Jump to content

Imperium Recognition of War


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Blackatron said:

 

[OOC] This is absolutely ridiculous; people attempting to punish others for alleged TOS violations by attacking them in game, if you believe that there are TOS violations then report them, if you have no evidence to back up your claims then the principle of innocent until proven guilty must surely apply, thus using it as some kind of CB is equally ridiculous [/OOC]

 

{OOC:There was no threat of war over ToS violations.  There were explicit comments that nothing Minc had as an issue was related to those concerns, and Cowboys had zero issues with Scotland (or knowledge of ToS issues) whatsoever and was literally there encouraging peace.  That interoperation is beyond crazy.

 

For reasons beyond my knowledge, ToS violations at Soctland's (ex)nations came up.  The discussion included me making the point that I had no knoweldge of if they were ToS violations, but that if someone knows about it an is then defending someone cheating that seems wrong:

 

The fact that Tywin is using this as an IC argument for a position that was at odds with that actually taken is frankly, despicable and digusting.}

 

 

 

Edited by hartfw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 452
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What exactly was the threat of forced disbandment over then? When I asked for proof of SCOTLAND antagonizing Minc, nothing was given. Yet Sengoku had no issues backing up Monsters Inc over the matter. Sengoku was very quick to jump to war tonight after I pointed this fact out. 

 

Any normal person can see that Sengoku was not actually interested in peace and just wanted to push us around.

Edited by Immortan Junka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said:

What exactly was the threat of forced disbandment over then? When I asked for proof of SCOTLAND antagonizing Minc, nothing was given. Yet Sengoku had no issues backing up Monsters Inc over the matter. Sengoku was very quick to jump to war tonight after I pointed this fact out. 

 

Any normal person can see that Sengoku was not actually interested in peace and just wanted to push us around.

 

I cannot speak to Minc's motivation and I won't. And I don't speak for Sengoku and made that clear there as well. 

 

There was a peace made in which SNX wasn't even a party.  In which Minc apologized as well as Scotland.  

 

If you cannot see that diplomacy was at play and working towards peace, it is because you are blind and dumb.

 

And even blind and dumb doesn't excuse your comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said:

What exactly was the threat of forced disbandment over then? When I asked for proof of SCOTLAND antagonizing Minc, nothing was given. Yet Sengoku had no issues backing up Monsters Inc over the matter.

 

 

It was given, you were just too busy spouting off that you weren't even paying attention. Here's a direct proof you so keenly desire:

 

Saturday 09:21: BMTH: What happens if they were to join a bloc? Tonight? I’m all for not letting them join, but I may be out voted. Never mind, I had them rejected

 

 

^ This statement was made the evening of the 'forced disbandment' thread. Separate Intelligence has that micro bloc being POSSE, SRA, VG and  there are rulers in several of those alliances (including Layton) who we have had run-ins with before. Allowing a micro bloc to form with those types of historical differences with Monsters Inc could not just occur easily, especially when we tested our own waters and were ridiculed for it. 

 

In light of the situation, VG and M Inc have buried the hatchet (tonight actually). And while you are parading that Cowboys backed a 'forced disbandments of an alliance- I'm telling you right now that we wouldn't give those little weasels a 48hr head start to run into PM if we indeed planned to break them apart. You were baited, and our own talks went very well, especially with VG as we cleared a lot of misunderstandings up.

 

HOWEVER, you continued to push push push push... even when we wrapped it up, to the point of annoying auctor and literally offending Hartw.

 

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, hartfw said:

 

{OOC:There was no threat of war over ToS violations.  There were explicit comments that nothing Minc had as an issue was related to those concerns, and Cowboys had zero issues with Scotland (or knowledge of ToS issues) whatsoever and was literally there encouraging peace.  That interoperation is beyond crazy.

 

For reasons beyond my knowledge, ToS violations at Soctland's (ex)nations came up.  The discussion included me making the point that if someone knows about it an is then defending someone cheating that seems wrong:

[7/10/2016 10:57:15 AM] @hartfw[Cowboys]: On the otherhand, defending that would be wrong, no?
[7/10/2016 10:57:35 AM] @hartfw[Cowboys]: I;m not presuming guilt here
[7/10/2016 10:57:54 AM] @hartfw[Cowboys]: But if you are aware of it and defend it, aren't you tacitly an accomplice?
]

 

The fact that Tywin is using this as an IC argument for a position that was at odds with that actually taken is frankly, despicable.}

 

[OOC] I don't like being in this type of discussion so will not post any further replies on this matter. I am also unsure as to why this topic came up, though it seems to be your own comments that first implied it. Your statement that "defending that would be wrong" was read by me as meaning that any military defence of Scotland by SNX would be defending TOS violators, meaning that that was the reason for the attack in the first place. [/OOC]

 

I find your role of "encouraging peace" confusing, for some reason you seem to have taken the side of Minc despite no formal ties and hostility in the recent past, that you were surprised that Junka took offence when his ally was asked to apologise for doing absolutely nothing under threat of war until disbandment is also quite baffling to me, how did you think he would react? How would any semi-decent alliance react?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Blackatron said:

I find your role of "encouraging peace" confusing, for some reason you seem to have taken the side of Minc despite no formal ties and hostility in the recent past, that you were surprised that Junka took offence when his ally was asked to apologise for doing absolutely nothing under threat of war until disbandment is also quite baffling to me, how did you think he would react? How would any semi-decent alliance react?

 

False, as stated above, there was indeed a motive and antagonism based on historical reasoning to call out Scotland's attention. 

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're just going to put the BMTH thing on the side (he's not a member of our allies) and note that you are transgressing on SCOTLAND'S sovereignty by demanding they do not sign a treaty or else be forcibly disbanded. And this was implicitly supported by Sengoku.

 

Negotiating a treaty is not "antagonism." All I did was comment on Sengoku's political support of Minc, and how they enabled Minc's behavior, and Sengoku apparently considers this a casus belli.

 

SNX was perfectly capable of handling Monsters Inc and our ally's dispute. Sengoku was likely going to back up Minc if we defended our ally against a threat of forced disbandment, and promoted a circus act in order to legitimize Minc's nonsense terms against a peaceful alliance.

 

Just because Sengoku is backed up by alot more firepower than SNX is doesn't make them right.

 

Edited by Immortan Junka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said:

We're just going to put the BMTH thing on the side (he's not a member of our allies) and note that you are transgressing on SCOTLAND'S sovereignty by demanding they do not sign a treaty or else be forcibly disbanded. And this was implicitly supported by Sengoku.

 

BMTH was confirmation based on what we already knew. and I am not putting it 'on the side' as then you don't have your poor little hissy fit to leap off of.

 

Quote

 

Negotiating a treaty is not "antagonism." All I did was comment on Sengoku's political support of Minc, and how they enabled Minc's behavior, and Sengoku apparently considers this a casus belli.

 

Sengoku doesn't give a rats ass about M Inc's political moves, I'm sure there is more to it than that.

 

Quote

 

SNX was perfectly capable of handling Monsters Inc and our ally's dispute. Sengoku was likely going to back up Minc if we defended our ally against a threat of forced disbandment, and promoted a circus act in order to legitimize Minc's nonsense terms against a peaceful alliance.

 

 

 

SNX wanted war and Hartw advocated peace. As seen in the logs, he agreed with 'non war terms'... let's not pretend he backed it 100% but at least he saw that it wasn't going to hurt your ally. WHICH without him, SCOTLAND would have been obliterated by now.

 

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that SNX was repeatedly threatened with war during the negotiations, if we wanted war we had enough of a casus belli to declare then and there. But SNX doesn't launch aggressive wars solely for the reason that our leaders have hurt feelings. We hold to a higher standard than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Blackatron said:

 

[OOC] I don't like being in this type of discussion so will not post any further replies on this matter. I am also unsure as to why this topic came up, though it seems to be your own comments that first implied it. Your statement that "defending that would be wrong" was read by me as meaning that any military defence of Scotland by SNX would be defending TOS violators, meaning that that was the reason for the attack in the first place. [/OOC]

 

I find your role of "encouraging peace" confusing, for some reason you seem to have taken the side of Minc despite no formal ties and hostility in the recent past, that you were surprised that Junka took offence when his ally was asked to apologise for doing absolutely nothing under threat of war until disbandment is also quite baffling to me, how did you think he would react? How would any semi-decent alliance react?

 

Let's see the standards according to the aggressor coalition:

 

Acceptable Behavior:

*Threatening forced disbandment

*Leaking sensitive screenshots 

*Breaking NAPs

*Threatening to attack via IRC query

*Demanding apologies for discussing a treaty

 

Not acceptable behavior:

*Pointing out Sengoku enables Minc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said:

But SNX doesn't launch aggressive wars solely for the reason that our leaders have hurt feelings. We hold to a higher standard than that.

 

10 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said:

 

Let's see the standards according to the aggressor

 

 

SNXs own admitted aggressive behavior:

 

<JoelJames>: But the fact is, that being attacked did more to increase activity among the member nations than just wasting away ever did
[7/10/2016 2:45:02 PM] L_H: sort of like M Inc at scotland
[7/10/2016 2:45:09 PM] L_H: how is it right for SNX, but not right for M Inc?
[7/10/2016 2:45:20 PM] Tevron: I'm slightly busy so i'll be ducking in/out
[7/10/2016 2:45:23 PM] L_H: is it because we didn't need DK to do our warring for us?
[7/10/2016 2:45:25 PM] Immortan_Junka: We had a casus belli against GG
[7/10/2016 2:45:36 PM] Immortan_Junka: You don't have one aganst SCOTLAND
[7/10/2016 2:45:44 PM] L_H: what was your CB against GG?
[7/10/2016 2:45:49 PM] Pansy: he does have one
[7/10/2016 2:45:50 PM] L_H: did they aggressivley threaten you?
[7/10/2016 2:45:55 PM] Pansy: you just don't like it
[7/10/2016 2:46:29 PM] JoelJames: Scotland's activity looks to be far greater than GG's was at the time of the roll
 

 

 

More double standard and clear evidence of SNXs own prior aggressive behavior: 

 

 

10/2016 2:43:13 PM] Pansy: I loved and cared for them
[7/10/2016 2:43:20 PM] L_H: were they aggressive towards the imperium? no, junka was mad at them from when they were all in SNX
[7/10/2016 2:43:25 PM] Pansy: they ignored my love
[7/10/2016 2:43:33 PM] JoelJames: I will not disagree with that
[7/10/2016 2:43:39 PM] Immortan_Junka: Ok why not let JoelJames talk since he was actually in GG
[7/10/2016 2:43:41 PM] L_H: junka surely will
[7/10/2016 2:43:46 PM] Immortan_Junka: rather than shouting him down
[7/10/2016 2:43:48 PM] hartfw[Cowboys]: Tevron is here to represent Atlas at my request
[7/10/2016 2:43:53 PM] L_H: we didn't
[7/10/2016 2:43:57 PM] L_H: helo tevron
[7/10/2016 2:43:57 PM] hartfw[Cowboys]: L_H, can you catch him up
[7/10/2016 2:44:15 PM] JoelJames: But the fact is, that being attacked did more to increase activity among the member nations than just wasting away ever did

 

 

Sounds like GG was really agressive towards the imperium before SNX disbanded them.

 

 

Junka, you are a liar, a fraud, and a hypocritical little weasel

 

 

 

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

Junka, you are a liar, a fraud, and a hypocritical little weasel

 

 

I'm just going to add you to ignore from here on, since you have absolutely no room to talk after breaking your NAP agreement with Jack Layton.

Edited by Immortan Junka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said:

 

I'm just going to add you to ignore from here on, since you have absolutely no room to talk after breaking your NAP agreement with Jack Layton.

 

 

Those logs clearly depict GG as a non threat to the imperium, only to be attacked by an aggressive SNX and yet we're the 'barbarians'...

 

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so I can get this straight, the order of events was as follows was:

A singular member of MI and a singular member of  Sengoku declared on SNX.
???
Tywin posts this thread.
More wars appear from NG and Sengoku.

Was there any attempt at diplomacy to discuss the actions of the Sengoku member?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A singular member of Mongols sanctioned Hartfw and all of a sudden, wars with no diplomacy.

 

Welcome to 2016 Mogar.

 

Also holy crap Occulus, getting in bed with Lord &amp;#&#036;@ and helping negotiate micro drama...now ive seen everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Any hostile action against the Imperium merits retaliation against any protectorates, tech suppliers, and new nations connected to aggressors. You hurt my friends, I will hurt yours too. Veteran of Vox Populi and EZI survivor... Don't tread on me!".

 

-------

 

You can come off the moral high ground now Junka when thats your bio. :P

 

So I might follow your logic and declare on Scotland for your aggression on my nation ;)

 

 

Edited by the rebel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, berbers said:

A singular member of Mongols sanctioned Hartfw and all of a sudden, wars with no diplomacy.

Yeah, let's completely ignore the better part of two years of diplomacy before that and pretend it was an isolated incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mogar said:

Just so I can get this straight, the order of events was as follows was:

A singular member of MI and a singular member of  Sengoku declared on SNX.
???
Tywin posts this thread.
More wars appear from NG and Sengoku.

 

 

Only 38 singular wars.

Edited by AvengerFin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mogar said:

Just so I can get this straight, the order of events was as follows was:

A singular member of MI and a singular member of  Sengoku declared on SNX.
???
Tywin posts this thread.
More wars appear from NG and Sengoku.

Was there any attempt at diplomacy to discuss the actions of the Sengoku member?

 

We were blitzed with 38 wars before posting this thread, please do not push a false narrative as that places you in the Lord Hitchcock category.

 

Others have raised a good point. Political relations have deteriorated to the point that simply having the right allies is seen as good enough to threaten and bully one's way through CN with zero provocation. There is zero shame in politics on the macro level these days, and if you point out the truth you are targeted for attack.

 

What separates a civilized alliance from barbarians is whether they are a growth based alliance, or entities focused solely on the destruction of the work of others. Barbarism might be the standard in CN politics now, but I am proud to say we men of the Imperium hold to a higher standard. We will hold our ground, fight for as long as it takes, and rebuild with our heads held high when they go on to pillage the next target.

Edited by Immortan Junka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Immortan Junka said:

 

Barbarism might be the standard in CN politics now, but I am proud to say we men of the Imperium hold to a higher standard. 

 

Your despicable behavior resulted in this war, when otherwise there was peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...