salithus Posted September 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Listen... salithus...Speaking as one former Planet Bob Pariah to another, trust me. Just stop talking. Seriously. You're going to hit bedrock at the bottom of that hole you're digging yourself into. Don't care, but keep on posting if you want. That situation I talked about with GLoF actually happened, so it's stupid of him to throw a "what if we do x?" out there when x already happened and it ended up with GLoF not getting their way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 So if the Grand Lodge of Freemasons decides to accept a nation as a member that is at war with you than you wouldn't do anything about it? It's not about what we do, it's about what you do. We will not stop attacking a nation simply because he decided to change his AA to Grand Lodge of Freemasons after being declared on, no. CN has never worked that way, and we're not going to do it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 This reminds me of the GOONS I liked in the past Keep up the good work bro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModusOperandi Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Don't care, but keep on posting if you want. That situation I talked about with GLoF actually happened, so it's stupid of him to throw a "what if we do x?" out there when x already happened and it ended up with GLoF not getting their way. So you will declare war on anyone who admits a victim of this policy as a member, thus aggressively influencing and inhibiting the recruitment, than growth, of other alliances and initiating an aggressive war against the affected defending alliance you attack. I look forward to seeing this policy in-action, won't it get lonely down there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salithus Posted September 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 So you will declare war on anyone who admits a victim of this policy as a member, thus aggressively influencing and inhibiting the recruitment, than growth, of other alliances and initiating an aggressive war against the affected defending alliance you attack.I look forward to seeing this policy in-action, won't it get lonely down there? GLoF accepting a nation that is in a war with a GOONS member is not the same as GLoF accepting a nation that is in a war with an unaligned nation that GOONS has previously given aid. Good luck explaining how you are equivocating those scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModusOperandi Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 (edited) GLoF accepting a nation that is in a war with a GOONS member is not the same as GLoF accepting a nation that is in a war with an unaligned nation that GOONS has previously given aid. Good luck explaining how you are equivocating those scenarios. Would you declare war in both scenarios? EDIT: We're not referred to as GLoF anymore, we're known as Masons instead; the word GLoF makes phlegm. Edited September 19, 2009 by ModusOperandi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 I look forward to seeing this policy in-action, won't it get lonely down there? This policy is already in action, as I've already stated. You should probably review the thread instead of making me repeat myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModusOperandi Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 This policy is already in action, as I've already stated. You should probably review the thread instead of making me repeat myself. Please answer the previous question; would this result in war in both scenarios? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salithus Posted September 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Would you declare war in both scenarios? Would you perform invasive surgery on a stranger who is bleeding and also on a relative (that you like) that is bleeding? Both questions leave out a lot of details in the situation that determine whether surgery is really needed or not. For example, a bandaid can be applied to resolve the situation, then there is no reason to do invasive surgery. Unfortunately for you, I am not posting a flowchart of GOONS resolutions to every possible scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Please answer the previous question; would this result in war in both scenarios? I'm not answering any more of your questions. You are a tiresome individual and are clearly not looking for clarification of our policies, but merely talking to hear your own voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elderago Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 GLoF accepting a nation that is in a war with a GOONS member is not the same as GLoF accepting a nation that is in a war with an unaligned nation that GOONS has previously given aid. Good luck explaining how you are equivocating those scenarios. I'll try then it only matters if GOONS continues to aid the unaligned nation that is attacking the ( now new) GloF member because GOONS would now be aiding a raid on an aligned nation, that salithus put GOONS responsible since aiding aligned nation tech raids is a big no-no but otherwise in my logic it would fine unaligned raiding another unaligned nation is fine ,unless another alliance(s) have declared all nations of said color is under their protection which would also cause GOONS problems. also if glof accepted a nation that is at war with a goon member, and said nation is not under any zi punishment for past transgression the goons member would really have to peace out, then again this sort of a grey area and I am unsure how another alliance would deal with such a matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModusOperandi Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 (edited) Would you perform invasive surgery on a stranger who is bleeding and also on a relative (that you like) that is bleeding?Both questions leave out a lot of details in the situation that determine whether surgery is really needed or not. For example, a bandaid can be applied to resolve the situation, then there is no reason to do invasive surgery. Unfortunately for you, I am not posting a flowchart of GOONS resolutions to every possible scenario. You s.... Bows to sircrimson Exactly! Edited September 19, 2009 by ModusOperandi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salithus Posted September 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 (edited) I'll try then it only matters if GOONS continues to aid the unaligned nation that is attacking the ( now new) GloF member because GOONS would now be aiding a raid on an aligned nation, that salithus put GOONS responsible since aiding aligned nation tech raids is a big no-no Accepting a nation into an alliance when that nation is currently at war with another is a bigger no-no. For all the cries of "moral injustice" against GOONS in this thread, people had better darn well take up arms against GLoF, if necessary, in that situation for their bullying of unaligneds. also if glof accepted a nation that is at war with a goon member, and said nation is not under any zi punishment for past transgression the goons member would really have to peace out, then again this sort of a grey area and I am unsure how another alliance would deal with such a matter. No, GLoF would be committing an act of war against GOONS. If they were to, instead, politely request that we not declare any new wars after the current ones expired because they had the intention of accepting the nation as a member at the end of the current wars, we would take it and our current relationship with GLoF into consideration. If you substituted, say, Umbrella for GLoF, you would get a "Oh hey, we can probably go ahead and peace out now because we like you." With GLoF though, they will get laughed off of our forums/IRC/et cetera. If they were insistent on pursuing their demands, we would activate our MDPs as necessary, since GLoF would be initiating a hostile action against GOONS. Edited September 19, 2009 by salithus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModusOperandi Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 (edited) Accepting a nation into an alliance when that nation is currently at war with another is a bigger no-no. For all the cries of "moral injustice" against GOONS in this thread, people had better darn well take up arms against GLoF, if necessary, in that situation for their bullying of unaligneds. Thank you for the casus belli. Edited September 19, 2009 by ModusOperandi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Thank you for the casus belli. You're not funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salithus Posted September 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 You're not funny. Or capable of using the casus belli he thinks I gave him. Precision in language can be such a hassle for those that are in a hurry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 also if glof accepted a nation that is at war with a goon member, and said nation is not under any zi punishment for past transgression the goons member would really have to peace out, then again this sort of a grey area and I am unsure how another alliance would deal with such a matter. You attempted to dictate our policy and then redacted your statement. Kudos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModusOperandi Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 You attempted to dictate our policy and then redacted your statement. Kudos. No, you set yourself up to "play" the defenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModusOperandi Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 An attack against any alliance which refuses to permit you to aid unaligned/aligned raiders, who are molesting their new members, is an aggressive act of war (albeit through proxy but an act of war nonetheless); thus, your entire OP is just a declaration of war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elderago Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 (edited) Accepting a nation into an alliance when that nation is currently at war with another is a bigger no-no. For all the cries of "moral injustice" against GOONS in this thread, people had better darn well take up arms against GLoF, if necessary, in that situation for their bullying of unaligneds. Far enough ,btw I'm not saying this is a "moral injustice", because tech raiding is raiding OOC/ this game is to dull we need more war and less politics/moral banter /OOC the problem with this situation is that this would be a a defensive war plus a tech raid from my knowledge that nation would be granted amnisty since they had no past of causing issues with said attacker or goons, furthermore if the attacker did not stop attacking and GOONS kept on supporting the raid, it could be then technically viewed as GOONS engaging in indirect war against GLOF , that salithus would in essence make GOONS the bully. No, GLoF would be committing an act of war against GOONS. If they were to, instead, politely request that we not declare any new wars after the current ones expired because they had the intention of accepting the nation as a member at the end of the current wars, we would take it and our current relationship with GLoF into consideration. If you substituted, say, Umbrella for GLoF, you would get a "Oh hey, we can probably go ahead and peace out now because we like you." With GLoF though, they will get laughed off of our forums/IRC/et cetera. If they were insistent on pursuing their demands, we would activate our MDPs as necessary, since GLoF would be initiating a hostile action against GOONS. GLOF could simply inquiry as to why goons is attacking the said nations, if it was a raid then the nation would now be aligned (From my knowledge alliance will still accept nations being tech raided if this nation is not on a zi list from GOONS ) continued attack would be viewed as harassment and could be there be taken as an act of warfare. with all that said salithus there are an indefinite amount of circumstance that could be taken into place, e.g war declared after the nation had filed for joining the allience but before the application was accepted, the raid started before the nation applied (FYI most nations join alliences to get out of being tech raided) etc. My last point is this, I'm not trying to change your opinion nor am I trying to say your right or wrong, personally I just fined this fun, if pointless Edited September 19, 2009 by sircrimson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salithus Posted September 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 An attack against any alliance which refuses to permit you to aid unaligned/aligned raiders, who are molesting their new members, is an aggressive act of war (albeit through proxy but an act of war nonetheless); thus, your entire OP is just a declaration of war. So GLoF is in the practice of bullying unaligned nations into offering peace when the same act against an aligned nation would constitute a hostile act of war. Is taking advantage of unaligned nations in that brutish manner the "ascending via the unjust path" I hear so much about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 (edited) An attack against any alliance which refuses to permit you to aid unaligned/aligned raiders, who are molesting their new members, is an aggressive act of war (albeit through proxy but an act of war nonetheless); thus, your entire OP is just a declaration of war. That's some pretty backwards logic. I cut my steak with a knife, am I declaring war on steak? Regardless, I know of no major alliances who accept members with active wars against other alliances so the point is moot anyway. You should be congratulated for taking part in such amazing mental gymnastics to try to make this announcement anything more than our program of aiding unaligned raiders in their hunt. To accept a member at war with us is an act of war, period. You can twist away from this all you want, but thems the breaks. There of course will always be diplomacy attempted before such a large scale war becomes imminent, however. There is no assumed right of the applicant to immediately be immune from all his previous and current war baggage. Edited September 19, 2009 by Sardonic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModusOperandi Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 No, GLoF would be committing an act of war against GOONS. If they were to, instead, politely request that we not declare any new wars after the current ones expired because they had the intention of accepting the nation as a member at the end of the current wars, we would take it and our current relationship with GLoF into consideration. If you substituted, say, Umbrella for GLoF, you would get a "Oh hey, we can probably go ahead and peace out now because we like you." With GLoF though, they will get laughed off of our forums/IRC/et cetera. If they were insistent on pursuing their demands, we would activate our MDPs as necessary, since GLoF would be initiating a hostile action against GOONS. Are GOONs really this inept? Activating defensive pacts after aggressively initiating war is not readily accepted in these parts anymore; this isn't two years ago, this isn't the moon. Attack any member of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons and we will eat your hearts. I'm not going to be the tough-guy who goes crying to my friends over a fight I started but can't finish. Attack any new member of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons or refuse to cease attacks against a new member of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons, for whatever reason (this includes your preposterous notion that victims who fight back belong on your ZI-list) and we will watch you burn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Are GOONs really this inept? Activating defensive pacts after aggressively initiating war is not readily accepted in these parts anymore; this isn't two years ago, this isn't the moon. Accepting a nation at war with one of our members is ostensibly and clearly an act of war, to be handled as such. Attack any member of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons and we will eat your hearts. You have more members than just yourself? I wasn't aware. Attack any new member of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons or refuse to cease attacks against a new member of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons, for whatever reason (this includes your preposterous notion that victims who fight back belong on your ZI-list) and we will watch you burn. Well well well, the mouse has teeth. The only possible way for our proclamation here to come into contact with your members is if you accept members with current wars. If you do, then you probably have much bigger problems than us, as this is an utterly stupid practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elderago Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 (edited) You attempted to dictate our policy and then redacted your statement. Kudos. hmm true, my next post would seemingly contradict what I said in my previous post you got me on there Edited September 19, 2009 by sircrimson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts