We have a 2319

[Frawley]

 
Also for the record, SWF isn't wrong for not coming to them. SWF is wrong because they didn't accept the offered reps.

So they are wrong because they didn't take the aggressors first offer?

[Lord Hitchcock]

bottom line- we are at war- we felt the need to escalate it once 2 of our members were attacked who had no involvement in the situation. so it doesnt matter if our raids triggered it or not. They are our worst enemies until otherwise noted.

If LSF wants to join, which by the looks of non-nuclear nations entering PM and switching to defcon 1, may I remind you that it is a byob party- and under no circumstances can you drink our beer

[kingzog]

The (sic) followed our charter, and didn't break it. Why should we kick them out?

 

 

Your charter allow your members to 'raid' 29-nation alliances? I ask this because anyone whose head isn't up their butt is aware that SWF's treaty with LSF includes dual membership.

 

Let me help you. Here's Article 1, Section 2 of Die Linke's agreement:

 

All members of a signatory alliance are now, from this day forth, considered to be members of all signatory alliances, and shall be treated as such in every possible capacity.

 

Pretty clear, isn't it?

 

So I ask again: does your charter allow for unprovoked attacks (oh, I'm sorry, 'raids') on 29-nation alliances?

 

You are in the wrong, and the fact that you are defending your worthless, foolish members leads me to hope that your allies are taking a very close look at just what they've gotten themselves into by binding themselves to your stupidity.

[keeology]

bottom line- we are at war- we felt the need to escalate it once 2 of our members were attacked who had no involvement in the situation. so it doesnt matter if our raids triggered it or not. They are our worst enemies until otherwise noted.

If LSF wants to join, which by the looks of non-nuclear nations entering PM and switching to defcon 1, may I remind you that it is a byob party- and under no circumstances can you drink our beer

Be aware other bigger parties may want your beer

[eejack]

Be aware other bigger parties may want your beer

 

I really like beer, but all the cans are too small for me to drink.

[Franz Ferdinand]

 

Your charter allow your members to 'raid' 29-nation alliances? I ask this because anyone whose head isn't up their butt is aware that SWF's treaty with LSF includes dual membership.

The argument there could quite easily be that for the purposes of logistics, they are two separate entities of the same alliance HOWEVER it must be noted that both parties hold different treaty sets and could feasibly be considered separate alliances.

[Ayatollah Bromeini]

bottom line- we are at war- we felt the need to escalate it once 2 of our members were attacked who had no involvement in the situation. so it doesnt matter if our raids triggered it or not. They are our worst enemies until otherwise noted.

If LSF wants to join, which by the looks of non-nuclear nations entering PM and switching to defcon 1, may I remind you that it is a byob party- and under no circumstances can you drink our beer

 

 

I like Monsters Inc. I like the cut of your jib and the fact that you guys have your own rules. Bob needs more alliances that play by their own rules, more Monsters Incs, more Kashmirs. 

 

 

This "escalation" language is a bit bothersome, though. What SWF did was not escalation, it was self-defense, from a policy your alliance allows. Your policies are bold, and I do find that admirable, but bold policy requires bold governance, and without cool, rational heads, we cannot have bold governance, now can we? 

 

For this to be an escalation from SWF, they would have to have made a conscious decision to attack your alliance, and it did not. Inactive members of the SWF mistook the coordinated attacks on one of their nations for a formal war, and decided to defend their comrade. This was the act of rogue members acting outside of SWF policy. 

 

Instead of going to SWF to resolve the issue, you then launch more counter attacks. This entire debacle was caused by a huge misunderstanding on the end of SWF and Monsters Inc, but the only alliance that can be said to have escalated things is the alliance that allowed these attacks on members of a sovereign alliance in the first place, a sovereign alliance with a dual membership treaty with another alliance, meaning you effectively attacked them too.

 

 

 

We've all made horrible mistakes at one point or another while in positions of power. There's nothing wrong with that. Do you really want this conflict to truly escalate because of foolish pride? The only rational thing left to do is for both of you to apologize for your members going off the rails and engage in a series of tech deals as a true sign of no hard feelings. 

[Ayatollah Bromeini]

The argument there could quite easily be that for the purposes of logistics, they are two separate entities of the same alliance HOWEVER it must be noted that both parties hold different treaty sets and could feasibly be considered separate alliances.

 

The language in DL is pretty clear about how the respective parties view their sovereignty. This should have been something MI looked into before they escalated the conflict even more than it was already escalated. 

[Sigrun Vapneir]

 

 

This "escalation" language is a bit bothersome, though. What SWF did was not escalation, it was self-defense, from a policy your alliance allows. Your policies are bold, and I do find that admirable, but bold policy requires bold governance, and without cool, rational heads, we cannot have bold governance, now can we? 

 

For this to be an escalation from SWF, they would have to have made a conscious decision to attack your alliance, and it did not. Inactive members of the SWF mistook the coordinated attacks on one of their nations for a formal war, and decided to defend their comrade. This was the act of rogue members acting outside of SWF policy. 

 

 

If it was not intended as escalation, surely you can at least see how it appeared to be escalation?

 

Immediate self defense might stretch to cover new declarations on the offending nations, but they hit other nations instead. Even if it was not intended to be, surely you see how that would look to the other party like an escalation?

 

 

Instead of going to SWF to resolve the issue, you then launch more counter attacks. This entire debacle was caused by a huge misunderstanding on the end of SWF and Monsters Inc, but the only alliance that can be said to have escalated things is the alliance that allowed these attacks on members of a sovereign alliance in the first place, a sovereign alliance with a dual membership treaty with another alliance, meaning you effectively attacked them too.

 

 

That complaint may well cut both ways. Best I know it was MInc who eventually made contact, though perhaps either party could have made contact more quickly than they did.

 

And I do not believe it is at all fair to paint MInc as allowing the initial attack. They did not allow it, they stood ready to discipline those members and pay reps.

 

They did NOT stand ready to see the remainder of their nations hit in retaliation without mounting a defense of their own. Nor can I see how anyone could reasonably have expected that of them.

 

If SWF wants to reject their offer and insist on war instead, I've said already I see that as their right, and it doesnt make them 'bad guys.' But it doesn't make them good guys either. I dont see how a moral high ground enters into the equation for either side at this point.

 

 

We've all made horrible mistakes at one point or another while in positions of power. There's nothing wrong with that. Do you really want this conflict to truly escalate because of foolish pride? The only rational thing left to do is for both of you to apologize for your members going off the rails and engage in a series of tech deals as a true sign of no hard feelings. 

 

I don't agree with the insinuation that LH made a 'horrible mistake' of any kind here - I believe he did not 'allow' the initial offense as you posit, but that he made a reasonable attempt at a diplomatic solution and his actions were reasonable under the circumstances. But your suggestion, stripped of the implication, seems reasonable as well.

[Franz Ferdinand]

The language in DL is pretty clear about how the respective parties view their sovereignty. This should have been something MI looked into before they escalated the conflict even more than it was already escalated.

True, however it's likely that they took a view that both alliances might share membership with the other however that the amount of nations on the SWF AA itself was 8, and thus well within the raiding limits they likely have in place. The FA capacity of the DL links are the same, yet the IA are different which could be the distinction which Monsters Inc likely jumped upon as per Article I Section 1.

 

In addition to this, UCR's withdrawal from Die Linke proved that the signatories have autonomy within the agreement which violated Article IV Section 1 where they revoked their signatures from the agreement. Either way, Article III Section 1 will get activated, or will have to be activated as per the treaty so they have 48 hours to act as per Section 3 (or 24 to be exact in regards to when this thread was posted).

 

As a result of this, until LSF complete their obligations, Monsters Inc and SWF can work out an agreement which both sides can agree on which per Article II as you refer to, they will need to do. If they can't get it worked out, war it is, and it's up to their respective allies to decide whether or not to get involved.

[Ayatollah Bromeini]

 

If it was not intended as escalation, surely you can at least see how it appeared to be escalation?

 

Immediate self defense might stretch to cover new declarations on the offending nations, but they hit other nations instead. Even if it was not intended to be, surely you see how that would look to the other party like an escalation?

 

 

 

That complaint may well cut both ways. Best I know it was MInc who eventually made contact, though perhaps either party could have made contact more quickly than they did.

 

And I do not believe it is at all fair to paint MInc as allowing the initial attack. They did not allow it, they stood ready to discipline those members and pay reps.

 

They did NOT stand ready to see the remainder of their nations hit in retaliation without mounting a defense of their own. Nor can I see how anyone could reasonably have expected that of them.

 

If SWF wants to reject their offer and insist on war instead, I've said already I see that as their right, and it doesnt make them 'bad guys.' But it doesn't make them good guys either. I dont see how a moral high ground enters into the equation for either side at this point.

 

 

 

I don't agree with the insinuation that LH made a 'horrible mistake' of any kind here - I believe he did not 'allow' the initial offense as you posit, but that he made a reasonable attempt at a diplomatic solution and his actions were reasonable under the circumstances. But your suggestion, stripped of the implication, seems reasonable as well.

 

 

That cuts both ways too. Two SWF nations hit MI after two of their nations attacked the SWF, and instead of looking at the situation and coming to the conclusion that their attacks were a misunderstanding, they jump SWF. Yet, this is still being treated as a wrong committed by the SWF, who were attacked first, and now have had far more damage done to them than MI have taken. 

 

MI only made contact after they decided to launch even more attacks against the SWF

 

It's more than fair considering they've stated several times in this very thread that it was their "right" to attack SWF. 

 

That's just it, instead of going to SWF after the retaliatory attacks (which anyone could see the reason behind these attacks), they decide to shoot first and ask questions later [i]as an official act[/i], which is not comparable to the rogue actions of a few SWF members.

 

 

 

SWF was attacked and asked for reparations for said attacks. Despite much more damage being done to the SWF, MI has refused any reps scheme that doesn't see them coming out on top. This is unreasonable and not the behavior of a party seeking peace at all. 

 

 

I do hope cooler heads can prevail and both parties can agree to a situation where both benefit, but I do not like the moral high ground that they are attempting to take. It's unbecoming 

[Ayatollah Bromeini]

True, however it's likely that they took a view that both alliances might share membership with the other however that the amount of nations on the SWF AA itself was 8, and thus well within the raiding limits they likely have in place. The FA capacity of the DL links are the same, yet the IA are different which could be the distinction which Monsters Inc likely jumped upon as per Article I Section 1.

 

In addition to this, UCR's withdrawal from Die Linke proved that the signatories have autonomy within the agreement which violated Article IV Section 1 where they revoked their signatures from the agreement. Either way, Article III Section 1 will get activated, or will have to be activated as per the treaty so they have 48 hours to act as per Section 3 (or 24 to be exact in regards to when this thread was posted).

 

As a result of this, until LSF complete their obligations, Monsters Inc and SWF can work out an agreement which both sides can agree on which per Article II as you refer to, they will need to do. If they can't get it worked out, war it is, and it's up to their respective allies to decide whether or not to get involved.

 

Considering the fact that MI retaliated against SWF before approaching them over what was a clear case of a raid gone bad, I think you're giving more credit than is reasonably due. 

[Unknown Smurf]

So they are wrong because they didn't take the aggressors first offer?

 

Not only did they not take the first offer, they didn't speak to Monsters gov before attacking, nor did they offer any counter offers when Monsters Inc came to the table offering reps and peace. 

 

Why do you see it differently when NPO/major alliances are held at war without terms but it's okay for SWF to bring their allies into a Monsters Inc curbstomp (or insinuate they are going to do so) without offering any sort of terms or coming to the table at all? 

 

 

Considering the fact that MI retaliated against SWF before approaching them over what was a clear case of a raid gone bad, I think you're giving more credit than is reasonably due. 

 

I would agree with you if it weren't for the bolded part. Monsters Inc did approach SWF and were ignored/told to fuck off. 

[Unknown Smurf]

Be aware other bigger parties may want your beer

 

It's okay, we can make this a kegger. Just be aware we expect $5. And we will get our money. 

 

I love how you feel it's appropriate to wave your dick around because you're bigger atm yet cry about it when DBDC does the same thing. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7rdg_tKzKQ

[Ayatollah Bromeini]

 

Not only did they not take the first offer, they didn't speak to Monsters gov before attacking, nor did they offer any counter offers when Monsters Inc came to the table offering reps and peace. 

 

Why do you see it differently when NPO/major alliances are held at war without terms but it's okay for SWF to bring their allies into a Monsters Inc curbstomp (or insinuate they are going to do so) without offering any sort of terms or coming to the table at all? 

 

 

I would agree with you if it weren't for the bolded part. Monsters Inc did approach SWF and were ignored/told to $%&@ off. 

 

From my understanding of events, they approached SWF only after launching even more attacks against them, rather than trying to work things out. 

 

They then demanded more reps than SWF were asking for despite doing more damage even in the middle of said conversation, and things kind of fell apart from there.

 

 

I would like to see screen shots from both parties backing up their respective claims, since there's a big "He-said-she-said" element to all of this

[Unknown Smurf]

 

From my understanding of events, they approached SWF only after launching even more attacks against them, rather than trying to work things out. 

 

They then demanded more reps than SWF were asking for despite doing more damage even in the middle of said conversation, and things kind of fell apart from there.

 

 

I would like to see screen shots from both parties backing up their respective claims, since there's a big "He-said-she-said" element to all of this

 

Something I'd definitely agree with/get behind. My attempts to resolve this has been met with hostility so I've assumed the worst. But I'm more than willing to take a step back and reevaluate the facts. 

[Tehmina]

hmmm..... I am so tempted to post here as a disagree with many points. But then, it will hamper the image off our friends on both sides so I will not. I hope others can do the same and discuss amicably about this on our forums.

[Franz Ferdinand]

hmmm..... I am so tempted to post here as a disagree with many points. But then, it will hamper the image off our friends on both sides so I will not. I hope others can do the same and discuss amicably about this on our forums.

This is an aside, when are you getting an IRC channel or using the domain for your forums?

[Neo Uruk]

Yes it would be much better if everyone sat in their little corner and did nothing until the main powers decided they wanted a war and then go to war for reasons that don't directly involve them. 
 
Also for the record, SWF isn't wrong for not coming to them. SWF is wrong because they didn't accept the offered reps.

Why are they wrong for not accepting reps? That's not a concrete right/wrong situation.

[Ayatollah Bromeini]

This is an aside, when are you getting an IRC channel or using the domain for your forums?

 

We have #CP-CN

 

It's just that no one uses it but me, lol. You'd be better off looking in #lsf

[Franz Ferdinand]

 

We have #CP-CN

 

It's just that no one uses it but me, lol. You'd be better off looking in #lsf

I tried earlier and the only active guy was AntiFa.

[Unknown Smurf]

Why are they wrong for not accepting reps? That's not a concrete right/wrong situation.

There's a fundamental difference between not accepting reps and refusing to give a counter offer and just declaring on the alliance. SWF could've asked for those 2 members to be ZIed or 100 million in reps or something else crazy and I wouldn't have had an issue. But for them to sit there and not even speak to Monsters and just pull in all their allies on rolling a new micro that's still figuring things out is unacceptable.

[keeology]

 
It's okay, we can make this a kegger. Just be aware we expect $5. And we will get our money. 
 
I love how you feel it's appropriate to wave your dick around because you're bigger atm yet cry about it when DBDC does the same thing. 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7rdg_tKzKQ

May I ask when I cry about DBDC? I've expressed my opinion about them, I'll admit not to thrilled about there raids but it is what it is. Now this thread isn't about DBDC it's about MI blundering about DoW on SWF

[Lord Hitchcock]

 

Not only did they not take the first offer, they didn't speak to Monsters gov before attacking, nor did they offer any counter offers when Monsters Inc came to the table offering reps and peace. 

 

 

This. the offer BMTH proposed was the best we would have done. Rejecting that with out a counter offer told us they were buying time

[Franz Ferdinand]

May I ask when I cry about DBDC? I've expressed my opinion about them, I'll admit not to thrilled about there raids but it is what it is. Now this thread isn't about DBDC it's about MI blundering about DoW on SWF

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