Question to Poison Clan

[energizer]

mogar, go back to your cave now please. If you do, ill let you have the next almighty "first post" in the next major alliance announcement because I know just how much that means to you.

Mhawk, you've already proven yourself to be an incapable leader, so to save us all time, please just crawl back to your bomb shelter. If you indeed have a problem with it, get your other nations outta peace mode. Otherwise, just go.

magicninja, this issue doesnt involve you nor do you have any reason to cry about it. Now go be a good boy and get GATO into another war like you did last time, im sure you have experience.

As for this "question", there is nothing more then the fact we can, and therefore, we will. This was nothing more then a raid, not an attack. If that were the case, you would see us use more then just conventional attacks.

[HeinousOne]

So if 10 alliances declared on PC, that would be us not able to honor them? Alliance protection is component of their treaties as well as their NS and momentary fighting capability.

The fact is you cannot possibly defend all your treaty partners at the same time. You hold too many. If your treaty partners are fine with knowing that in cases such as this TPF cannot be counted upon then all is well.

Because that is what PC is currently doing, which goes against their own charter, yet you seem to be perfectly fine with that, MK has been under siege before as well, would you have been happy if someone attacked your protectorate while that was occuring?

They stated they were not going to honor said optional defense agreement, that would be like someone attacking LoSS after hitting IRAN because they *might* come to our aid, which is absolutely retarded logic, and I'm claiming sovereign alliances should respect some people's wishes to simply be left alone in the cyberverse and not be an asshat just because their protector doesn't have enough slots to satisfy their blood lust.

So MK should have canceled all their treaties during the War of the Coalition for the same reasoning?

It is not about being happy that someone attacks your protectorate. Is unhappiness a proper defense? No, actual action is a proper defense. One of the harsh realities of a major war is that everyone's protectorates is a little more open to being raided. Future reprisals probably keeps most alliances from raiding protectorates like California. Obviously PC doesn't care if TPF hits them for raiding California so that protectorate treaty pretty much means nothing to PC and it should mean nothing to anyone currently at war with TPF.

As far as what they are doing being against their charter, I would disagree. Their members are not to raid nations of alliances with more then 15 members, that is a general statement or in other words a guideline. If a leader picks an alliance to not be covered by that rule then that would certainly fall under an alliance's right to make its own sovereign decisions.

Finally, if a tiny alliance wishes to be seperate from the world then they probably shouldnt pick a protector that is part of the world's controlling bloc as that is certainly not very neutral. If they wish neutrality they should ask a neutral alliance for protection. Asking for PC to be responsible for their choices but not asking TPF and California to be responsible for their choice to tie themselves together is akin to being hypocritical.

[der_ko]

So MK should have canceled all their treaties during the War of the Coalition for the same reasoning?

If MK were under attack for over a month and with no end in sight because of our own foolish pride, I hope we would inform and advice any protectorate to seek a new protector.

Edited May 24, 2009 by der_ko

[Mogar]

That's a logical fallacy. Not acting as some kind of world police is not the same thing as SUPPORTING actions of sovereign alliances.

In general, when you sign a treaty with an alliance you are binding yourself in some way to them, even if, like TPF, NATO and MCXA initially did in this war, you choose not to. It is the case, even if the terms don't specifically state YOU MUST DEFEND US AT ALL COSTS. This makes you a valid target.

As for this specific case - worse things happen at sea. TPF need to man up.

Again, does this mean it's acceptable for FoB, Immortals, and the other alliances who were at war with IRAN to declare on LoSS? we had a PIAT with them which had an optional defense clause THEY MIGHT POSSIBLY DEFEND US, PERHAPS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ATTACKED TOO?!?!!?!?! when it's obvious that someone is not going to follow the clause, that makes them not a valid target, California's leader's nation bio states they had no plans of following said clause, so why are they a valid target again? and TPF didn't bring this to the public's attention, but it's wrong for PC to have done in the first place, whether or not you want to actually admit this.

mogar, go back to your cave now please. If you do, ill let you have the next almighty "first post" in the next major alliance announcement because I know just how much that means to you.

Defending my friends and allies(I actually talked to California before they were made into a GP, I considered them for OPP originally) is more important to me than anything else, but way to use character attacks instead of refuting my points.

[deerokus]

If MK were under attack for over a month, with no end in sight because of our own foolish pride, I hope we would inform and advice any protectorate to seek a new protector.

It reminds me of my previous incarnation in this game as a member of \m/. When we were in a stuation much like TPF currently is.... one of our protectorates joined the other side

[mhawk]

Heinous, just a direct question. Do you support large scale alliance wide raids (no cb war) against established alliances of 700K NS?

[JBone]

MKs friends are nothing like the NPO and if they were I would no longer support them. If TPF so thouroughly supports the NPO then you deserve the same fate as them.

TPF will never again be in a position of great power and influence. You will become a small to medium power post war and I expect you'll still hang around the battered old Hegemony reminiscing about the good old days.

MK just signed a treaty with NPO....no?

What fate does NPO deserve?

TPF supports it's allies, through good times and bad.......once, way back when, we opted out of a war and left allies behind....ask some of your alliance mates about it.....that will never happen again. Christ, I would think that would be MKs biggest gripe with TPF, not the fact that we are holding firm.

You sir, baffle me.

[Roadie]

The fact is you cannot possibly defend all your treaty partners at the same time. You hold too many. If your treaty partners are fine with knowing that in cases such as this TPF cannot be counted upon then all is well.

Again, I ask how the number of treaties (provided that number is 1 or greater) is relevant under the current circumstances?

Edited May 24, 2009 by Roadie

[deerokus]

Heinous, just a direct question. Do you support large scale alliance wide raids (no cb war) against established alliances of 700K NS?

You make the same mistake. Supporting is not the same as not disapproving of! I can't emphasise enough how ridiculous that question is.

It is the logic of the westboro baptist church (er, on another planet).

Edited May 24, 2009 by jonny cardboard

[energizer]

Defending my friends and allies(I actually talked to California before they were made into a GP, I considered them for OPP originally) is more important to me than anything else, but way to use character attacks instead of refuting my points.

Oh boy, Well if thats your attitude, I can only wonder how far IRAN will go as you appear to favor foreign over domestic. Guess you never truly left TPF after all.

As for your "points", they have been repeated and answered for well over 12 pages, so forgive me if I do not follow the cycle. I find repetition to be quite boring.

[Dochartaigh]

This war is not the first time I've fought against them. I was against them in the Legion war. Again there is nothing here to impugn me on try as you might. Things I talk about are generally things I do. No doubt I'm human and I make mistakes but I'm not worried about someone pointing them out, just you haven't picked any yet.

Well lobby that an AA should be attacked and you'll be seen as a strong advocate of it and attract a strong response. I certainly didn't suggest that you had stated you would be leading attacks on PC if you look back on my posts and what was actually said. I said maybe you should... and yes that is a line NPO used to use and one that people eventually followed to wonderful success. It seems like it works, people should join AA's and work towards establishing their desired goals and fulfilling their moral convictions on Planet Bob or at least accepting subjectivity or relativity and stop shouting them down on the boards. Either way it behooves people to act not talk or we'll end up in the mess we were when NPO had power.

you fought TPF twice before but not over DefCon's disbandment? yes, you sure do stand up for your convictions. I fought against many alliances many times. does that count for the same thing then? have you attacked NPO since you seem wanton for their destruction? No, it does not seem you have. It seems you only fight the wars your alliance gets in. and since you state that there is nothing to impugn you, then what is there to impugn me? We have done exactly the same thing by your very own standards. You talk big and do nothing unless your alliance does. I talk big, and i defend my alliance (Polaris twice on the end of beatdowns) or do my duty towards my alliance.

so we have very little difference and yet you continue to think that your personal attacks on me mean anything other than you blowing a lot of hot air over nothing, since you yourself refuse to go on 1 man crusades.

[mhawk]

You make the same mistake. Supporting is not the same as not disapproving of! I can't emphasise enough how ridiculous that question is.

It is the logic of the westboro baptist church (er, on another planet).

Quite clearly I'm not saying he supports, I'm asking him if he does. I fail to see why asking a question is ridiculous.

Further to go around claiming fallacies while tossing in a charged ooc subject like westboro church is pretty fun. Go back to school.

Edited May 24, 2009 by mhawk

[HeinousOne]

Heinous, just a direct question. Do you support large scale alliance wide raids (no cb war) against established alliances of 700K NS?

Considering I do not raid myself? What I support is an alliance's right to make a sovereign decision. Some such decisions can be extremely boneheaded and result in disaster.

If this were "normal" conditions and PC was to large scale raid California after seeing a few of their members put in their bios that they were not protected by TPF then I would expect TPF and possibly friends with MDoAP agreements with TPF to come knocking on PC's door.

This is not normal conditions though. If PC was to do this to a protectorate of an alliance that PC was Not at war with then I would consider that another boneheaded move as the protector might not be able to do anything now but they will not forget and that cause for CB will not fade over time.

The circumstances between TPF and PC make this a much different situation though. PC is at war with TPF so really there is nothing that TPF can do that they already are not doing. PC wants to harm TPF in this war. It is personal, while I do not necessarily route such on, that does happen. They probably wish to harm TPF's protectorate web because under "normal" circumstances when TPF and PC seem to continuously be in a state of cold war, that web is a threat to PC. So in this particular case I do understand why PC did what it did although it was Very opportunistic. Proper usage of opportunities though does not signify bad leadership.

I support PC's actions in this, but I would assume it could lead to even more unorthodox actions in response to it. I would personally support those too.

I realize this was probably a longer answer then you desired Mhawk but this is an extremely complicated situation in my estimation so a simple yes or no answer would not due for me.

Edited May 24, 2009 by HeinousOne

[Vanadrin Failing]

Did California (A TPF Protectorate btw) do something so horrible you had to declare defacto war on them?

This is the only question of relevance to this thread, as it is the Original Post. The answer from Poison Clan is that California did nothing to provoke the attack, but that it was simply a Tech Raid. A Tech Raid requires no DoW. Poison Clan's rules DO allow for attacks on protectorates or attacks on alliances larger than 15 members with the express approval of the Deadly Poisons.

Question asked, answer provided.

What TPF and California do with this information is up to them, not up to the peanut gallery. Whether this attack WAS sanctioned or not by PC's Deadly Poisons is an internal Poison Clan matter and again - not up to the peanut gallery.

[Ejayrazz]

This is pathetic.

[HeinousOne]

Again, I ask how the number of treaties (provided that number is 1 or greater) is relevant under the current circumstances?

Because TPF's own power projection is not enough to actually come to the defense of that many treaties. Basically it is now a decrepit system. It was supported by the threat of The Continuum coming to aid TPF in defending their protectorates if a serious situation, like this war, should arise. All the arguing aside, actions end the debate as it is obvious TPF is not strong enough to defend all its protectorates. It cannot even defend one.

As a bit of personal reference, STA has a single protectorate. I would assume due to past actions of Tyga and STA that even if we were getting hammered we would find a way to get Some attacks on those attacking our protectorate. That protectorate knows that us not having 20 or so treaties means that there is a very good chance that we will honor the treaty we have with them. Why do you need so many protectorates anyways? I dont think you guys have answered that either so please do not continue to call me out again and again as I have answered this question multiple times already.

As far as to how the number of protectorates you have is relevant, the sheer number of them and the previous usage of them becomes a threat to anyone that is at war with TPF.

[mhawk]

Because TPF's own power projection is not enough to actually come to the defense of that many treaties. Basically it is now a decrepit system. It was supported by the threat of The Continuum coming to aid TPF in defending their protectorates if a serious situation, like this war, should arise. All the arguing aside, actions end the debate as it is obvious TPF is not strong enough to defend all its protectorates. It cannot even defend one.

As a bit of personal reference, STA has a single protectorate. I would assume due to past actions of Tyga and STA that even if we were getting hammered we would find a way to get Some attacks on those attacking our protectorate. That protectorate knows that us not having 20 or so treaties means that there is a very good chance that we will honor the treaty we have with them. Why do you need so many protectorates anyways? I dont think you guys have answered that either so please do not continue to call me out again and again as I have answered this question multiple times already.

As far as to how the number of protectorates you have is relevant, the sheer number of them and the previous usage of them becomes a threat to anyone that is at war with TPF.

Lets wait to judge tpf's protection until this is over.

[HeinousOne]

Lets wait to judge tpf's protection until this is over.

Fair enough, but you are already at war with them. Would you sign peace with intention to attack later due to the attacks on your protectorate?

[der_ko]

MK just signed a treaty with NPO....no?

What fate does NPO deserve?

TPF supports it's allies, through good times and bad.......once, way back when, we opted out of a war and left allies behind....ask some of your alliance mates about it.....that will never happen again. Christ, I would think that would be MKs biggest gripe with TPF, not the fact that we are holding firm.

You sir, baffle me.

Heh, I am perfectly aware what happened once, way back when you opted out of a war and left allies behind. I was there. TPFs situation in the UjW is not remotely similar to the one you currently occupy. You entered the UjW with the full intention of backing out and the war was still far from lost when you did. This war is beyond all doubt lost for you and Karma is just mopping up the remains.

Unfortunely, I cannot elaborate on what the NPO deservers due to alliance orders, but rest assured, they are getting it.

[Ejayrazz]

This is the only question of relevance to this thread, as it is the Original Post. The answer from Poison Clan is that California did nothing to provoke the attack, but that it was simply a Tech Raid. A Tech Raid requires no DoW. Poison Clan's rules DO allow for attacks on protectorates or attacks on alliances larger than 15 members with the express approval of the Deadly Poisons.

Question asked, answer provided.

What TPF and California do with this information is up to them, not up to the peanut gallery. Whether this attack WAS sanctioned or not by PC's Deadly Poisons is an internal Poison Clan matter and again - not up to the peanut gallery.

This logic doesn't work unfortunately in CN. Charter violations within politics has always been a major concern in this game, saying otherwise is playing dead.

[HeinousOne]

This logic doesn't work unfortunately in CN. Charter violations within politics has always been a major concern in this game, saying otherwise is playing dead.

How is it a charter violation though?

[JBone]

This is the only question of relevance to this thread, as it is the Original Post. The answer from Poison Clan is that California did nothing to provoke the attack, but that it was simply a Tech Raid. A Tech Raid requires no DoW. Poison Clan's rules DO allow for attacks on protectorates or attacks on alliances larger than 15 members with the express approval of the Deadly Poisons.

Question asked, answer provided.

What TPF and California do with this information is up to them, not up to the peanut gallery. Whether this attack WAS sanctioned or not by PC's Deadly Poisons is an internal Poison Clan matter and again - not up to the peanut gallery.

Agreed.

Just so we are clear that it is a raid on an AA we are obligated to protect.

Not a part of the Karma war in any way, shape or form.

We realise that we have no direct ability for military recourse.....at this time.

We also understand that when this war ends this situation does not.

I'm happy.

[Vanadrin Failing]

This logic doesn't work unfortunately in CN. Charter violations within politics has always been a major concern in this game, saying otherwise is playing dead.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. I was hoping that a tl;dr might help snap folks out of the petty bickering that it had devolved into. It really doesn't seem like either side will convince the other of their position no matter which facts are brought to light, so it seemed to be a bit of a waste of time.

Guess that's what I get for trying to Mentat my way around the OWF.

[Ejayrazz]

How is it a charter violation though?

Well, apparently if what they say is true about special permission, I understand the e-lawyering could state otherwise, however I feel it is cowardice they decided to attack while TPF was at war with someone else instead of attacking out of their fundamental principles and risking their alliance for it. How convenient for them.

[HeinousOne]

Agreed.

Just so we are clear that it is a raid on an AA we are obligated to protect.

Not a part of the Karma war in any way, shape or form.

We realise that we have no direct ability for military recourse.....at this time.

We also understand that when this war ends this situation does not.

I'm happy.

I am very interested in seeing how you guys work this out. I should thank you for adding another level of interesting to the world situation.

Will the rest of the Karma nations attacking TPF sign peace knowing that TPF plans to keep fighting PC or plans to attack PC later. Quite a story.

Well, apparently if what they say is true about special permission, I understand the e-lawyering could state otherwise, however I feel it is cowardice they decided to attack while TPF was at war with someone else instead of attacking out of their fundamental principles and risking their alliance for it. How convenient for them.

Look my friend, it was an incredibly opportunistic and rather cold hearted maneuver but I would hardly agree to it being cowardly. TPF and PC have been at odds for quite a long time, much longer then the length of this war so far. Part of that threat upon PC is the rather large series of protectorates TPF has. It seems to me like a calculated attempt to try and get some of the TPF protectorates to think that they are not very well protected by TPF.

You call it cowardly but I will call it calculated.

Edited May 24, 2009 by HeinousOne