Kiwi rage

[Alonso Quixano]

25 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said:

Your position is absurd in the extreme and not connected to the reality of CN governance. I challenge you to follow this policy if one or more of your members raid the New Pacific Order or any other Oculus alliance. Any ally you have should be extremely concerned with your position, which not only endangers your own alliance, but your allies as well, and this is something I intend to inform them of for the good of global stability.

 

Your position is not a "Socialist" one, it is a nationalist one, and one that ignores the purpose of a (civilized) alliance. According to you, Nations should be free to do as they please as alliance members, without their actions reflecting on the alliance.

 

By your logic, if I decide to raid your non-nuclear lower-tier nations, all I have to state is that it is my own action and not that of my alliance, and you would be a hypocrite to attack anyone other than myself. Of course, I would not claim such a nonsensical position; the nation is a cell in the alliance body and must abide by the alliance contract to maintain full membership.

 

As to your accusation that I am a "dictator," I will refer directly to The Sage and the Student:

 

 

It seems clear to me that your rhetoric is based on your desire to be some kind of rival to the Imperium on the brown team, and your anger that we salvaged the LPCN from what you thought would be certain destruction. You never supported us in the sanction war after we ensured your senator's election. You should not be surprised that we choose to work with the LPCN and, despite it's history, give it a fresh chance to work with the Imperium and to be more reliable partners.

 

 

Our allies know our stance, and have been in constant contact with them over our stances on subjects such as this, so I do hope you enjoy telling our allies on us. 

 

I do not ignore a civilized alliance, and I submit to you that you do not get to define a civilized alliance from another. Yes, by my logic, our alliance would only attack you, and only you if the leadership of ISX said it was okay to retaliate, not the entire membership base after the fact that we were given the okay to attack you. That is the civilized response to an uncivilized action, and if you can't see that, I will dispute your version of civilized alliances from here on out, on a philosophical level. 

 

I'm sorry you thought I was calling you dictator, but maybe if you go back, read who, and what I was addressing, you'd see I wasn't referring to you, but to the people involved in this war. This discussion of philosophy has never been about you, it's been about the war, and I hope you refrain from trying to make it about you. I clearly kept it about Wes, and the assumption of the CB. 

 

So if you would like to talk about LPCN, which I never brought up other than allowing members their freedom, and liberty in this world; please open a new threead, I encourage you to work with LPCN to help them see a different way, and if you want to think I'm/we're trying to be some sort of rival that's some misguided view on your part. If we get another senate seat or two from our bloc, we would love to work with ISX to be able to dictate brown team events. Also, since you brought it up, you could have avoided the sanction war by helping us back in august when we first came to you about keeping Hardin out of the senate, yet you waited until October to do something, which lead to Hardin's sanctions. Your members were sanctioned because of you ignoring an allies request of help to remove Hardin from the senate months before. It's not our obligation to sanction someone, even if we get sanctioned.

Though this us not about the LPCN, this is about the discussion of a bad CB.

 

Since you had to drag other topics into a debate about a CB, that have nothing to do with the CB, I will assume that you have nothing more to add to the discussion.  I'm glad to have been able discuss his CB with you, and our different philosophies on the subject. 

 

 

 

Edit; I quite like you, and have nothing bad to say about you. So I hope we can continue to debate our philosophies without you thinking i'm personally attacking you. 

Edited December 14, 2016 by Alonso Quixano

[Canik]

1 hour ago, Alonso Quixano said:

Canik. It's not white peace, it's a continuation of a botched CB, for the sake of continuing to attack members. The offenders are not there, thus every attack should end, which would be white peace. Just because they've agreed not to keep engaging without discussing it with the alliance they attacked, doesn't make it white peace, because it's a unilateral declaration. 

 

It may not be 100% white by the strictest definition of white peace but it is close. They aren't trying to impose any terms other than accepting the completion of current wars, which is next to nothing. Especially to a roguish little alliance of Fighting Kiwis. Personally, I find this fair enough. Though that may be because I don't really recognize The Flying Kiwis as a fully legitimate alliance (no offense, Wes). I feel like TFK is a roguish alliance that invites fighting and doesn't have real concern about survival or growth. That coupled with only having a few members and no strong protectors = not fully legitimate alliance in my opinion. I suspect you may disagree with this, you may say even a single nation should be treated with all the respect the largest alliances are but that's not my view things. Those nations can all join alliances for protection. If they stay out alone in the woods, they're inviting the wolves.. and trying to change the nature of that is futile. Of course I may be slightly biased since my alliance is also wolf-themed.

[AL Bundy]

1 hour ago, Alonso Quixano said:

I'm alright with it being a slap in the face, and would love to discuss in a different thread (here or on our embassy) about how the ideals of fascism are alive, and well here. I also look forward to your replies. 

 

Also, don't expect me to give credence to ancient philosophies that are right-ist in nature when discussing my philosophical view. It's not ignorance, education or, demagoguery that I use the term instead of the right-ist critiques you think I should use instead. 

 

 

 

Also; Al. I'm sorry my text based communication was too long for you. Let me shorten it for you. Though critique Junka, as well, for his books, so you don't look silly for only attacking someone not defending you, verse someone ho is defending you. I know, I know, that's how things work, and you're just feable enough to go along with the status quo. So let me shorten my books down for you. 

 

You. Wrong. You. Dumb. - Hopefully that is more comprehensible for you. 

 

 

Canik. It's not white peace, it's a continuation of a botched CB, for the sake of continuing to attack members. The offenders are not there, thus every attack should end, which would be white peace. Just because they've agreed not to keep engaging without discussing it with the alliance they attacked, doesn't make it white peace, because it's a unilateral declaration. 

Still to long, bullet points work better than a tons of paragraphs. More people might actually read it.

 

Al

[Morphine]

Although late to the party. I must agree that, Alpha Wolves and everybody else had every right to declare on all of Kiwi. If Wes was given the opportunity to kick obvious rogues with no intention of membership in Kiwi, and he did not take the opportunity to boot them from the alliance, then he puts his entire alliance at risk. 

 

Now on the other side of that, I agree with Alonso that until the member has to be given the opportunity to peace out his wars, he shouldnt be booted. In this case, it was obvious that the offending nations had no interest in membership. 

[Lord Hitchcock]

I look at Wes's alliance to be the same as the alliance 'Unaligned' (ideology speaking; with no real web of government / nation babysitting). Would you really attack the entire alliance over a rouge(s) sitting there?

 

I agree with Alonso.

 

Sure it's some fun, free, 'politically safe', cheap shots; but if you think it's for some greater good then I'll sell you a bridge.

 

(Hang strong Wes, Kiwis fly forever!)

 

Edited December 14, 2016 by Lord Hitchcock

[Canik]

54 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

I look at Wes's alliance to be the same as the alliance 'Unaligned' (ideology speaking; with no real web of government / nation babysitting). Would you really attack the entire alliance over a rouge(s) sitting there?

 

I see their leader is in my range and they don't list any treaties in their bio. I might hit him later this week just to sharpen my teeth a bit. Thanks Lord Hitchcock for bringing them to my attention.

[Lord Hitchcock]

19 minutes ago, Canik said:

 

I see their leader is in my range and they don't list any treaties in their bio. I might hit him later this week just to sharpen my teeth a bit. Thanks Lord Hitchcock for bringing them to my attention.

 

I'm glad you are doing something rather than washing your hands of NEW.

 

Pro Tip: don't wait until an ally is in trouble to e-lawyer your way out of a commitment. It makes you look despicable. If you weren't going to back NEW then you should have canceled it beforehand. 

 

It is no surprise to me that you are jumping on the flying-kiwis-deserves-this-cleanse bandwagon.

 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2016 by Lord Hitchcock

[Lord Hitchcock]

And before you say "we had allies on both sides Mumbo-jumbo", let us not forget your original spout of 'staying neutral' in the conflict only to bandwagon on the opposite coalition of NEW for the face time and glamour.

 

You sir, are a discrace, and you disgust me.

 

 

[The Zigur]

We don't need lectures on morality from the breaker of NAPs and sponsor of spying.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Immortan Junka

[Banned]

On 12/12/2016 at 3:28 PM, Alonso Quixano said:

I fail to see how this was an appropriate response, given that wes said you could hit the members, which you would have done if he did kick them out or not. It's in poor taste to attack the whole alliance if you were given the okay to hit the offenders. 

Absolutely disagree. 

 

If one nation goes rogue and the head of state says "sure, come and get him" that's one thing.  When 3 nations do it, and the head of state takes such a "meh" posture on the matter, it's absolutely fair game to assume the alliance as a whole has become fair game.  If 2 or more isn't a conspiracy, then where is the magic cutoff?  If IRON (used as an example) with its 262 nations only attacks you with 261 of them, but their leader says "well, that other one harbors no ill will" then what, you shouldn't hit him too? 

 

One nation hitting you is usually at best a sketchy CB, 3 nations from one AA going after your AA and your allies?  Giving the alliance that does that any kind of an opportunity to resolve the situation without bloodshed is being generous.

[Canik]

54 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

Pro Tip: don't wait until an ally is in trouble to e-lawyer your way out of a commitment. It makes you look despicable. If you weren't going to back NEW then you should have canceled it beforehand. 

NEW attacked Oculus (which contained our allies). We never agreed to any commitment that would obligate us to support them in that. Lord Hitchcock doesn't know what he's talking about and FTW is well-known as being a fine ally to have.

[Alonso Quixano]

4 hours ago, Banned said:

Absolutely disagree. 

 

If one nation goes rogue and the head of state says "sure, come and get him" that's one thing.  When 3 nations do it, and the head of state takes such a "meh" posture on the matter, it's absolutely fair game to assume the alliance as a whole has become fair game.  If 2 or more isn't a conspiracy, then where is the magic cutoff?  If IRON (used as an example) with its 262 nations only attacks you with 261 of them, but their leader says "well, that other one harbors no ill will" then what, you shouldn't hit him too? 

 

One nation hitting you is usually at best a sketchy CB, 3 nations from one AA going after your AA and your allies?  Giving the alliance that does that any kind of an opportunity to resolve the situation without bloodshed is being generous.

 

It wasn't such a meh posture, he said, which was not disputed by anyone attacking him and the alliance, you could attack the rogues. The only reason, let me reiterate, the only reason why they attacked was because he didn't reply to their last message, after he said they could attack. These facts have not been disputed. You don't need have someone removed from the alliance to attack them, that line of argument is silly. Say SLAP had four rogues attack us, the protectorate would come to you, and say we would like to retaliate. We wouldn't ask you to kick them out, because members who raid/rogue can still be valuable members after their mistakes. 

 

Again, your analogy is flawed. Any civilized alliance can target those who have attacked them, an uncivilized response is to attack everyone when the alliance sovereign said have the offenders. So the right response is to attack all 261 nations instead of 262, if the one person as the leader says, yes you can attack all the rogues. Not all 262 because you can, and want to exact a pound of flesh. 

 

It shouldn't be considered generous, it should be considered the correct way a alliance should handle it's business. 

[wes the wise]

11 hours ago, Canik said:

 

It may not be 100% white by the strictest definition of white peace but it is close. They aren't trying to impose any terms other than accepting the completion of current wars, which is next to nothing. Especially to a roguish little alliance of Fighting Kiwis. Personally, I find this fair enough. Though that may be because I don't really recognize The Flying Kiwis as a fully legitimate alliance (no offense, Wes). I feel like TFK is a roguish alliance that invites fighting and doesn't have real concern about survival or growth. That coupled with only having a few members and no strong protectors = not fully legitimate alliance in my opinion. I suspect you may disagree with this, you may say even a single nation should be treated with all the respect the largest alliances are but that's not my view things. Those nations can all join alliances for protection. If they stay out alone in the woods, they're inviting the wolves.. and trying to change the nature of that is futile. Of course I may be slightly biased since my alliance is also wolf-themed.

Although I disagree with you on our legitimacy, you are pretty much correct on the rest of your assessment. Consider yourselves lucky that we are letting you off the hook so quickly. The peace are acceptable and in accordance with our charter policy of white peace to end all wars, so it is done. 

9 hours ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

I look at Wes's alliance to be the same as the alliance 'Unaligned' (ideology speaking; with no real web of government / nation babysitting). Would you really attack the entire alliance over a rouge(s) sitting there?

 

I agree with Alonso.

 

Sure it's some fun, free, 'politically safe', cheap shots; but if you think it's for some greater good then I'll sell you a bridge.

 

(Hang strong Wes, Kiwis fly forever!)

 

Thank you Lord Hitchcock. I tend to agree. Part of me wants to treat these whipper snappers a lesson, but I am bound by our charter to walk away from this. 

7 hours ago, Banned said:

Absolutely disagree. 

 

If one nation goes rogue and the head of state says "sure, come and get him" that's one thing.  When 3 nations do it, and the head of state takes such a "meh" posture on the matter, it's absolutely fair game to assume the alliance as a whole has become fair game.  If 2 or more isn't a conspiracy, then where is the magic cutoff?  If IRON (used as an example) with its 262 nations only attacks you with 261 of them, but their leader says "well, that other one harbors no ill will" then what, you shouldn't hit him too? 

 

One nation hitting you is usually at best a sketchy CB, 3 nations from one AA going after your AA and your allies?  Giving the alliance that does that any kind of an opportunity to resolve the situation without bloodshed is being generous.

Not trying to be argumentative, but weren't all 3 nations controlled by the same individual? Additionally, you were already at war with this individual prior to him residing on the Kiwi AA, correct?  That was by your charge, and eventually by his own admission. I tried to make it very clear that you all were welcome to attack those nations in question without any interference whatsoever from the Kiwis. Short of that, Kiwis won't be told nor compelled with regards of what outsiders think the Kiwis should be doing with regards to internal affairs. 

2 hours ago, Alonso Quixano said:

 

It wasn't such a meh posture, he said, which was not disputed by anyone attacking him and the alliance, you could attack the rogues. The only reason, let me reiterate, the only reason why they attacked was because he didn't reply to their last message, after he said they could attack. These facts have not been disputed. You don't need have someone removed from the alliance to attack them, that line of argument is silly. Say SLAP had four rogues attack us, the protectorate would come to you, and say we would like to retaliate. We wouldn't ask you to kick them out, because members who raid/rogue can still be valuable members after their mistakes. 

 

Again, your analogy is flawed. Any civilized alliance can target those who have attacked them, an uncivilized response is to attack everyone when the alliance sovereign said have the offenders. So the right response is to attack all 261 nations instead of 262, if the one person as the leader says, yes you can attack all the rogues. Not all 262 because you can, and want to exact a pound of flesh. 

 

It shouldn't be considered generous, it should be considered the correct way a alliance should handle it's business. 

I've enjoyed reading your spirited defense of the Kiwis, and I think your attitude of liberty and personal choices, individual responsibility is too often missing from Planet Bob. I think you understand the essence of what the Flying Kiwis stand for. I don't think others get it, because essentially they view an AA affiliation as the nation, and the individual nations as subjects of that AA (nation). Differing views such as this are reflected in our policy decisions, and when they meet, will often lead to conflict. During my long time tenure in CCC govt, I understand where they are coming from, even if I strongly disagree. 

[Roal36]

Alliances like SNX are of one kind. They consider themselfs as a single organisation with nations reduced to private citizens. 

Then there are others like LSF, aNiMaLz and Flying Kiwis who follow a different more individualistic libertarian ideology. I think we should be ready to treat each as they are instead of applying a single form of reasoning and justice to all. The position Wes took and argued by Alonso passionately can't really be faulted.

 

So when Banned says that its a fault of wes then what he really means is that in their eyes according their specific customs Wes was wrong and Kiwis at fault.  

In my book  and my understamdimg of this situation Wes isn't at fault. He didn't help the rogues and he didn't ask anyone to protect or not attack these rogues either. 

[AL Bundy]

2 hours ago, wes the wise said:

14 hours ago, Canik said:

 

It may not be 100% white by the strictest definition of white peace but it is close. They aren't trying to impose any terms other than accepting the completion of current wars, which is next to nothing. Especially to a roguish little alliance of Fighting Kiwis. Personally, I find this fair enough. Though that may be because I don't really recognize The Flying Kiwis as a fully legitimate alliance (no offense, Wes). I feel like TFK is a roguish alliance that invites fighting and doesn't have real concern about survival or growth. That coupled with only having a few members and no strong protectors = not fully legitimate alliance in my opinion. I suspect you may disagree with this, you may say even a single nation should be treated with all the respect the largest alliances are but that's not my view things. Those nations can all join alliances for protection. If they stay out alone in the woods, they're inviting the wolves.. and trying to change the nature of that is futile. Of course I may be slightly biased since my alliance is also wolf-themed.

Although I disagree with you on our legitimacy, you are pretty much correct on the rest of your assessment. Consider yourselves lucky that we are letting you off the hook so quickly. The peace are acceptable and in accordance with our charter policy of white peace to end all wars, so it is done. 

If you are saying your letting the Alpha Wolves off the hook you can consider our wars to continue. I am giving your alliance peace since the rogue nations are deleted from the game, even though you did not kick the rogues nations in your alliance that were attacking our allies, like we kindly asked for. 

 

I am working off the peace terms the Apocalypse Meow (AM) asked to give you, by letting the wars expire and declaring no new wars. I even told my guys they can send peace early, because other member of your alliance have been nice to war with. I don't know in what world you think your the guy with a fish on the hook because I see it differently..

 

 

Al Bundy

Alpha Wolves

[The Zigur]

The objective of any civilized alliance is to lift her membership out of the state of nature. To do this, the constituent nations surrender some degree of sovereignty to the alliance sovereign in order to reduce internal conflict and deter foreign aggression.

 

It's fine to have preferences as to the degree of power held by the member nations relative to the sovereign. However, the weaker the alliance sovereign, the less capable it will be of resolving internal and external conflicts, and the less freedom the membership will have in pursuing their full potential as nations.

[Lord Hitchcock]

6 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said:

The objective of any civilized alliance is to lift her membership out of the state of nature. To do this, the constituent nations surrender some degree of sovereignty to the alliance sovereign in order to reduce internal conflict and deter foreign aggression.

 

This has been proven false time-and-time again... MHA, TPF, KoK, NEW.... and pretty much the current state of Planet Bob and the crisis of larger alliances hollowing out and "lifted up nations' rotting away.

 

I'm sure Wes is having more fun in his current affairs than when he was in CCC

 

Edited December 14, 2016 by Lord Hitchcock

[Razgriz24]

23 minutes ago, AL Bundy said:

If you are saying your letting the Alpha Wolves off the hook...

 

I'd be interested in more elaboration here too. We came in to do a fast operation with a clear goal, the goal was accomplished and Kiwis were forgiven for harboring multis and rogues... because without multis and rogues, what kind of game would this be? Now if you want to say you're letting wolves go, I can understand that you might be frustrated at a time like this; having us come in as we pleased and then losing like 4 nations to admins and such... but remember, I didnt even know who you were a few days ago and all of this could have been avoided.

 

Want to know more?

Spoiler

 

[The Zigur]

35 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

This has been proven false time-and-time again... MHA, TPF, KoK, NEW.... and pretty much the current state of Planet Bob and the crisis of larger alliances hollowing out and "lifted up nations' rotting away.

 

I'm sure Wes is having more fun in his current affairs than when he was in CCC

 

 

You believe in Chaos, this is well known to us all. But you entire statement is subjective and based on what you want to see in CN (more chaos) and has nothing to do with what I was addressing (the need for a strong sovereign to lift an alliance above the state of nature).

 

Anyone who knows about the Imperium realizes we are one of the most active alliances, yet we never start wars without a Casus Belli or break civilized norms.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Immortan Junka

[Banned]

1 hour ago, Roal36 said:

So when Banned says that its a fault of wes then what he really means is that in their eyes according their specific customs Wes was wrong and Kiwis at fault.  

In my book  and my understamdimg of this situation Wes isn't at fault. He didn't help the rogues and he didn't ask anyone to protect or not attack these rogues either. 

Sure, I'm working from some generalities.  And often times things aren't so black and white.  As such, in the case of one nation pulling some rogue action from an AA, a lot of things are generally taken into consideration.  What is that nations position in the alliance (actions of standing gov members are generally viewed as being held to a much higher standard than standard members), what is the already existing diplomatic landscape (rogue actions from nations that share treaty ties could reasonably be expected to be dealt with somewhat differently than rogue actions taken between alliances that share a troubled past or that have no diplomatic contact at all).  Still, it's a damn generous thing to make any attempts at a diplomtic solution when 3 nations from the AA start launching wars at you, and something that should never be considered universally expected behavior.

 

3 hours ago, wes the wise said:

Not trying to be argumentative, but weren't all 3 nations controlled by the same individual? Additionally, you were already at war with this individual prior to him residing on the Kiwi AA, correct?  That was by your charge, and eventually by his own admission. I tried to make it very clear that you all were welcome to attack those nations in question without any interference whatsoever from the Kiwis. Short of that, Kiwis won't be told nor compelled with regards of what outsiders think the Kiwis should be doing with regards to internal affairs.

That wasn't something that was being closely tracked, and there's no reasonable expectation to believe that an initial reaction by Alpha Wolves or anybody would have instantly assumed that.  I wasn't even personally aware of those multis until the situation arose, and yes, I notified you of what I discovered in the process.  Regardless of your awareness of the charges, and the obvious attacks coming from your AA that you couldn't miss, you made a decision, fully aware of what the response to that decision would be.  It's not like what was on the table was left blank when razgriz discussed the matter with you.  So if you're a victim of anything, it's by your own choice.

[White Chocolate]

7 hours ago, Alonso Quixano said:

 

 You don't need have someone removed from the alliance to attack them, that line of argument is silly. Say SLAP had four rogues attack us, the protectorate would come to you, and say we would like to retaliate. We wouldn't ask you to kick them out, because members who raid/rogue can still be valuable members after their mistakes. 

 

 

It shouldn't be considered generous, it should be considered the correct way a alliance should handle it's business. 

Actually, it isn't silly.  Like it or not, there are logical reasons why the "common practice" is the way it is, and this is coming from someone who has personally tested them & who personally favors individual freedoms over "order" from a pure philosophical standpoint.  The problem with pure philosophy however is that it sounds better in theory than it works in practice. 

 

As much as I dislike sounding like Junka,  what it comes down to is that the basic reason that nations join with other nations in alliances is to say to the rest of the world essentially "I'm with this group,  if you mess with me these other nations will mess with you."  Anything else (including "alliance community" which is what other people often point to) can be had without being in the same alliance affiliation.  I'm not under the AA of SLAP, for instance, however I would still say that I'm a member of their "community" even through I'm not on their AA.  I am also not currently on the Last Call AA but I assure you,  I am considered a member of the Last Call community.

 

4 hours ago, wes the wise said:

 

I've enjoyed reading your spirited defense of the Kiwis, and I think your attitude of liberty and personal choices, individual responsibility is too often missing from Planet Bob. I think you understand the essence of what the Flying Kiwis stand for. I don't think others get it, because essentially they view an AA affiliation as the nation, and the individual nations as subjects of that AA (nation). Differing views such as this are reflected in our policy decisions, and when they meet, will often lead to conflict. During my long time tenure in CCC govt, I understand where they are coming from, even if I strongly disagree. 

Question:  If someone decided to raid a member of Kiwis and there were people who could help in Kiwis, would you expect them to help or would the be totally free to do nothing?  Another Question - if a member of your AA attacked another member of your AA, would you let it happen (let's say they hate each other) or demand that they stop and if that didn't happen, take some other course of action against one or both? 

2 hours ago, Roal36 said:

Alliances like SNX are of one kind. They consider themselfs as a single organisation with nations reduced to private citizens. 

Then there are others like LSF, aNiMaLz and Flying Kiwis who follow a different more individualistic libertarian ideology. I think we should be ready to treat each as they are instead of applying a single form of reasoning and justice to all. The position Wes took and argued by Alonso passionately can't really be faulted.

 

So when Banned says that its a fault of wes then what he really means is that in their eyes according their specific customs Wes was wrong and Kiwis at fault.  

In my book  and my understamdimg of this situation Wes isn't at fault. He didn't help the rogues and he didn't ask anyone to protect or not attack these rogues either. 

There are specific reasons behind the specific customs.  If Kiwis wants to not follow "common practice", it's their choice.  However other people are free to respond or not to their choice to not follow what is usually done as well.

1 hour ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

This has been proven false time-and-time again... MHA, TPF, KoK, NEW.... and pretty much the current state of Planet Bob and the crisis of larger alliances hollowing out and "lifted up nations' rotting away.

 

I'm sure Wes is having more fun in his current affairs than when he was in CCC

 

probably

 

and welcome back

Edited December 14, 2016 by White Chocolate

[Les Paul Supreme]

2 hours ago, Razgriz24 said:

 

I'd be interested in more elaboration here too. We came in to do a fast operation with a clear goal, the goal was accomplished and Kiwis were forgiven for harboring multis and rogues... because without multis and rogues, what kind of game would this be? Now if you want to say you're letting wolves go, I can understand that you might be frustrated at a time like this; having us come in as we pleased and then losing like 4 nations to admins and such... but remember, I didnt even know who you were a few days ago and all of this could have been avoided.

 

Want to know more?

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I think what Wes is meaning is that all of us in the alliance enjoy a good war and have no objections to fighting for a long time (personally I could fight continously for years if there was the cause).  In this specific case however there seems little value in either side fighting as we prefer our wars to be just and with some meaning rather than purely for the sake of it (as with rogues).  As this all started due to a misunderstanding and rightful retaliation against rogue nations who were ghosting our alliance with that variable out of the way peace is the obvious way to go since as far as I can make out there would be no meaning behind continuing for either party.  Where we differed in this is being ordered to kick somebody by an outside authority or we would be destroyed.  It was stated from the start that they could be dealt with how the opposing alliance saw fit and that they held no position within the alliance however we would not be kicking them with a gun pointed to our heads as it would impinge on the sovereign nature of the alliance.  I'm afraid that saying this is "just the way things are" is wrong.  It may be just the way things are if there is a large size difference but I have been part of many negotiations in the past as part of a larger alliance where things have been very easily and peacefully resolved.  Regardless of who is right or wrong though, lets keep civil guys

[Alonso Quixano]

2 hours ago, White Chocolate said:

Actually, it isn't silly.  Like it or not, there are logical reasons why the "common practice" is the way it is, and this is coming from someone who has personally tested them & who personally favors individual freedoms over "order" from a pure philosophical standpoint.  The problem with pure philosophy however is that it sounds better in theory than it works in practice. 

 

As much as I dislike sounding like Junka,  what it comes down to is that the basic reason that nations join with other nations in alliances is to say to the rest of the world essentially "I'm with this group,  if you mess with me these other nations will mess with you."  Anything else (including "alliance community" which is what other people often point to) can be had without being in the same alliance affiliation.  I'm not under the AA of SLAP, for instance, however I would still say that I'm a member of their "community" even through I'm not on their AA.  I am also not currently on the Last Call AA but I assure you,  I am considered a member of the Last Call community.

 

You at least touch upon important subjects, such as nations, and community vs the end all be all head of the alliance. I wont touch the other aspects of your post as they weren't directed at me, but your comparison/premise is flawed as the offended were given rights over the offended. I do find it silly, common practice can change, and thus will your argument change once common practice changes? I think we have two different ideas of what order actually constitutes in this realm, as I find that AM, and AW were being disorderly in their actions, and TFK were being orderly. 

 

Though I enjoy your ideas on community, as any member who joins the protectorate, shows good faith towards it's collective, then leaves still has a vote in most of our voteable mandates. 

 

 

Also, we have extended protection to Wes, and the Kiwi's. Hopefully after the round of wars nothing else gets declared, as les paul supreme said that AM, and AW took wes the wrong way, so I assume there will be no more wars declared over this silly engagement. 

[The Zigur]

One of the delightful rogues still on the AA:

 

(12/2/2016 9:55:57 PM) 
<xR1> no hard feelings ol chap
<Immortan_Junka> Why are you attacking my people
<xR1> tbh im quitting CN
<xR1> i have tech and infra and 8 bil to blow
<Immortan_Junka> So you are going to try to ruin the game for other people
<xR1> Yeah pretty much
<xR1> i mean they have adequate warchests
<xR1> im hardly ruining anything for them
<Immortan_Junka> We get into alot of wars and we view every day of peace as a chance to grow warchests so I understand you are just having fun but it isnt appreciated
<Immortan_Junka> theres plenty of lazy alliances out there to attack
<xR1> like who?
<xR1> i was hoping you would make subtle references to me being isis tbh
<Immortan_Junka> No we already beat ISIS
<Immortan_Junka> How long are you planning on this, is this going to have to be an emperor khan deal or are you going to go harass someone else
<xR1> what the emperor khan deal?
<Immortan_Junka> a different rogue
<xR1> idk
<xR1> i might keep it up until i get bored
<Immortan_Junka> Id rather not have to pull alot of favors because you happen to be larger than my guys, but we have plenty of friends and there are easier targets out there
<xR1> or i might build out of range
<xR1> or ill drop into your mid tier and have fun
<xR1> the possibilities are endless
<Immortan_Junka> Ok, Im done talking here
<Immortan_Junka> We can talk again later
<xR1> Why? Am I raising your blood pressure?

[White Chocolate]

1 hour ago, Alonso Quixano said:

 

. I do find it silly, common practice can change, and thus will your argument change once common practice changes?

 

It depends on why the "common practice" changed in the first place. 

 

Basically, what I've found (and like I've said, I've had my time of going against the grain - more than a few times actually) is that what we call "common practice" changes when Planet Bob changes.  For instance,  nations can change their resources now whereas when I first joined, they couldn't.  Thus, the "common practices" around resource trading was one way when I got here and then started changing when nations could just chose what they wanted.  There was some time between where people figured out what worked and what didn't, but it has been long enough that I could tell you what most people do now. 

 

Sure, feel free to do something different.  Not saying people can not.  However don't be surprised if you find it hard to find people to do it your way when it's easier for most of us to do it some other way.

 

Best way to get people to your way of thinking as far as Planet Bob goes (and often just in general) is not to focus on what is "right", but on what best for the majority These days that usually means what involves the least amount of work.  

 

In this particular case,  it would of been very little work for Kiwis to just kick out the offending members as opposed to the leaders of the various other alliances having to explain to their membership 1) why they could only attack some members of the alliance and not others and 2) why they can't just go attacking whoever they want to attack as members of the alliance they belong to without putting the entire alliance at risk.  In other words, why do those nations get to have "fun" and still be members of their alliance and we don't? Way easier (especially considering Kiwis is a small alliance and not all that powerful) to just allow the members to attack the entire group. 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2016 by White Chocolate