We have a 2319

[kingzog]

So would it be possible to state which article / section combo will cover the defence section of the Die Linke agreement?

 

Article III, Section 1: "As it likely goes without saying, an attack on one signatory of this treaty is to be treated as an attack on all signatories, and additionally, an attack by a signatory should be taken as an attack by all signatories."

 

MI violated its own Charter and continues to defend that violation, even in the face of fairly decent evidence that they did so. Was it an inadvertent violation? Yes, it definitely seems so. That doesn't make it defensible.

 

To compound their foolishness, with this announcement (as Sabcat pointed out) MI has declared war on LSF. Whether MI realized this or not is irrelevant. The information was out there for anyone willing to look for it. And given the discussion that surrounded the departure of UCR from Die Linke, to assume that it somehow weakened the relationship between the remaining signatories -- is that what you're saying? seriously, you're making very little sense -- is to admit that one didn't follow that episode very closely.

 

Given my alliance's previous run-ins with LSF and Single White Female, you may safely assume that I would not be speaking up for them were it not for the fact that, in this particular instance, they happen to be in the right. And decidedly so, I should add. There is precisely zero room for debate, as it's all in writing.

 

MI screwed up. Twice. And, as I said earlier, I hope their allies are paying attention to the way they've comported themselves throughout this shameful episode. A little humility goes a long way sometimes.

[Unknown Smurf]

before you leave you need to admit you were wrong and spreading lies
or perhaps you simply didn't know the truth

I was not intentionally spreading lies but I admit I'm not as informed as I'd like to be (ooc: at work atm + busy in RL since the beginning of the incident) so it's possible that I'm wrong on some (or many?) points.

(Id also like to throw out there that it's possible I'm right on all points as well though) :D

[KingNeptune]

 

Article III, Section 1: "As it likely goes without saying, an attack on one signatory of this treaty is to be treated as an attack on all signatories, and additionally, an attack by a signatory should be taken as an attack by all signatories."

 

MI violated its own Charter and continues to defend that violation, even in the face of fairly decent evidence that they did so. Was it an inadvertent violation? Yes, it definitely seems so. That doesn't make it defensible.

 

To compound their foolishness, with this announcement (as Sabcat pointed out) MI has declared war on LSF. Whether MI realized this or not is irrelevant. The information was out there for anyone willing to look for it. And given the discussion that surrounded the departure of UCR from Die Linke, to assume that it somehow weakened the relationship between the remaining signatories -- is that what you're saying? seriously, you're making very little sense -- is to admit that one didn't follow that episode very closely.

 

Given my alliance's previous run-ins with LSF and Single White Female, you may safely assume that I would not be speaking up for them were it not for the fact that, in this particular instance, they happen to be in the right. And decidedly so, I should add. There is precisely zero room for debate, as it's all in writing.

 

MI screwed up. Twice. And, as I said earlier, I hope their allies are paying attention to the way they've comported themselves throughout this shameful episode. A little humility goes a long way sometimes.

You're a teapot.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Kingneptune

[Franz Ferdinand]

Article III, Section 1: "As it likely goes without saying, an attack on one signatory of this treaty is to be treated as an attack on all signatories, and additionally, an attack by a signatory should be taken as an attack by all signatories."
 
MI violated its own Charter and continues to defend that violation, even in the face of fairly decent evidence that they did so. Was it an inadvertent violation? Yes, it definitely seems so. That doesn't make it defensible.
 
To compound their foolishness, with this announcement (as Sabcat pointed out) MI has declared war on LSF. Whether MI realized this or not is irrelevant. The information was out there for anyone willing to look for it. And given the discussion that surrounded the departure of UCR from Die Linke, to assume that it somehow weakened the relationship between the remaining signatories -- is that what you're saying? seriously, you're making very little sense -- is to admit that one didn't follow that episode very closely.
 
Given my alliance's previous run-ins with LSF and Single White Female, you may safely assume that I would not be speaking up for them were it not for the fact that, in this particular instance, they happen to be in the right. And decidedly so, I should add. There is precisely zero room for debate, as it's all in writing.
 
MI screwed up. Twice. And, as I said earlier, I hope their allies are paying attention to the way they've comported themselves throughout this shameful episode. A little humility goes a long way sometimes.

Please point out where MI violated its own charter exactly? I'm looking and I do not see this violation. Die Linke, yes and I do not challenge this, but not MI's own charter.

The thing with LSF is that MI only declared on SWF, and if LSF wanted to, they are well within their rights to activate any treaties they have but it seems that no action has taken place on the battlefield between MI and LSF, so who knows.

I was saying that the departure of UCR weakened the enforceability of the treaty not that LSF and SWF had their relationship weakened. They are known to be close but the UCR departure (and actions before departure) weakened aspects of the charter making it not as iron clad as it would otherwise have been.

If MI have screwed up, they would have been countered by now, I have not seen any counter attacks as of yet. Before you say, I have mentioned that it will likely start in 23 hours time so I'll start a barbecue, you get some drinks and we'll just chill out?

[Tehmina]

I am glad Smurfy is flexible!
Peace people peace. Monsters and Commie to reside together as both are outlawed by so-called normal unintelligent people.

[Sabcat]

I was not intentionally spreading lies but I admit I'm not as informed as I'd like to be (ooc: at work atm + busy in RL since the beginning of the incident) so it's possible that I'm wrong on some (or many?) points.

(Id also like to throw out there that it's possible I'm right on all points as well though) :D

Posts like this make miss when we were in Legion and the only members arguing for war.

[Ayatollah Bromeini]

I am hopeful that our friends in Monsters Inc and SWF can come to an agreement that doesn't involve escalation 

[saxasm]

I was saying that the departure of UCR weakened the enforceability of the treaty not that LSF and SWF had their relationship weakened. They are known to be close but the UCR departure (and actions before departure) weakened aspects of the charter making it not as iron clad as it would otherwise have been.

 

"Enforceability"? Who exactly are you suggesting would "enforce" the treaty?

 

I think you're working under a fundamentally incorrect understanding of what a treaty is and what it does. There is no interalliance court that enforces contracts. As such, the only ones whose opinion on the interpretation of a treaty matters is the parties of the treaty, as they are the ones that will act on it. Arguing about the interpretation of a treaty is fairly pointless, since there's no one who is going to enforce your interpretation over that of the parties of the treaty.

[hartfw]

 

There is no interalliance court that enforces contracts... yet

 

And we eagerly await NPO imposing it on all of us.

[Blurrenza]

I am glad Smurfy is flexible!
Peace people peace. Monsters and Commie to reside together as both are outlawed by so-called normal unintelligent people.

 

You'll always be my girl, honey  :wub:

[Sigrun Vapneir]

I think you're working under a fundamentally incorrect understanding of what a treaty is and what it does. There is no interalliance court that enforces contracts. As such, the only ones whose opinion on the interpretation of a treaty matters is the parties of the treaty, as they are the ones that will act on it. Arguing about the interpretation of a treaty is fairly pointless, since there's no one who is going to enforce your interpretation over that of the parties of the treaty.

 

That's not  quite true. If you are talking about interpreting whether or not a party has an obligation under the treaty then yes, that's up to the parties. But if you are expecting others to take notice of your 'facts' and treat them as 'facts' - the situation is different. If you are demanding third parties honor the treaty, you have a very different case to make.

 

And Franz' analysis, in that context, seems on point. It's a peculiar and problematic assertion, and if the parties have not even consistently honored that section of the treaty themselves, it looks like a dead letter to me. 

Edited April 14, 2015 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Tehmina]

 
That's not  quite true. If you are talking about interpreting whether or not a party has an obligation under the treaty then yes, that's up to the parties. But if you are expecting others to take notice of your 'facts' and treat them as 'facts' - the situation is different. If you are demanding third parties honor the treaty, you have a very different case to make.
 
And Franz' analysis, in that context, seems on point. It's a peculiar and problematic assertion, and if the parties have not even consistently honored that section of the treaty themselves, it looks like a dead letter to me. 

The treaty was not honored by a party who no longer was the signatory of the treaty when they were supposed to honor it. I am not saying it wasn't a dick move, it certainly was ( its pretty much like a group of members abandoning an alliance when war becomes imminent).
The current two signatories have always honored this treaty, and the one which existed between both of them before this one.

[Defender]

kingzog, if you make me like you I will delete my nation.

 

Since I've been asked to clear up some confusion:

 

Below is the first message I received from MI, time-stamped about 4 hours after our last counter.  No offer of reps.

 

 

My very first message to MI, sent after I logged on and discovered all this mess.  Also sent about an hour or two after two more declarations from MI nations, including one on me.  As you can see I ask for an indetermined amount of reps for the damages caused by their unprovoked attacks.

 

 

Their refusal to pay reps unless they also receive reps.  Numbers are still indeterminte at this stage, but later in negotiations with CPCN they would suggest that MI pay 18 million and SWF pay 30 million (a net payment of 12 million from SWF to MI).

 

 

My incredulous response to the concept of paying reps to the alliance that attacked us.

 

 

Also, screenshots backing up my extortion accusations.

 

 

 

Their attempt to try and call defending ourselves as "extorting peace".  Careful with this one, the grammar in the last line will make your head spin.

 

 

This message was to be followed by 6 more war declaration on us with the next 12 hours.  And I guess this DoW apparently.

 

tl;dr  We were never offered reps.  We asked for reps and were told that we should be the ones paying them.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Super Tramp was a bad boy. Got that.

 

Attacking other monsters, uninvolved nations, and wrecking them in response was not exactly angelic behaviour either however.

 

Innocents damaged are innocents damaged, and now both sides have those.

[BringMeTheHorizon]

This was the first time I was shown these extortion claims to be true. This is unacceptable for our nations to try, and do. I have banned super tramp from raiding for one month, and I want to apologize for his behavior.

I have no qualms with raiding, but extortion for peace (which happens a lot from others) is not something I agree with. It's not something I've done, or will ever do, and I hold the same position with those in my alliance.

I will never apologize for raiding, but I will apologize that your one nation was held at random for tech, and no nukes. This will also weigh in our decision on how his ends.

I do thank you for finally showing me these screenshots that's I requested. I am truly sorry for what he did/said.

Though that doesn't change our stance on the retaliatory attacks on our other nations.

[SirWilliam]

I spat my drink all over the place

 

Why? The NPO stooge has a point. Micros could actually be doing something meaningful after all, like sing-alongs, joke mergers, and the seven thousandth treaty announcement.

 

:rolleyes:

 

As for this drama llama, everything about it is silly. You're all silly! Now lets all put our big boy pants on and end this like adults.

[kingzog]

Please point out where MI violated its own charter exactly?

 

*ahem*

 

2) Don't raid big/and/or protected alliances

 

You want to consider SWF as a small alliance and not one that is joined at the hip with LSF? OK, let's do that and pretend that Die Linke is merely some kind of fancy mutual defense treaty.

 

Sure looks like protection to me.

 

Monsters Inc. members violated their own Charter.

 

You couldn't see that? Really?

 

Let me guess. Now you're going to quibble over what 'protection' means and whether or not a mutual defense arrangement constitutes protection. That's the only line of defense that's available. Are you going to take it? You've been fabulously wrong thus far, I see no reason not to continue down that road.

 

MI's members violated their Charter. MI denies this, but they're wrong. You deny it. You're wrong, too.

 

Jesus Blue-Flaming Christ, how did any of you lot finish elementary school with such appalling comprehension skills.....

[Lord Hitchcock]

You're a teapot.

 

This.

[HeroofTime55]

I have banned super tramp from raiding for one month, and I want to apologize for his behavior.

Any half respectable alliance would have shown him the door, and maybe taken the liberty of leveling his nation themselves.

Instead, you protect him and give him a slap on the wrist.

At this point, you fully deserve what you get.

[Stonewall14]

 

*ahem*

 

 

 

 

You want to consider SWF as a small alliance and not one that is joined at the hip with LSF? OK, let's do that and pretend that Die Linke is merely some kind of fancy mutual defense treaty.

 

Sure looks like protection to me.

 

Monsters Inc. members violated their own Charter.

 

You couldn't see that? Really?

 

Let me guess. Now you're going to quibble over what 'protection' means and whether or not a mutual defense arrangement constitutes protection. That's the only line of defense that's available. Are you going to take it? You've been fabulously wrong thus far, I see no reason not to continue down that road.

 

MI's members violated their Charter. MI denies this, but they're wrong. You deny it. You're wrong, too.

 

Jesus Blue-Flaming Christ, how did any of you lot finish elementary school with such appalling comprehension skills.....

Will you please stop making sense and making me agree with you and the commies? I mean it's perfectly legit to raid protected AAs, attempt to extort tech from them, and when they ask for reps you tell them "NOU" and then DoW on them because they have the nerve to fight back, amirite?

I'm friends with L_H but for the love of Admin stop letting that BMTH speak for your AA brah...He is killing your creditability big time... :facepalm: This whole DoW and incident is the biggest cluster hump I've seen ever unless this is some kind of attempt on MI's part to start a war with "someone" else somehow involved in this treaty chain in order for Smurf to have another war...If that's the case then I get it and good luck with that! :popcorn: Does the Goons and MI6 have a "sekrit" treaty with Die Linke or something? :v:

[Lord Hitchcock]

Will you please stop making sense and making me agree with you and the commies? I mean it's perfectly legit to raid protected AAs, attempt to extort tech from them, and when they ask for reps you tell them "NOU" and then DoW on them because they have the nerve to fight back, amirite?

I'm friends with L_H but for the love of Admin stop letting that BMTH speak for your AA brah...He is killing your creditability big time... :facepalm: This whole DoW and incident is the biggest cluster hump I've seen ever unless this is some kind of attempt on MI's part to start a war with "someone" else somehow involved in this treaty chain in order for Smurf to have another war...If that's the case then I get it and good luck with that! :popcorn: Does the Goons and MI6 have a "sekrit" treaty with Die Linke or something? :v:

 

 

BMTH has done a much better job than any of us would have done. The fact that he's still able to communicate without name-calling is better than the rest of us :D

[Emperor Oskar]

 

 

BMTH has done a much better job than any of us would have done. The fact that he's still able to communicate without name-calling is better than the rest of us :D

Monster inc is weak lol I'm surprised we haven’t raided you guys yet.... we may have to do that.....

[keeology]

Keeology, it's good old fashioned bravado, lighten up a little, haha. Also, will you ever be on IRC?

I should be on tonight. I'm hoping

[Stonewall14]

 

 

BMTH has done a much better job than any of us would have done. The fact that he's still able to communicate without name-calling is better than the rest of us :D

I see your point and I concur...I am the worst at diplomacy ever and always resort to violence which solves everything eventually... :awesome: I am however disappointed as I'm sure you are at the lack of activity on the war screens last update and hope that an update blitz of commies is forthcoming... :war: :popcorn:

 

Monster inc is weak lol I'm surprised we haven’t raided you guys yet.... we may have to do that.....

If I was you I would just war every AA ranked higher than you until you pass them and eventually you may reach #1 alliance in the whole game brah! It works trust me,  I did it in another game with my AA and we were like ranked #10 and warred the AAs that outranked us one by one until we knocked them all down and we were #1! :awesome: :war: True Story Brah, I ain't even foolin' neither! :smug:

[Tehmina]

Lol seriously Stone?