]

Hey I'm not a loser you big dumb jerk