A New Day Approaches

[Francesca]

The reason we denied them consent to sign this has very little to do with the treaty itself.

And my real preference would be to have another power on red, or at least enough mid-sized alliances there that NPO would not make up such a disproportionate amount of the unity treaty's NS. But that's nothing specific to NPO; I wish all color spheres to be like that.

We *are* a very young sphere, save NPO. Things will change.

I suppose I should say that it's a little unrealistic to expect us to be mid-to-large alliances given the time we've had to work with this.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Francesca

[TheStig]

Wow, Red Unity. Screw it up and the world will go back to it's former insanity. Get it right and we have the birth of a new age.

Good luck.

[Tygaland]

Karma doesn't have to let you sign it at all actually. But its cool, keep trying to make people look bad for an agreement you guys signed and for a term that is something that NPO has used many times before (or worse, see: Viceroys).

A minimum of 5 and a half months of this incessant whining to go too. I think they are really warming to their new victim role.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Tygaland

[WorkingClassRuler]

I hope NPO are allowed to contribute and participate in this agreement. I'm glad that unaligned red nations will continue to be protected, hopefully that doesn't change.

Congrats on a new start for Red.

[Haflinger]

Also, this isn't a part of my though process regarding this, but just for argument's sake, color me skeptical about the retraction of the Moldavi Doctrine. I'm hardly sold on that being a completely genuine move.

This treaty fundamentally contradicts the Moldavi Doctrine. I hardly see how refusing to let them sign it would have anything to do with that.

[kriekfreak]

I hope NPO are allowed to contribute and participate in this agreement. I'm glad that unaligned red nations will continue to be protected, hopefully that doesn't change.

Congrats on a new start for Red.

I'm pretty sure the Revenge Doctrine is cancelled. Also I for one will not accept it when it comes back "all of a sudden".

[silentkiller]

I'm pretty sure the Revenge Doctrine is cancelled. Also I for one will not accept it when it comes back "all of a sudden".

You thought wrong, revenge doctrine is still here, although not in its original form where it claimed red as NPO soverign colour. Also no one wants you to accept anything, when we start caring about your opinions we will tell you. Thank you.

Edited August 11, 2009 by silentkiller

[WorkingClassRuler]

I'm pretty sure the Revenge Doctrine is cancelled. Also I for one will not accept it when it comes back "all of a sudden".

I must agree with silentkiller, (aka Sailor Leonidas, your avatar is ), in that clearly the Revenge Doctrine remains, and the now-united Red Team wishes to continue it's practice of protecting unaligned Red nations - which is clearly part of the treaty in the OP of this thread. Whether you choose to accept it or not is of course your decision, but clearly the Red Team will have something to say about it if you start raiding their trade partners.

But of course, because I know such a policy isn't currently possible on my own sphere of Aqua, I live vicariously through Red Dawn and support this policy wholeheartedly.

[Daimos]

My nation supports any genuine unity even among former adversaries.

Someone said “Best way to destroy an enemy is to make him a friend”

The NPO is trying but it seems like there are resistance to this overture.

[Cortath]

Good luck with this. Also, Invicta we get it, you are in love with NPO, you don't have to remind us in every post.

In the interests of continued cooperation, given that we owe reparations to your alliance, I have restrained myself, sethb, from responding to your one-liners.

And in those same interests, I will politely ask: this thread is about the Red Dawn treaty. Invicta is in not Red Dawn. That a member of an alliance of our ally wishes to congratulate us on a treaty is a good thing, I would think. *tips hat*

Edited August 11, 2009 by Cortath

[KingEsus]

Also, this isn't a part of my though process regarding this, but just for argument's sake, color me skeptical about the retraction of the Moldavi Doctrine. I'm hardly sold on that being a completely genuine move. Are you going to try to sell me on their ending of hostilities with FAN as well?

Oh please get over it. The NPO have lost a very big war, and have been given humiliating terms. Perhaps we are just trying to to move on. This is a brave move by the emperor. The real reason for a refusal is more likely to be becuase Karma wish to see us vilified and isolated, overtures of friendship make us look less 'evil', and the beginnings of unity within the same sphere which we reside brings trades and strength.

[Starcraftmazter]

The Signatory members will agree to act as a voting bloc in Red Sphere Senate elections. Senate candidates will be agreed unanimously between signatories. Failure to find unanimous agreement will allow a free vote. Signatory members may not support a senate candidate that is suspected of desiring to harm another signatory.

Wat

b. Signatory members will not launch unprovoked attacks against Red Sphere nations, and will endeavour to resolve unprovoked attacks from outside by available means, through the Red Protection Court.

Wat Wat?

a. Member alliances shall not take aggressive actions, military or otherwise, against other member alliances. The signatories agree to treat each other with respect and courtesy in all public and private channels of communications, and will refrain from public comments that are harmful or hostile toward the unity and strength of the constituent alliances. As such, the signatories will deal with any and all differences through private communications. 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.

Wat Wat Wat???

In conclusion, the signatories of Red Dawn have just given themselves an OOC reason to declare war on anyone they want for any sketchy reason.

[Coven]

o/ Red Dawn

Looks pretty cool folks.

[Angrator]

In conclusion, the signatories of Red Dawn have just given themselves an OOC reason to declare war on anyone they want for any sketchy reason.

I see you have met our friend. Don't be alarmed. His bark is worse than his bite.

[Corinan]

In conclusion, the signatories of Red Dawn have just given themselves an OOC reason to declare war on anyone they want for any sketchy reason.

Tampering with an alliances means of communication has always been considered an act of war.

[Starcraftmazter]

Tampering with an alliances means of communication has always been considered an act of war.

I dare say you are oversimplifying this issue to such extent as to make a mockery of it.

OOC follows: You do not go to war for stupid OOC reasons, and furthermore The Red Dawn is not the means of alliance communication for any alliance - rather it is a means of communication between several alliances - one which is not necessarily critical during war. This is an important subtlety.

But even so, one does not go to war for OOC reasons, no matter how subjectively "serious" they are. If someone were to hack your forums, the correct approach would be to contact the proper legal authorities - not to declare war on them in some online game.

If someone was to punch you in the face and steal your wallet, would you then challenge them to a game of scrabble?

Edited August 11, 2009 by Starcraftmazter

[hawk11]

In conclusion, the signatories of Red Dawn have just given themselves an OOC reason to declare war on anyone they want for any sketchy reason.

Someone wasn't around for all those wars declared for board hacking.

[kriekfreak]

Whether you choose to accept it or not is of course your decision, but clearly the Red Team will have something to say about it if you start raiding their trade partners.

I don't really care about Red or the alliances on Red. I never liked the revenge doctrine and never will.

[Starcraftmazter]

Someone wasn't around for all those wars declared for board hacking.

Someone didn't get the memo about the fact that things have changed since that time.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Starcraftmazter

[hawk11]

Someone didn't get the memo about the fact that things have changed since that time.

OOC: Yes, but things have not changed to include "Hacking our alliance message boards is A-OK and warrants no in-game retribution." Or at least they haven't since the last time I checked. Of course, I could be wrong after-all, I'm just a stick-in-the-mud NPO Imperial Officer who doesn't pay attention to the world around him. I'm willing to believe Corinan, though; he pays attention more than I do.

Edit: I'm just marking the entire post OOC since it described "OOC" things. Respond as you will.

Edited August 11, 2009 by hawk_11

[Corinan]

But even so, one does not go to war for OOC reasons, no matter how subjectively "serious" they are. If someone were to hack your forums, the correct approach would be to contact the proper legal authorities - not to declare war on them in some online game.

OOC: Actually I would think you'd both report them to the proper authorities and declare war on them in game, since they tampered with your IC means of communication.

[Starcraftmazter]

Yes, but things have not changed to include "Hacking our alliance message boards is A-OK and warrants no in-game retribution." Or at least they haven't since the last time I checked. Of course, I could be wrong after-all, I'm just a stick-in-the-mud NPO Imperial Officer who doesn't pay attention to the world around him. I'm willing to believe Corinan, though; he pays attention more than I do.

I can't remember the last time any alliance declared war on any other for an OOC reason and actually got away with it. I dare say nobody will be able to get away with such matters in the future either.

OOC: If I am not mistaken, it is against the game rules to conduct such actions as to hack another alliance's forums, so the individual in question would be banned anyway by the CN staff, however none of this justifies going to war with an entire alliance....

[Branimir]

I don't really care about Red or the alliances on Red. I never liked the revenge doctrine and never will.

Well you cared enough to post twice thus far, thats something

You got your answer.

Hacking and tampering with alliance's communication mediums and lines is an aggressive move by the party that made them, in the opinion I would say the majority of the CN planet, including alliances which drafted and accepted this treaty. You may disagree with that policy and standard, though how you feel about it most likely will not change signatories mind about it.

[Starcraftmazter]

Well you cared enough to post twice thus far, thats something

You got your answer.

Hacking and tampering with alliance's communication mediums and lines is an aggressive move by the party that made them, in the opinion I would say the majority of the CN planet, including alliances which drafted and accepted this treaty. You may disagree with that policy and standard, though how you feel about it most likely will not change signatories mind about it.

If an alliance has that policy, I can at least understand it - even if I don't agree with it. But why did you have to put this into a team unity treaty? And moreover, it sounds like an MADP from my point of view, where one signatory claims someone tempered with their means of communication and all the rest would be obligated by the treaty to follow them into battle?

I just don't understand why you even have something so bizarre in a team unity treaty when it clearly has nothing to do with it.

[hawk11]

If an alliance has that policy, I can at least understand it - even if I don't agree with it. But why did you have to put this into a team unity treaty? And moreover, it sounds like an MADP from my point of view, where one signatory claims someone tempered with their means of communication and all the rest would be obligated by the treaty to follow them into battle?

I just don't understand why you even have something so bizarre in a team unity treaty when it clearly has nothing to do with it.

No no, it's not if they tamper with an individual alliance's means of communication, but the entire treaty's means of communication: the unifying board.