Resumption of Hostilies

[Dochartaigh]

We want reparations due to innocent nations being attacked.

you alliance attacks FAIL. FAIL initiates their treaty with GDI. seems right to me. Sorum is a gov member. and since FAIL has treaties, Sorum's attacks were not recognized as a simple tech raid. especially since most in your alliance have stated this was a vengeance attack and that Sorum was not gonna simply give peace after one round of attacks. Thus, Sorum's attacks cannot even be constituted as a tech raid since his attitude was to do anything but what raiders do.

your argument fails on many many levels, much like your alliance.

[Emperor Stranger]

Because they attacked tF nations that were not attacking RV. It was a tech raid. GDI declared on multiple nations not involved in the tech raid and so escalated it to alliance war.

I believe it was an alliance war when reps were not accepted.

[Sileath]

Because they attacked tF nations that were not attacking RV. It was a tech raid. GDI declared on multiple nations not involved in the tech raid and so escalated it to alliance war.

This^

GDI could have jumped Sorum, but instead you chose to attack other tF nations. You made this an alliance war, not us.

[hizzy]

Honestly, every time I see a thread posted by RV it's like seeing cops and paramedics on the side of the highway; I know there's a huge wreck, but I always have to slow down and take a look, then I inevitably regret wasting time to look at a piece of tangled steel.

[Dochartaigh]

Because they attacked tF nations that were not attacking RV. It was a tech raid. GDI declared on multiple nations not involved in the tech raid and so escalated it to alliance war.

that is where you are wrong. FAIL had a defensive treaty which does not make this a tech raid. Sorum's attitude also does not make it a tech raid. so just as sileath's argument fails on many levels, since yours is the same.... well hopefully you get the picture.

[Proko]

This^

GDI could have jumped Sorum, but instead you chose to attack other tF nations. You made this an alliance war, not us.

I think that could be a fair claim. But you attacked a nation with protectors and there are consequences for that. You ignored my question and I don't think it was an unfair one.

Will the Family pay for the damages done to RV's nations? GDI, in my experience with them, are reasonable people. I'm sure if you can come to an agreement with RV, an arrangement of mutual reparations can be probably be realized.

[Rebel Virginia]

Oh RV not attention seeking and truth bending again are we. Get over yourself already.

On a personal level and not one representing MHA, i do support Sorum and The Family, you finally got your just desserts in running your mouth and now ur still running it off.

Attention seeking and truth bending? I'm merely pointing out that the Family has gone back on the peace agreement. But of course you hate the use of public channels, you said it yourself.

In a conversation with you about the use of public channels, I stated that they were looked down upon because they go against the norms. And it makes you uncomfortable when people live out of the norm. This is what you said to me in turn.

[15:47] <%ScutterBug[MHA]> lol

[15:47] <%ScutterBug[MHA]> against the norms

[15:47] <%ScutterBug[MHA]> no

[15:47] <%ScutterBug[MHA]> political agendas yes

[15:48] <%ScutterBug[MHA]> some things are best left out of the publics eyes

[15:48] <%ScutterBug[MHA]> like everything

So no, I'm not surprised you support the Family and would rather this not be revealed to the world. Actually, during the talks the Family expressed interest in hiding the fact GDI and tF were fighting. Wonder if they had this planned all along.

Also, you are a Triumvirate of the MHA. It doesn't matter if this is just your personal opinion. You are always speaking for your alliance, no matter what.

[BlackjackCF]

Attention seeking and truth bending? I'm merely pointing out that the Family has gone back on the peace agreement. But of course you hate the use of public channels, you said it yourself.

In a conversation with you about the use of public channels, I stated that they were looked down upon because they go against the norms. And it makes you uncomfortable when people live out of the norm. This is what you said to me in turn.

[15:47] <%ScutterBug[MHA]> lol

[15:47] <%ScutterBug[MHA]> against the norms

[15:47] <%ScutterBug[MHA]> no

[15:47] <%ScutterBug[MHA]> political agendas yes

[15:48] <%ScutterBug[MHA]> some things are best left out of the publics eyes

[15:48] <%ScutterBug[MHA]> like everything

So no, I'm not surprised you support the Family and would rather this not be revealed to the world. Actually, during the talks the Family expressed interest in hiding the fact GDI and tF were fighting. Wonder if they had this planned all along.

Also, you are a Triumvirate of the MHA. It doesn't matter if this is just your personal opinion. You are always speaking for your alliance, no matter what.

RV, your beef is with us, not MHA.

[Aeternos Astramora]

that is where you are wrong. FAIL had a defensive treaty which does not make this a tech raid. Sorum's attitude also does not make it a tech raid. so just as sileath's argument fails on many levels, since yours is the same.... well hopefully you get the picture.

Having a defensive treaty doesn't mean it's no longer a tech raid. It just means that the tech raider is likely to get jumped. GDI acted like morons and didn't attack Sorum, the tech raider, and escalated it into a alliance war.

[Sileath]

I think that could be a fair claim. But you attacked a nation with protectors and there are consequences for that. You ignored my question and I don't think it was an unfair one.

Will the Family pay for the damages done to RV's nations? GDI, in my experience with them, are reasonable people. I'm sure if you can come to an agreement with RV, an arrangement of mutual reparations can be probably be realized.

That's up to Sorum whether or not he wants to pay reps to RV.

The nation with protectors could have taken it up with the person who attacked them - as it was a tech raid, we would not have get involved.

The argument that tF supported this tech raid is flawed - if you thought that, GDI would have attacked Sorum, and you would have seen that we would not have defended him. Instead, you attacked uninvolved nations to guarantee we would defend our comrades then tried to play it off as us setting up Sorum to start an alliance war.

[TehChron]

Because they attacked tF nations that were not attacking RV. It was a tech raid. GDI declared on multiple nations not involved in the tech raid and so escalated it to alliance war.

tF did declare that anyone not in FAIL retaliating against Sorum would be retaliated against by tF members.

Considering a state of war in support of Sorum was stated as being inevitable, its hardly fair to say they were uninvolved. Moreover, it kind of eliminates the lie tF has been perpetuating about how they intended to leave Sorum out to dry over his tech raid.

Oh well, its not like you guys have any business determining 1) what constitutes and alliance 2) Whether or not declaring war on someone is a valid DB (No dur?) 3) Making terms for peace and then backing off them and attacking GDI nations anyway.

You guys fail. Hard.

[Sileath]

Having a defensive treaty doesn't mean it's no longer a tech raid. It just means that the tech raider is likely to get jumped. GDI acted like morons and didn't attack Sorum, the tech raider, and escalated it into a alliance war.

This cannot be emphasized enough. If GDI cared about defending FAIL, they would have attacked Sorum, not uninvolved nations.

[Penguin]

We want reparations due to innocent nations being attacked.

Polar has had some protectorates that don't meet everyone's rigorous criteria of "being an alliance". Simply because The Family's charter does not recognize alliances with less than 5 members doesn't mean that any treaties those alliances hold won't be activated. If you don't believe me, try raiding any of the dozens of protectorates with less than 5 members and see what happens.

Expecting reparations for a war you started is ridiculous. They offered you peace. You accepted it. Now you have gone back on your word. It takes a lot of nerve to still demand reparations after breaking a signed peace treaty. Why don't you go back to the negotiating table and reach peace terms appropriate for an alliance starting an aggressive war without a reason other than "We don't like RV"?

[Starcraftmazter]

If that's the way you see it, WOLF hereby doesn't see the AA "Dark Fist" as a sovereign alliance.

Difference is, if we were to hold a poll asking whether a 2 man or a 45 man alliance is more legitimate, the 45 would win.

Are we really having this argument again? FAIL has a forum, a charter, a government, and treaties. In fact, we are getting offers for treaties at the moment.

None of that makes you an alliance if you aren't one. Just like setting up a lawyer's office doesn't make me a lawyer. Just like buying a white coat doesn't make me a doctor. Just like making paper airplanes don't make me an aircraft engineer.

If you were a real alliance, you would not conduct such acts of stupidity, you would recruit some nations, and behave like a productive leader of your alliance, interacting appropriately with the rest of the community. However, you do not do any of these things.

Any alliance that has an Alliance Affiliation and more than 1 member is an alliance.

I don't see what the number of people on a particular AA have anything to do with legitimising that AA as being a real alliance. I think a much better measurement of legitimacy is the degree to which said alliance acts like a real alliance.

None doesnt have a charter, and therefore, is most assuredly not an alliance.

My nation has a charter - that doesn't make it an alliance.

[Aeternos Astramora]

tF did declare that anyone not in FAIL retaliating against Sorum would be retaliated against by tF members.

This seems to be disputed as Sileath expressly has denied this.

[Dochartaigh]

Having a defensive treaty doesn't mean it's no longer a tech raid. It just means that the tech raider is likely to get jumped. GDI acted like morons and didn't attack Sorum, the tech raider, and escalated it into a alliance war.

actually that is false. since a defensive treaty is something signed stating that the either alliance reserve the right to defend each other. GDI did just this. the escalation was made by Sorum for attacking an alliance with treaties in the first place. the full blame for this fiasco is squarely upon the shoulders of tF and no one else.

[scutterbug]

Attention seeking and truth bending? I'm merely pointing out that the Family has gone back on the peace agreement. But of course you hate the use of public channels, you said it yourself.

In a conversation with you about the use of public channels, I stated that they were looked down upon because they go against the norms. And it makes you uncomfortable when people live out of the norm. This is what you said to me in turn.

[15:47] <%ScutterBug[MHA]> lol

[15:47] <%ScutterBug[MHA]> against the norms

[15:47] <%ScutterBug[MHA]> no

[15:47] <%ScutterBug[MHA]> political agendas yes

[15:48] <%ScutterBug[MHA]> some things are best left out of the publics eyes

[15:48] <%ScutterBug[MHA]> like everything

So no, I'm not surprised you support the Family and would rather this not be revealed to the world. Actually, during the talks the Family expressed interest in hiding the fact GDI and tF were fighting. Wonder if they had this planned all along.

Also, you are a Triumvirate of the MHA. It doesn't matter if this is just your personal opinion. You are always speaking for your alliance, no matter what.

Get off your high horse will you. You're not the centre of the CN world and pasting logs from public channels wont help you. Im entitled to my opinion. As for me being MHA trium so? Im also entitled to a personal opinion that does not reflect the MHA's opinion, so again quit bsing and word twisting

[Proko]

That's up to Sorum whether or not he wants to pay reps to RV.

The nation with protectors could have taken it up with the person who attacked them - as it was a tech raid, we would not have get involved.

The argument that tF supported this tech raid is flawed - if you thought that, GDI would have attacked Sorum, and you would have seen that we would not have defended him. Instead, you attacked uninvolved nations to guarantee we would defend our comrades then tried to play it off as us setting up Sorum to start an alliance war.

Well, I assume it is up to the leader of the Family, as someone was sure to point out that Sorum is not the leader, but rather the Minister of Foreign Affairs. If he is in charge of the reps here, then I really have no idea what separates him from the supreme executive of your alliance.

I think you're correct in your claim - GDI probably should not have attacked the Family beyond just Sorum himself, and the details of the attack aren't really known to me. But the Family is still endorsing this tech raid...or they wouldn't be endorsing it right now. You have your member's back, and I can appreciate that.

However, Rebel Virginia's nation was still attacked unjustly, regardless of GDI's response.

Is there a figure for the amount of damage sustained by the Family from GDI's attacks? And, to Rebel Virginia, is there a figure for the amount of damage done to your nation from the Family's attacks?

[Sileath]

Polar has had some protectorates that don't meet everyone's rigorous criteria of "being an alliance". Simply because The Family's charter does not recognize alliances with less than 5 members doesn't mean that any treaties those alliances hold won't be activated. If you don't believe me, try raiding any of the dozens of protectorates with less than 5 members and see what happens.

Expecting reparations for a war you started is ridiculous. They offered you peace. You accepted it. Now you have gone back on your word. It takes a lot of nerve to still demand reparations after breaking a signed peace treaty. Why don't you go back to the negotiating table and reach peace terms appropriate for an alliance starting an aggressive war without a reason other than "We don't like RV"?

A non-government member saying tF is at peace =/= signed peace treaty.

Similarly, me saying tF is at war does not make it so. We have a chain of command you know.

[TehChron]

Difference is, if we were to hold a poll asking whether a 2 man or a 45 man alliance is more legitimate, the 45 would win.

That doesnt actually make a difference. And is irrelevant. And a stupid argument.

My nation has a charter - that doesn't make it an alliance.

Then what exactly constitutes an alliance, genius?

Not that you're in any position to decide anyway, its not as if you can put up a decree defining what alliances actually are without appearing like an attention whore, after all.

[King Xander the Only]

If you were a real alliance, you would not conduct such acts of stupidity, you would recruit some nations, and behave like a productive leader of your alliance, interacting appropriately with the rest of the community. However, you do not do any of these things.

That's a pretty narrow view of what defines an alliance. I never realized everyone had to conform to such rigid standards.

[Aeternos Astramora]

actually that is false. since a defensive treaty is something signed stating that the either alliance reserve the right to defend each other. GDI did just this. the escalation was made by Sorum for attacking an alliance with treaties in the first place. the full blame for this fiasco is squarely upon the shoulders of tF and no one else.

Uh, no. The tech raid by Sorum is the initial act. You can't call that an escalation.

Your post does not counter my statement at all. It was a tech raid. RV could have asked GDI for help against Sorum. They went after Sorum's alliance. If GDI had only attacked Sorum, there would be no alliance war. It was a tech raid, and tF's policy is that they allow tech raids but will not support those who are tech raiding.

[Emperor Stranger]

Difference is, if we were to hold a poll asking whether a 2 man or a 45 man alliance is more legitimate, the 45 would win.

It could be argued that the 45 man alliance is less legitimate. If the two man alliance had a charter and protectors and the 45 man alliance didn't, who is more legitimate? Just because they have a bigger alliance doesn't make them any more legitimate than a two man alliance.

It sickens me that you reference StarCraft and bring in this !@#$%^&*.

[Sileath]

Uh, no. The tech raid by Sorum is the initial act. You can't call that an escalation.

Your post does not counter my statement at all. It was a tech raid. RV could have asked GDI for help against Sorum. They went after Sorum's alliance. If GDI had only attacked Sorum, there would be no alliance war. It was a tech raid, and tF's policy is that they allow tech raids but will not support those who are tech raiding.

This^

Any retaliation by FAIL or an ally of FAIL against Sorum due to the tech raid would have been seen as consequential to the raid itself, and we would not have taken action against that people.

What exactly do you expect when you attack innocent members?

Edited August 10, 2009 by Sileath

[Starcraftmazter]

That doesnt actually make a difference. And is irrelevant. And a stupid argument.

Actually it makes a lot of difference. It means my alliance is more legitimate than his, meaning my opinion of FAIL's insignificance is superior to his opinion of our insignificance.

Then what exactly constitutes an alliance, genius?

Not that you're in any position to decide anyway, its not as if you can put up a decree defining what alliances actually are without appearing like an attention whore, after all.

Unlike some, I don't need to make a decree in order to reply to a single person.

As I said earlier,

I think a much better measurement of legitimacy is the degree to which said alliance acts like a real alliance.

That's a pretty narrow view of what defines an alliance. I never realized everyone had to conform to such rigid standards.

See above for a standard-free definition.