The Order Of Light Announcement

[BamaBuc]

Bama, I respect you a lot, so stop trying to defend TOOL on a case in which they are most obviously wrong.

TOOL doesn't phase me, they'll come out losing this war and losing their much undeserved sanction. Have a good day fellas.

If you expect me to stop defending my comrades, you respect me for the wrong reasons.

-Bama

[Ricardo]

Bama, I respect you a lot, so stop trying to defend TOOL on a case in which they are most obviously wrong.

TOOL doesn't phase me, they'll come out losing this war and losing their much undeserved sanction. Have a good day fellas.

undeserved?? hah

[Chet Ubet]

That justifiable reasoning being that OV was unjustly attacked by NPO? Or did you forget about that somehow? That is the reason MHA and ODN said they would ignore any treaties, because of that completely dishonorable and ridiculous action by the NPO.

Logical? Depends on if you think that NPO's attacks on OV were fair somehow. Coherent? I think so.

I don't think that MHA and ODN made the best decisions possible, but they at least had a reasoning behind it.

TOOL's reasoning is that they like TPF better than RoK, from what I can see, and also that an oA clause was used!!!!!!!! GASP!

Fun stuff.

I'm glad I don't have to post ^^ that is basically what I think too

[Heft]

That justifiable reasoning being that OV was unjustly attacked by NPO? Or did you forget about that somehow? That is the reason MHA and ODN said they would ignore any treaties, because of that completely dishonorable and ridiculous action by the NPO.

Logical? Depends on if you think that NPO's attacks on OV were fair somehow. Coherent? I think so.

I don't think that MHA and ODN made the best decisions possible, but they at least had a reasoning behind it.

TOOL's reasoning is that they like TPF better than RoK, from what I can see, and also that an oA clause was used!!!!!!!! GASP!

Fun stuff.

Good to know I was so spot on, I hadn't actually expected you to so blatantly confirm it. So, yes, ODN and MHA are justified because you agree with them, not because their actions had any greater merit in regards to attempting to honor treaties, and because you think TOOL is wrong to be on this "side" you've decided to ignore what their actual reasoning is and instead make stuff up to justify your opinion.

[Carter]

If you expect me to stop defending my comrades, you respect me for the wrong reasons.

-Bama

Perhaps, but defending comrades that are wrong in entering this war to begin with, is questionable to me.

[WarriorConcept]

The only major difference I see, and which I admittedly did miss, is the part about equal resources to each side. As for the part about bandwagoners, needless to say, we will not be pleased if anyone bandwagons on ANY of our allies, including those who entered on oA.

-Bama

You realize GR's allies were hit first, then when GR defended their own allies came to back them up in the form of DT, correct?

I fail to see how DT helping out their allies in GR through their treaty is bandwaggoning.

[BamaBuc]

Perhaps, but defending comrades that are wrong in entering this war to begin with, is questionable to me.

I don't believe we're wrong here. But there's not much I can say that Heft and GK haven't, and this is my fourth night in a row of losing sleep over this damn game, so we're going to have to continue this tomorrow. Good night.

-Bama

[Heft]

I don't believe we're wrong here. But there's not much I can say that Heft and GK haven't, and this is my fourth night in a row of losing sleep over this damn game, so we're going to have to continue this tomorrow. Good night.

-Bama

Only your fourth? Pansy.

[Carter]

Only your fourth? Pansy.

Tell me about it, you should be up to 6 easy.

[Grabem]

o/ Tool

I'm looking forward to fighting by your side.

[Bob]

Good to know I was so spot on, I hadn't actually expected you to so blatantly confirm it. So, yes, ODN and MHA are justified because you agree with them, not because their actions had any greater merit in regards to attempting to honor treaties, and because you think TOOL is wrong to be on this "side" you've decided to ignore what their actual reasoning is and instead make stuff up to justify your opinion.

I love how you fail to come back on any of the actual points, but yes, everything is a matter of opinion. There is very little that can be based in facts, and your very own posts are based in your own personal opinions.

When you attempt to argue "logic" most of what comes out is based around your opinion of something, and everything can be looked at from a different way, especially in politics such as these.

ODN and MHA are not right because I alone agree with them, but right because what they have done is an action supported by most people, for better or for worse, according to most people's sense of morals and the like. If it isn't the same for you, that's alright, you are allowed to think differently. Their actions had greater merit from a opinionated point of view, which is exactly what everyone in CN has. No one is going to say that they can be completely objective and view every situation objectively and ignore the reasons for a war and just attack based around their treaties, that is not how things work around here. CBs are important, and a bad one NEEDS to have that kind of reaction from alliances like MHA and ODN or we will see a gradual decline in the quality of CBs to "You smell funny." or "I AM HUNGRY MANNNNNNNNNNNNNN!".

I do think TOOL is wrong to be on this side, but not because they are on this side, if that makes sense. I think they are wrong for ignoring their treaty obligations to RoK with little to no justification, and instead honoring their treaty with TPF with terrible and confusing justification. If TOOL only had a treaty with TPF, I would not be here posting my opinions against them because I do like TOOL and a lot of their members. However, since they selectively chose which treaties to honor and which not to, I post.

You realize GR's allies were hit first, then when GR defended their own allies came to back them up in the form of DT, correct?

I fail to see how DT helping out their allies in GR through their treaty is bandwaggoning.

This post explains what happened well.

I can add on by saying TPF hit Avalanche knowing that GR would come in to defend them, purposefully trying to pull alliances into the war knowing that people would declare in defense of GR/Avalanche using oA clauses.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris

[WarriorConcept]

Good to know I was so spot on, I hadn't actually expected you to so blatantly confirm it. So, yes, ODN and MHA are justified because you agree with them, not because their actions had any greater merit in regards to attempting to honor treaties, and because you think TOOL is wrong to be on this "side" you've decided to ignore what their actual reasoning is and instead make stuff up to justify your opinion.

I think Bob has a real good understanding of their reasoning considering it was his ally that is being attacked, whom was called upon through treaty when GR was fighting TPF.

[BamaBuc]

You realize GR's allies were hit first, then when GR defended their own allies came to back them up in the form of DT, correct?

I fail to see how DT helping out their allies in GR through their treaty is bandwaggoning.

I do want to respond to this before I go to bed. I think you misunderstand. Like Polaris, we are not coming to the aid of allies who entered via optional aggression. TPF entered through mandatory defense of an ally. But we will be most... Displeased with anyone who bandwagons on ANY of our allies, including those who entered aggressively. That was not the reason for THIS DoW, we are simply stating that while we are not defending RoK and FEAR because they entered via optional aggression, we will still not take kindly to any who bandwagon upon them.

-Bama

[WarriorConcept]

I do want to respond to this before I go to bed. I think you misunderstand. Like Polaris, we are not coming to the aid of allies who entered via optional aggression. TPF entered through mandatory defense of an ally. But we will be most... Displeased with anyone who bandwagons on ANY of our allies, including those who entered aggressively. That was not the reason for THIS DoW, we are simply stating that while we are not defending RoK and FEAR because they entered via optional aggression, we will still not take kindly to any who bandwagon upon them.

-Bama

I'm sure that's exactly the reason you gave for this DoW.

[Heft]

I love how you fail to come back on any of the actual points, but yes, everything is a matter of opinion. There is very little that can be based in facts, and your very own posts are based in your own personal opinions.

When you attempt to argue "logic" most of what comes out is based around your opinion of something, and everything can be looked at from a different way, especially in politics such as these.

ODN and MHA are not right because I alone agree with them, but right because what they have done is an action supported by most people, for better or for worse, according to most people's sense of morals and the like. If it isn't the same for you, that's alright, you are allowed to think differently. Their actions had greater merit from a opinionated point of view, which is exactly what everyone in CN has. No one is going to say that they can be completely objective and view every situation objectively and ignore the reasons for a war and just attack based around their treaties, that is not how things work around here. CBs are important, and a bad one NEEDS to have that kind of reaction from alliances like MHA and ODN or we will see a gradual decline in the quality of CBs to "You smell funny." or "I AM HUNGRY MANNNNNNNNNNNNNN!".

I do think TOOL is wrong to be on this side, but not because they are on this side, if that makes sense. I think they are wrong for ignoring their treaty obligations to RoK with little to no justification, and instead honoring their treaty with TPF with terrible and confusing justification. If TOOL only had a treaty with TPF, I would not be here posting my opinions against them because I do like TOOL and a lot of their members. However, since they selectively chose which treaties to honor and which not to, I post.

So now we've moved from ODN and MHA being more honorable because you agree with them to because a lot of people agree with them? I really don't care what people think and never have. It doesn't have any bearing on my viewpoint, because I'm one of those (apparently few) people capable of independent critical thought. It's a curse, really.

There are facts at work here. ODN and MHA (especially ODN) are actively and blatantly ignoring certain treaties because they do not agree with those allies. Now unless you think that "mandatory" only means "mandatory as long as you agree with them" there is not rational way you can argue that that is "honorable" or correct. It may be the right decision to achieve some certain goals, but it's not particularly honorable or commendable.

TOOL set out a clear policy by which they would try to honor their various conflicting commitments in face of a conflict that seemed hellbent on putting them in situations where they couldn't possibly honor all of those commitments, and this policy is impartial and falls into a reasonable interpretation of their various treaties. So from an objective, rational perspective, they have shown more commitment to at least trying to honor their agreements than those others.

[grahamkeatley]

I'm sure that's exactly the reason you gave for this DoW.

No, but its the reason we havent come to the defence of RoK and FEAR. Our DoW outlined how TDT acted in a way to hit an ally obligating defensive treaties.

GK

[WarriorConcept]

TOOL set out a clear policy by which they would try to honor their various conflicting commitments in face of a conflict that seemed hellbent on putting them in situations where they couldn't possibly honor all of those commitments, and this policy is impartial and falls into a reasonable interpretation of their various treaties. So from an objective, rational perspective, they have shown more commitment to at least trying to honor their agreements than those others.

Okay.

Then explain them attacking someone who came in through a treaty.

[WarriorConcept]

No, but its the reason we havent come to the defence of RoK and FEAR. Our DoW outlined how TDT acted in a way to hit an ally obligating defensive treaties.

GK

Okay, so are you attacking anyone who attacks TPF, or just the ones who do so through treaty?

[Carter]

No, but its the reason we havent come to the defence of RoK and FEAR. Our DoW outlined how TDT acted in a way to hit an ally obligating defensive treaties.

GK

So because RoK entered the war via OA with VE when NPO decided to attack OV for a p.s. reason, you refuse to help them. Really solid allies there.

[Heft]

Okay.

Then explain them attacking someone who came in through a treaty.

Explain your mom, loser.

Has something to do with mandatory defense and optional aggression and I think it's been answered by others already a few times.

[WarriorConcept]

Explain your mom, loser.

Has something to do with mandatory defense and optional aggression and I think it's been answered by others already a few times.

Pfft, you always hate straight arguments

[Heft]

Pfft, you always hate straight arguments

And you hate straight men.

But seriously, TOOL would be better positioned to answer your question in better detail, and I wouldn't want to misstate something and then have people use my misunderstanding again them. That would just be mean and I would feel bad.

[Cyan1979]

Look, our gov already explained our reasons clearly. We were in clear communications with all our allies and stated our course of action every step of the way. If you don't want to agree with our reasoning, that is your right. TOOL isn't obligated to explain its actions to third parties, and we aren't here to please you. We're here to do what we feel is right. So, how about more fighting and less talking. This is my personal opinion btw, thanks. B)

Edited for grammar and clarity.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Cyan1979

[Bob]

So now we've moved from ODN and MHA being more honorable because you agree with them to because a lot of people agree with them? I really don't care what people think and never have. It doesn't have any bearing on my viewpoint, because I'm one of those (apparently few) people capable of independent critical thought. It's a curse, really.

OOC:I actually think that's impossible, being that you are human. Everyone is at some level influenced by their own personal biases.

The measurement of honor is a subjective one, no? They are more honorable because I agree with the reasoning behind their actions (this doesn't imply I like them, although in this situation, I do), less honorable if I didn't. That is the way honor works, its not a objective measurement, it is completely and totally subjective.

We can bicker back and forth about this, but its really a lost argument for both of us. Arguments completely based around opinion and definitions of honor have occurred before and will occur again, and they will never have a conclusive ending, because it is always in the eye of the beholder.

There are facts at work here. ODN and MHA (especially ODN) are actively and blatantly ignoring certain treaties because they do not agree with those allies. Now unless you think that "mandatory" only means "mandatory as long as you agree with them" there is not rational way you can argue that that is "honorable" or correct. It may be the right decision to achieve some certain goals, but it's not particularly honorable or commendable.

TOOL set out a clear policy by which they would try to honor their various conflicting commitments in face of a conflict that seemed hellbent on putting them in situations where they couldn't possibly honor all of those commitments, and this policy is impartial and falls into a reasonable interpretation of their various treaties. So from an objective, rational perspective, they have shown more commitment to at least trying to honor their agreements than those others.

Rational arguments? In my CN?!?!?

Attacking someone who came in through a treaty is honorable? I didn't know that..

Fixed quote tags >_>

Edited April 24, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris

[WarriorConcept]

And you hate straight men.

But seriously, TOOL would be better positioned to answer your question in better detail, and I wouldn't want to misstate something and then have people use my misunderstanding again them. That would just be mean and I would feel bad.

You're a terrible sith