Poaching from our ranks- NSO

[ChairmanHal]

Some alliance leaders care about what their membership thinks before taking drastic action.

I don't think anyone was looking for a DoW from Polaris or anything that severe.

However, surely he has thought about the issue of recruiting from other active alliances and can articulate his opinion on the matter publicly...well unless that opinion strongly diverges from his ally, then it would become a diplomatic problem.

No, I still seriously doubt we'll be talking about all this past tomorrow. However, it's not exactly the best moment of Ivan's career. People aren't even trying hard and coming up with direct quotes where he's contradicted himself. As for NSO, this is the second major recruiting controversy they've been involved with in the past few months. Not good, however you want to spin it.

[dejarue]

That's a lovely inaccurate comparison.

Really? Because I see here a lot of "we do what we want". I see a small alliance that would otherwise be getting rolled for its crappy behavior and a bigger alliance holding the dogs at bay.

I can't see what part of the comparison you're taking issue with.

[Marty McFly]

so all the hegemony who defended NPO cant be blamed and shouldn't have gotten terms at all then.

Q and 1V committed the same crimes as Pacifica.

[Corinan]

Ok, so the message from beau was sent yesterday at 3am. Just after the messages occured. Why then did Ivan ignore it, instead respond to GOP and not us? Beau did everything in her power to contact the correct people. We had to put this out to let the world know what was happening here. And yes, we broke radio silence to do so.

OOC: Ivan didn't get online until today.

[Fallen Fool]

I watched GPA dying and Green becoming a wasteland, it will never happen in Aqua.

Someone's threatening to fight a war against TDO?

As an aside, I wonder how eager NSO would be to work on this diplomatically if they weren't facing CN-wide outrage

You realize we made peace with GOP without the whole "CN-wide outrage" thing right?

, some fairly threatening statements by Grämlins, MHA

You mean the statements which were meant to be intimidating but really weren't?

Lets just say TDO has been good friends with us for a long time so to answer your question just let NSO try something and you will find out

o finch

Where has any government member of the NSO stated that they wanted this escalated further?

[Hydro]

nvm dopp got it before me

Edited July 3, 2009 by Hydro

[John Warbuck]

16:54 Rajistani available?

16:57 Beauchamp|TDO Hey

16:57 Beauchamp|TDO Sorry for the delay.

16:57 Rajistani TDO should send recruitment messages to NSO

16:57 Rajistani ^.^

16:57 Rajistani I'll do it, if you let me "ghost" your AA

16:57 Rajistani what you think?

16:57 Beauchamp|TDO I just saw that thread. We're not going to get involved in that though.

16:58 Rajistani aight well im going to do it

16:58 Rajistani just letting you know

16:58 Beauchamp|TDO Ghost us?

16:58 Rajistani Also i'm telling everyone you told me I could do it.

16:58 Rajistani Ghost you and recruit from TDO

16:58 Rajistani err

16:58 Rajistani NSO*

16:58 Rajistani smile.gif

16:58 Beauchamp|TDO why

16:58 Rajistani Join the Sexier order.

16:58 Rajistani Because I'm bored

16:58 Rajistani smile.gif

16:59 Beauchamp|TDO haha, advertise for your alliance?

17:00 Rajistani i don't have an alliance

17:00 Beauchamp|TDO oh.

17:01 Beauchamp|TDO i don't think people will be very happy with you if you start doing this.

17:01 Rajistani Probably not, but i'm not here to make people happy, im here to entertain myself.

TDO does not believe in poaching, so if this guy sends anyone a message, please disregard it.

[Fallen Fool]

I demand an apology from the NSO in regards to all the dirty messages I've received from Fallen Fool over the years

Never

Thuggery's classic expression of fear, "shut up, this doesn't concern you."

You have to be a thug to not like someone involving themselves in your business?

[Rooman33]

Q and 1V committed the same crimes as Pacifica.

I've observed this whole conversation and it's amazing to me that no matter what the context of the conversation or who is involved, all drama filters into a conversation about the NPO. Reductio ad Pacifica, I suppose.

(OOC: Godwin would be amused. As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the NPO or Moo approaches 1. CN truly is a microcosm of RL politics.)

Edited July 3, 2009 by Rooman33

[Heracles the Great]

I am lucky to actually check my nation once a week, as I just told Beauchamp in reply to the PM he just sent me here. You were told several times by my people that the best way to reach me was via PM here or on the NSO forum. I am not sure how that came across as it being a good idea to send me a message ingame or demand that I magically appear on IRC but whatever.

I have conveyed to my people, again via PM here, my sentiments regarding the ongoing discussion between NSO and TDO.

Actually - I have read the logs, and they never specified where to PM you - only saying to PM you as you don't use IRC

03:18 Heft Also Ivan rarely gets on IRC

03:18 Heft But he is generally responsive to PMs

But perhaps I missed it or they were told to PM you via the forums in a different format...

[Nizzle]

That's quite the leap, and I think you know it.

Is it? Most treaties have a clause within that states the defensive option is not valid if the other partner caused the hostility to be brought to them.

Further, hiding behind the argument "No matter what they did, we are defending them as treaty partners" defeats many other positions held by some of your allies and members. I don't think being "honorable" would apply here, either. This isn't a case of manufactured spying a la Hegemony.

Also, thank you for preventing repeats of the NPO dramaz.

[ChairmanHal]

After the thread was opened. TDO should have waited until they spoke directly to Ivan instead of starting this.

OOC: Someday you'll figure out that your significant other is not answering the phone because they aren't in the mood to talk to you, and not because they forgot their cell phone like they said.

IC: Your defense of your ally is admirable, but probably misplaced. Ivan and NSO are guilty. The question being debated is guilty of what? Robbing cookies from the cookie jar when mom isn't looking or grand theft? I've seen opinions in this thread that call it one way or the other which is...amusing.

[cookavich]

Is it? Most treaties have a clause within that states the defensive option is not valid if the other partner caused the hostility to be brought to them.

Further, hiding behind the argument "No matter what they did, we are defending them as treaty partners" defeats many other positions held by some of your allies and members. I don't think being "honorable" would apply here, either. This isn't a case of manufactured spying a la Hegemony.

Also, thank you for preventing repeats of the NPO dramaz.

Polar's stated position is that we obey the letter and spirit of the agreements we make. This will always be the case. Now, read the text of Frostbite and connect the dots.

[Heracles the Great]

Is it? Most treaties have a clause within that states the defensive option is not valid if the other partner caused the hostility to be brought to them.

Further, hiding behind the argument "No matter what they did, we are defending them as treaty partners" defeats many other positions held by some of your allies and members. I don't think being "honorable" would apply here, either. This isn't a case of manufactured spying a la Hegemony.

Also, thank you for preventing repeats of the NPO dramaz.

Not to mention they'd have to be activating an optional aggression clause in Frostbite to join in since NSO's actions were the agression that started this and their attitude has pretty much been "do something about it" from the beginning.

Even if it is perceived as defensive -

Should any signatory alliance be subject to an act of unwarranted aggression

that little clause right there kinda ruins that for the NpO.

[Nizzle]

Polar's stated position is that we obey the letter and spirit of the agreements we make. This will always be the case. Now, read the text of Frostbite and connect the dots.

"Should any signatory alliance be subject to an act of unwarranted aggression,"

The dots made a question mark.

EDIT: Heracles and I are different people....I swear us posting the same thing at nearly the same time is a coincidence.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Nizzle

[Marty McFly]

OOC: Someday you'll figure out that your significant other is not answering the phone because they aren't in the mood to talk to you, and not because they forgot their cell phone like they said.

IC: Your defense of your ally is admirable, but probably misplaced. Ivan and NSO are guilty. The question being debated is guilty of what? Robbing cookies from the cookie jar when mom isn't looking or grand theft? I've seen opinions in this thread that call it one way or the other which is...amusing.

I never once agreed nor disagreed that what NSO did was right. I am arguing TDO's handling of the situation in that they did not get in direct contact with NSO's leader before bringing this here. If Ivan had blown them off in a PM, then by all means this would be the best option left to deal with the issue, save a DoW.

OOC - It wouldn't be a problem and I'd probably do the same from time to time. Whose to say it hasn't happened in the past?

[KainIIIC]

Not to mention they'd have to be activating an optional aggression clause in Frostbite to join in since NSO's actions were the agression that started this and their attitude has pretty much been "do something about it" from the beginning.

Even if it is perceived as defensive - that little clause right there kinda ruins that for the NpO.

what constitutes aggression and what constitutes defense? Chances are, if TDO were to attack NSO, NSO's defense treaties would be activated, not the aggression ones. There is nowhere in the TDO constitution that says recruiting messages are an act of war, and it would be laughable to suggest such a thing.

[Neo Uruk]

Really? Because I see here a lot of "we do what we want". I see a small alliance that would otherwise be getting rolled for its crappy behavior and a bigger alliance holding the dogs at bay.

I can't see what part of the comparison you're taking issue with.

The fact that NpO hasn't exactly condoned NSO's actions, nor have they commited crime such as EZI or anything of the sort.

[cookavich]

Not to mention they'd have to be activating an optional aggression clause in Frostbite to join in since NSO's actions were the agression that started this and their attitude has pretty much been "do something about it" from the beginning.

Even if it is perceived as defensive - that little clause right there kinda ruins that for the NpO.

Whether aggression (ie an actual attack, not just tough guy talk) is warranted or unwarranted is really up to the interpretation of Polaris, is it not?

[Nizzle]

Whether aggression (ie an actual attack, not just tough guy talk) is warranted or unwarranted is really up to the interpretation of Polaris, is it not?

It would indeed be. However, it would be an enormous policy change for you all...wouldn't it? I mean, despite what Ivan is trying to accomplish, it's fairly accepted that poaching members can in some cases be grounds for war, reparations, or a sincere apology. It is indeed NSO's option to ignore this time honored standard of alliance sovereignty, but it is also the option of everyone else to not allow it.

[Ivan Moldavi]

OOC: Someday you'll figure out that your significant other is not answering the phone because they aren't in the mood to talk to you, and not because they forgot their cell phone like they said.

IC: Your defense of your ally is admirable, but probably misplaced. Ivan and NSO are guilty. The question being debated is guilty of what? Robbing cookies from the cookie jar when mom isn't looking or grand theft? I've seen opinions in this thread that call it one way or the other which is...amusing.

I have never claimed innocence.

To those continuing to spout about this being a cause for war you can either put up or shut up for all I care. I believe this thread has run it's course. The same tired faces keep posting the same tired lines in hopes of the same tired responses. It has started to bore me.

[flak attack]

Whether aggression (ie an actual attack, not just tough guy talk) is warranted or unwarranted is really up to the interpretation of Polaris, is it not?

And feeling that it's unwarranted means you're condoning the behavior.

[Heracles the Great]

what constitutes aggression and what constitutes defense? Chances are, if TDO were to attack NSO, NSO's defense treaties would be activated, not the aggression ones. There is nowhere in the TDO constitution that says recruiting messages are an act of war, and it would be laughable to suggest such a thing.

Attempting to recruit members of an alliance is a breach of that alliance's sovereignty and has been considered such for atleast the last 2 years that I have been a ruler in this world. Suggesting that it is not is essentially what NSO was attempting to do with this act and has admittedly failed horribly at.

Whether aggression (ie an actual attack, not just tough guy talk) is warranted or unwarranted is really up to the interpretation of Polaris, is it not?

Seeing as TDO perceived the actions of NSO as aggressive acts that breached their sovereignty, they would be defending themselves if they retaliated. It is up to them to decide what form of retaliation is warrented should the NSO fail to conceed to their demands. The NpO would have a hard time spinning their way into the battle as they'd either be going in via an oA, meaning they condone the actions commited by the NSO (despite many saying otherwise) or through a oD since it's obvious that the NSO would have brought it upon themselves.

But go ahead and try to spin your web of propoganda so that TDO are the evil juggernaut and the NpO is protecting it's poor lil friend who is continously bullied by the horrible neutrals...

[Nizzle]

I have never claimed innocence.

To those continuing to spout about this being a cause for war you can either put up or shut up for all I care. I believe this thread has run it's course. The same tired faces keep posting the same tired lines in hopes of the same tired responses. It has started to bore me.

We brought in a new shift. The return to NPO drama cannot be allowed.

[youwish959]

And feeling that it's unwarranted means you're condoning the behavior.

Or it's saying it doesn't warrant a declaration of war.