A New Day Approaches

[Haflinger]

Actually, sir, Invicta attacked first. They took 2 slots, Francesa took the third. Baseballer has done numerous things, including deleting our forums, hijacking our communications, and lying that a govt member quit and pretending he took his position. He got what he deserved.

All true, yet still not counter to my point, which was that attacking people for flagrant OOC violations is not a thing of the past.

(I'll confirm that we did get the first two wars. I posted that remark after I'd done my daily Invicta-Wars sweep - on which I did not see Baseballer as his nation had already disappeared - and before I'd checked our forums.)

[scythegfx]

Just saying, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

And why not? Of course If I have cake I'm going to eat it.

[Felix von Agnu]

I would like to wish our Red brethren the best of luck from all of us at Nevermore.

[Starcraftmazter]

No YOU don't feel that it is necessary, not "the rest".

Given that, explain why you are the only colour treaty with such an article? The only logical answer is that the rest don't care about this or not enough to formalise it - just like I said, etc.

I already explained it to you that this treaty includes multiple parties and that acting on behalf of the treaty enacting its stated policies CAN ONLY COME OUT OF COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT of signatories. Its not only about the NPO, jeeez,...there is like !@#$ here and some plenty of other folks,...it is their statement of policy as much as it is ours.

I am not just singling out NPO (but it is convenient to use you for examples, since you've had such a colourful past), all of the signatories make me suspicious for signing such a document.

Alright, I'm done arguing this point. I'm going to point you to AirMe, who, in regards to your attitude towards my alliance, has nailed it directly on the head.

It's funny you say that when I point to a situation which is exactly like the one I've been describing, and when it seems to contradict what you said previously.

Really? Check this thread, in which Crimson Guard attacks a nation because of OOC attacks.

Nation level and alliance level attacks are entirely different, and quite frankly I don't care about the former. If you had read my arguments, you would have known that I am actually in favour of nation-level instead of alliance-level attacks, if someone does choose to act IC for OOC reasons.

(OOC: The memo about how OOC attacks against RL property are okay now? Yeah... I do believe I missed that one. )

No, how OOC attacks have nothing to do with IC attacks, and one should not be answered by the other.

[Haflinger]

Nation level and alliance level attacks are entirely different, and quite frankly I don't care about the former. If you had read my arguments, you would have known that I am actually in favour of nation-level instead of alliance-level attacks, if someone does choose to act IC for OOC reasons.

No, they're not entirely different. When you DoW an alliance, you attack a number of nations. There's plenty of precedent set that when individual nation rulers take actions which are considered acts of war against other alliances, their alliance leadership is contacted to have them released or some other settlement made. If the alliance leadership of the offending nation is unwilling or unable to come to terms with the offended alliance, that's when you get alliance wars.

Pretty much every alliance war that I know of has boiled down to starting with actions taken by individual nation rulers.

[Branimir]

Given that, explain why you are the only colour treaty with such an article? The only logical answer is that the rest don't care about this or not enough to formalise it - just like I said, etc.

Your answer: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1763995

I am not just singling out NPO (but it is convenient to use you for examples, since you've had such a colourful past), all of the signatories make me suspicious for signing such a document.

You are only constantly mentioning NPO.

I felt the need to, you know, point out its hardly only about us.

[pericles8th]

Oh I give this bloc 2 months... just another NPO ploy to show that they still think that they own the red sphere.

[Ogaden]

Oh I give this bloc 2 months... just another NPO ploy to show that they still think that they own the red sphere.

NPO signing this document sort of says the opposite to me, to be honest.

[Emperor Brutus]

Oh I give this bloc 2 months... just another NPO ploy to show that they still think that they own the red sphere.

Well.. they kind of do >_>

[Schattenmann]

Given that, explain why you are the only colour treaty with such an article? The only logical answer is that the rest don't care about this or not enough to formalise it - just like I said, etc.

Apparently you missed my expansive answer to your questions.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1763995

I am not just singling out NPO (but it is convenient to use you for examples, since you've had such a colourful past), all of the signatories make me suspicious for signing such a document.

What is suspicious about a group of alliances giving forewarning to everyone else that if you screw with our joint project, we will screw with your infrastructure? I think it's the opposite of suspicious to declare your intentions.

Nation level and alliance level attacks are entirely different, and quite frankly I don't care about the former. If you had read my arguments, you would have known that I am actually in favour of nation-level instead of alliance-level attacks, if someone does choose to act IC for OOC reasons.

[OOC]Forums are not OOC. The forums of the Cult of Justitia are the Temple of Justice. A DDoS attack on the CoJ forums is a direct attack against the nations of the Cult. In the same manner, the Red Dwan forums are the international center for Red nations to come and trade. "Tampering with or destroying" the Red Dawn forums is a direct attack against all nations that use the Red Dawn forum.[/OOC]

No, how OOC attacks have nothing to do with IC attacks, and one should not be answered by the other.

The problem is that you're using a hype-word in the most liberal sense possible (bc that's what hype words are for). On top of that, you're using it incorrectly.

Oh I give this bloc 2 months... just another NPO ploy to show that they still think that they own the red sphere.

I think that's a pretty interesting ignorant opinion in consideration of two facts: (1)The NPO did not initiate this treaty, it was invited tentatively by everyone else (2) The NPO is not yet a signatory.

You may eat crow today if you wish to forego delaying your inevitable eating of it in 2 months and 1 day.

[Nintenderek]

Not at all, Im curious as to the timing of the drafting. I find it mildly interesting that coming out of the war we have a treaty with Schatt and the NPO is lurking within the structure of it. Im not insinuating or proclaiming a violation of terms at all.

Oh I know the last part all to well anyone with a passing interest would, its interesting to me that here we are, not far removed from the Karma war and the NPO is a future signatory to a treaty which, they drafted, with Schatt.

Thank you for induldging me in my curiousity. Cheers Branimir!

I'm not sure what your trying to accuse Schattenmann of, but I assure you that it's idiotic.

[Ogaden]

The weirdest thing about this treaty is that all the signatories are basically micro-alliances except for NPO, which can't be a signatory for about 6 months.

Where is UED and SWF?

[Nolissar]

Where is UED and SWF?

One might as easily ask where Nevermore's signature is, last I checked they are also a newish red alliance interested in being friendly with their neighbors. I'm sure we'll see more signatures if this new bloc arraignment proves stable and workable.

[King Death II]

The weirdest thing about this treaty is that all the signatories are basically micro-alliances except for NPO, which can't be a signatory for about 6 months.

Where is UED and SWF?

I think it has been mentioned before, both of us left the bloc talks because we thought it wasnt the right time for a bloc. If you want more info, you are free you query me on IRC, my nick is King_Death_II[uED]

[BamaBuc]

No, how OOC attacks have nothing to do with IC attacks, and one should not be answered by the other.

(OOC: I missed that memo too. Let's be honest here... Most "OOC attacks" are IC-motivated. If someone hacks a fellow CNer's forums, odds are they probably did it because of CN. If someone finds out and publicizes a fellow CNer's private RL info, they probably did it because of CN. If someone sends threatening emails to a fellow CNer... You get the idea. If the attack was because of CN, why the hell is it wrong to *gasp* attack the person's CN nation for that?)

I personally don't think this is an NPO plot or whatever... People like Schattenmann just wouldn't have signed it if they thought NPO would use it to basically restore the Moldavi Doctrine. So I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt here.

-Bama

[Geoffron X]

I'm not sure what your trying to accuse Schattenmann of, but I assure you that it's idiotic.

He's not accusing him, or us, of anything. He merely thinks it's odd that former Vox would (tentatively) sign a treaty with us. I'm not sure how that could be interpreted differently, based on what you quoted at least.

[kriegsdrachen]

Oh I give this bloc 2 months... just another NPO ploy to show that they still think that they own the red sphere.

You know that we did not HAVE to sign this right? We are hardly in a situation where refusing to enter into a bloc of this type is something forced upon us. We are signing this because (from what I understand) we know that we no longer can (nor should) impose our dominance over Red. We are trying to welcome and work with alliances who wish to settle with us.

[Gondor]

Just going to shoot in there that I like this. It is more unity with a color sphere not to mention a good bloc of alliances.

At first I got the idea that it was just another NPO plan to get back into power. But the other alliances are powerful and signed it of their own free will. It could hardly be a power play for revitalizing NPO red rule. The NPO no longer can use their hegemony to force the other nations to sign.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Gondor

[Francesca]

NPO will not agree with any of the others within the bloc, unless they all agree to vote for NPO members ?

NPO will only agree to there own senators there for forcing a free vote, where they control the numbers

This will always happen, unless everyone agree to vote for NPO members, also this will not be seen as a failure to NPO, as they will still control the numbers that vote for the senate on red.

This will be the clause that NPO will abuse most, as in the mind set of the NPO Gov anyone out side of the NPO is suspected of desiring to do harm to the NPO. therefore no one but the NPO members would be able to run for senate.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Well done.

I would not have signed this treaty if it was simply going to be used for NPO's benefit. This is about mutual co-operation and even genuine friendship, not about NPO finding some more people to support it's Senate candidates.

Upon checking the Red Dawn forums, can you imagine how shocked I was, to find that an alliance who has not officially sign this treaty are not only members of the treaty but also the only government of said treaty.

I give you the Red Dawn Government.

http://cn-reddawn.com/index.php?app=member...amp;module=list

NPO.Admin

Group:

Red Dawn Government

Mary the Fantabulous

Group:

Red Dawn Government

TrotskysRevenge

Group:

Red Dawn Government

You will also see that it is on NPO server, but not least to say, that 13 out of the 26 people to sign up on Red Dawn Forums are in fact all NPO members and government.

SO i must say it once again, for an alliance who has not been given the ok to sign this treaty, not only seems to be a member of this treaty but are spearheading said treaty.

PLEASE EXPLAIN ?

Well, for a start, NPO have the vast majority of people in this bloc. [OOC] They also have some people who are extremely experienced at Admin. You'd think it only natural that they play a large part in the running of the forums, especially as they are hosted by NPO. [/OOC] Please desist in your pathetic attempts to make me and the rest of Red Dawn look like pawns of NPO. Given the histories of people like me, Schattenmann, President Kent, etc etc I think it is bloody obvious that we aren't.

The weirdest thing about this treaty is that all the signatories are basically micro-alliances except for NPO, which can't be a signatory for about 6 months.

Where is UED and SWF?

I think it has been mentioned before, both of us left the bloc talks because we thought it wasnt the right time for a bloc. If you want more info, you are free you query me on IRC, my nick is King_Death_II[uED]

In response to both of the above, UED stormed out of negotiations because RoK didn't like the idea of a red unity treaty that actually included the largest red alliance. This has already been covered in this announcement.

Oh, and in response to many of the comments in this announcement: if this was a !@#$@#$ NPO plot to control us all, do you think I or any of the rest of the Red Dawn signatories would have signed? We are not cowards. We are not doing this out of fear. We are doing this because we are genuinely interested in red unity. None of us have a history of acting like pawns, in fact I'd claim quite the opposite given the large number of former Voxians in our midst, myself included. Just because NPO is included in this bloc doesn't automatically make it an evil stratagem to further their own interests.

[Starcraftmazter]

No, they're not entirely different. When you DoW an alliance, you attack a number of nations. There's plenty of precedent set that when individual nation rulers take actions which are considered acts of war against other alliances, their alliance leadership is contacted to have them released or some other settlement made. If the alliance leadership of the offending nation is unwilling or unable to come to terms with the offended alliance, that's when you get alliance wars.

What the hell...you say they aren't different and then you describe the differences between them?

To clarify, the difference is, when you attack a nation, you punish the perpetrator. When you attack an alliance, you are punishing the perpetrator (if there is one), as well as hurting a lot of innocent nations, which is morally unacceptable.

The previous debate on the issue has answered your concerns well enough, but since I'm the one that wrote "Wilful destruction or tampering with of Red Dawn forums or IRC channels by any party is considered an aggressive act of war against its signatories." I'll address your confusion (I'm certain that I didn't misspell willfull, though )

I added the provision because my experience with team unity when it involves such a diversity of alliances is that it's harder than it looks. If, hypothetically, NPO gets all high and mighty once terms are over and decides that they're going to act like GATO and say "pfffft, we have all the nations, we get all the senators" and as such we vote and kick them out of the treaty, then I just want NPO to know that if they decide it would be funny to wreck the forums before they go, then I might equally decide it'd be funny to declare war on them for doing that.

Except when I wrote it, it was because the most contentious alliance in talks was hosting the boards and I wanted them to be de-incentivized to do something like that. And any other alliance that might find it has diverged from the rest of the team.

A lot of work has gone into this treaty, it's been in progress since before FIRE disbanded, and no one on Red is required to be involved to try for the senate or for their members to trdade at the forum so if they find they don't like Red Dawn they're free to leave. But I don't want some butthurt admin to think that he can wreck all that work without getting into trouble. He can't.

Riveting tale chap. If that is indeed the case, then I am relatively adequately satisfied with why it's there, but I maintain that it is wrong to mix IC/OOC and the fact that that article of the treaty is damned odd, and if you are concerned about NPO or some other signatory doing it, then you could have definately worded it better.

As for the singularity of actions, you're simply wrong. There's no such thing as a "rogue government member." A member of an alliance's government may act stupidly or without the knowledge or consent of the rest of the individuals of a government of which he is part, but as a government member his actions are the actions of the alliance he leads. If Sunstar hits the Red Dawn forums tomorrow because his innate ADN blood is mad that the NPO is involved, then it's an ODN act of war. A responding Red Dawn alliance might talk to ODN before responding militarily and resolve the situation without blodshed, but ODN has elected Sunstar, he's their man and his actions are their's.

I am not wrong - it is a matter of opinion, and I must that, that I find yours despicable. Time will perhaps tell whether it is acceptable or not, though I really doubt such a CB would fly with the community, if you did not attempt to solve the issue diplomatically, and go after the individual(s) involved rather than the whole alliance.

[OOC]Forums are not OOC.

I just thought I'd point out the irony in that bloc of text.

(OOC: I missed that memo too. Let's be honest here... Most "OOC attacks" are IC-motivated.

If that were true, which it may well be, I don't see how it justifies the launching of IC attacks for OOC reasons in the reverse. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Angrator]

What the hell...you say they aren't different and then you describe the differences between them?

To clarify, the difference is, when you attack a nation, you punish the perpetrator. When you attack an alliance, you are punishing the perpetrator (if there is one), as well as hurting a lot of innocent nations, which is morally unacceptable.

Perhaps it's just the troll in me, but I find myself compelled to point out the flaws in your logic.

You are simply quite wrong. There is no difference in what you are trying to describe. When you attack a nation, you are attacking the rulers, or perpetrators, along with all of the men, women, and children in the nation. The exact same thing goes for an alliance. There is no difference plain and simple.

So basically, unless you want to take the absurd position that all wars are morally unacceptable, wars against an alliance based on the actions of a government member are equally as valid as attacking the nation for the actions of one person in that nation.

(ooc) Don't forget what forum we are in (/ooc)

[Starcraftmazter]

You are simply quite wrong. There is no difference in what you are trying to describe. When you attack a nation, you are attacking the rulers, or perpetrators, along with all of the men, women, and children in the nation. The exact same thing goes for an alliance. There is no difference plain and simple.

How can it be the same? In one case you are attacking a single nation, and in the other case you are attacking many nations.

Assuming that you know who the perpetrators are and not making it up;

In one case, you are punishing the perpetrators, and in the other case you are also attacking innocent nations.

How can you or anyone else possibly think this is the same thing?

[Alan Shore]

How can it be the same? In one case you are attacking a single nation, and in the other case you are attacking many nations.

Assuming that you know who the perpetrators are and not making it up;

In one case, you are punishing the perpetrators, and in the other case you are also attacking innocent nations.

How can you or anyone else possibly think this is the same thing?

Is it honestly your position that every man, woman, and child in a nation that commits an act of war against another is responsible for that act of war? If not, then you agree that should the aggrieved nation retaliate against their aggressors they are willfully attacking individuals who had nothing to do with the original grievance? If it is then wrong, in all circumstances, to war in such a way that innocents are harmed, you agree that all war in this land is wrong.

Simply put, an alliance is a collective agreement. I give my government my strengths; my armies, my ideas, my works, my defense, my loyalty. In exchange, they take my strengths and the strengths of everyone in my alliance with the trust that they will use them to advance my position or my beliefs in the world. If at any time I do not believe the government is doing this, I am free to leave the alliance. As long as I continue to lend my strength to an alliance, I am complicit in what they do because I am part of what is supporting their capacity to do it and they are doing it in my name. I may not always be aware what they are doing, but having given them my trust and my consent to act as my leader in joining the alliance, what they do reflects on, and ultimately, what they do I can be held responsible for.

[Starcraftmazter]

Is it honestly your position that every man, woman, and child in a nation that commits an act of war against another is responsible for that act of war? If not, then you agree that should the aggrieved nation retaliate against their aggressors they are willfully attacking individuals who had nothing to do with the original grievance? If it is then wrong, in all circumstances, to war in such a way that innocents are harmed, you agree that all war in this land is wrong.

It's a completely different matter - and the reason for this is trivial. You can target individual nations of an alliance, yet you cannot target the ruler of a nation in your attacks against that nation.

Simply put, an alliance is a collective agreement. I give my government my strengths; my armies, my ideas, my works, my defense, my loyalty. In exchange, they take my strengths and the strengths of everyone in my alliance with the trust that they will use them to advance my position or my beliefs in the world. If at any time I do not believe the government is doing this, I am free to leave the alliance. As long as I continue to lend my strength to an alliance, I am complicit in what they do because I am part of what is supporting their capacity to do it and they are doing it in my name. I may not always be aware what they are doing, but having given them my trust and my consent to act as my leader in joining the alliance, what they do reflects on, and ultimately, what they do I can be held responsible for.

That's a highly idealistic and not necessary correct way of looking at things.

If you take the average nation in and average alliance, they do not deserve to be attacked because someone else in that alliance did something wrong. This is a very simple concept.

[Alan Shore]

It's a completely different matter - and the reason for this is trivial. You can target individual nations of an alliance, yet you cannot target the ruler of a nation in your attacks against that nation.

First, that is highly debatable as when you hit a certain member of the alliance, the whole alliance tends to hit back. Second, that is open to tremendous abuse as a certain member could then engage in gross acts of misconduct against the enemies of an alliance, for the expressed benefit of the alliance, then throw themselves on a sword (OOC: or reroll) to avoid all responsibility. Third, that is largely irrelevant because the innocent victims are no less innocent.

That's a highly idealistic and not necessary correct way of looking at things.

If you take the average nation in and average alliance, they do not deserve to be attacked because someone else in that alliance did something wrong. This is a very simple concept.

That is your opinion, and while it is a very simple concept, it also does not capture the reality of things. The reality is alliances are almost always collective defense pledges, by joining you become the soldiers the leaders send to war should war arise. Alliances are an exercise of collective reward when things go well and collective responsibility when things go poorly, by signing up you assume all the risks that go with it in case your faith was misplaced. At best you make a case for individual surrender terms, but even then I'd say it is a weak argument.