So, uh, Athens...

[Shinpah]

More than a few.

How constructive; am I correct in assuming that in this case a few is 3?

[Masterof9puppets]

How constructive; am I correct in assuming that in this case a few is 3?

You are correct.

With the higher the amount strengthening the argument.

[ramon666]

<Tick1|FoB> Mind if I query you?

[14:17] <Supreme_142[MASH|SDI]> Not at all, what do you require?

<Tick1|FoB> can you confirm if MASH has a treaty with Knights of the Ni! on your forums?

<Supreme_142[MASH|SDI]> Okay, hold on.

[14:20] No, we do not....

Not that I can see from active treaties...

<Tick1|FoB> Thank you for your time, you'll understand if you read the cybernation forums topic of the day :S

Alright, the easiest way for me to provide everyone with said MDP was to post it in another section of our forum (which is visible for guests). I did this, so everyone who wants to see it, go to z11.invisionfree.com/kofn

You may have to register, but no mask is required. It's then in the application center.

Here's the link: http://z11.invisionfree.com/KofN/index.php?showtopic=404

Oh, and Tick1 already told me that M*A*S*H doesn't recognise the MDP with us, which is fine with me. I was merely pointing out the fact that we still have it and never got a notification that it was cancelled. We were under the impression it was still active. So it wasn't just some random talk on my part.

[Vandal]

How constructive; am I correct in assuming that in this case a few is 3?

Usually, from what I've seen with most, is that a group of nations is considered an alliance at about 5 to 10 nations. An alliance war would be considered anything beyond the 2 or 3 rogues attacking at once. It's not a written rule but if you look back at the history and the mutual understanding of the cyberverse, it was pretty much understood as a moral limit.

But on the other hand, this group of people in KoN don't have a central government, didn't have any diplomatic means of contact, and from what I gather, rather silent in the affairs of Digiterra. Does this constitute the legal means of not being an alliance then?

From my aspect, what Athens did was opportunistic. Not really illegal in the sense, but definatly opportunistic. In all matters of legality, if KoN did not have any treaties or protectorate status with any other alliance, they pretty much should be expected to fend for themselves. What happened was others decried that action and you have the situation that you have witnessed.

[Osafune]

There's no way I'm going to read all of these 60+ pages, but I feel like throwing in my 2 cents, even if my particular thoughts have already been covered somewhere in this topic.

My first cent: Anybody who are raiders themselves but are against what Athens is doing are hypocrites. All raids are fueled by greed, the only thing differing this raid from "normal" ones is how they all decided to target one single alliance. What exactly makes spreading the love around to other insignificant alliances better?

My second cent: Screw Athens, I pray to Gawd that somebody rolls them.

[Bob Sanders]

then there were those, who, you know had defense treaties with OV...

LOL, at the guy who thinks that the actual trigger point of a major CN war has anything to do with why the war was fought. Two sides line up, they wait around awhile and then fight for some mountain-out-of-a-molehill reason that is meaningless in the long term. That is how every single major war has been since my nation came into existance in November 2006.

UJP -- BOTS

WOC -- Hyperion

Karma -- OV

Please don't tell me that you actually think that any of those alliances were material to those wars being fought? They were only material to the day they were fought but the existence of the war had nothing to do with them. In all 3 cases it was just a matter of time until the fire was lit, whether it was them or the next alliance down the line is meaningless to history.

P.S. I forget why GW 2 and 3 started but they were both caused by 2 obvious coalitions lining up and staring each other down.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Bob Sanders

[anenu]

c'mon people don't stop now we can make it to 62 pages and make this the largest thread in the World Affairs section.

We Can DO IT!

[Chasmic Descent]

There's no way I'm going to read all of these 60+ pages, but I feel like throwing in my 2 cents, even if my particular thoughts have already been covered somewhere in this topic.

My first cent: Anybody who are raiders themselves but are against what Athens is doing are hypocrites. All raids are fueled by greed, the only thing differing this raid from "normal" ones is how they all decided to target one single alliance. What exactly makes spreading the love around to other insignificant alliances better?

My second cent: Screw Athens, I pray to Gawd that somebody rolls them.

yeah exactly. Athens can go raid anyone they want. If they want to raid bigger targets though the risk is on their shoulders. There is no moral dilemma here, its just a case of an alliance which may have bitten off more than they can chew.

What would be wrong is if the Knights of Mi!'s protectors did nothing.

[shayde]

Okay. If the principle goal of an alliance is community, then i would like to know whether or not KofN's community has been destroyed by this raid. I would put some good hard cash on them not only staying together as a group, but walking away from this with a more active and aware member base.

That's like you raping someone and claiming they enjoy consensual sex much better now that they know how bad the alternative is.

You have no moral high ground at all. All your justifications are just laughable. Just man up and say you did it because you thought you were untouchable jerks.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Shayde

[Tick1]

So it's not the size of the alliance really, but more what you can get away with?

Those are your words not mine.

(There are always risks involved in raiding.

What if they attack back?

What if they use other forces besides ground attacks?

What if they ask for reps?

What if they declare war on us?)

Once again, I repeat the thought process of raiding. Who said we could get away with raiding them? They have the ability to attack back, and raiders who actually uses anything aside from ground attacks should get rolled. We on the other hand raided them and would only do what a raider does. If they attacked back that is our loss you take it and leave it. If they on the other hand launched a full scale attack it'd be a different story considering it's a raid.

Did we ever said they had no right to fend for themselves? No!

Did we ever say they had no right to ask for reparations? No!

[Masterof9puppets]

yeah exactly. Athens can go raid anyone they want. If they want to raid bigger targets though the risk is on their shoulders. There is no moral dilemma here, its just a case of an alliance which may have bitten off more than they can chew.

What would be wrong is if the Knights of Mi!'s protectors did nothing.

I was under the impression that they didn't have protectors o.O

[Shinpah]

Usually, from what I've seen with most, is that a group of nations is considered an alliance at about 5 to 10 nations. An alliance war would be considered anything beyond the 2 or 3 rogues attacking at once. It's not a written rule but if you look back at the history and the mutual understanding of the cyberverse, it was pretty much understood as a moral limit.

I'm not debating what constitutes an alliance; I was merely curious what number of attackers Masterof9puppets would say constitutes an "alliance wide war"

[Osafune]

I was under the impression that they didn't have protectors o.O

Same here...

[enderland]

I asked for an explanation of what you meant in this case, since obviously you do not consider this a "normal" alliance wide war.

You failed to explain yourself, and instead keep telling me that I am the one who doesn't get what you mean, ignoring the fact that you never bothered to explain your position to me other than telling me to read it again.

What I took from this post, was that you do not consider this to be a "normal" alliance wide war, so you contradicted yourself.

That's the only thing I pointed out, and I haven't seen you refute that point up until now, just dodging the matter on hand.

edit: maybe it's my reading comprehension, I'm still Dutch.

When I say "normally" I mean "in most cases." That does not at all exclude various OTHER cases from being true, there have been plenty of alliance wars that have resulted from causes and goals that are not in that list. however, that would be the majority of them.

It still can be an alliance war, it just is not rooted in the same causes that alliance wars are often rooted in.

Which is where intent comes in; if you declare that the number of members is pointless then you must accept some other kind of criterion for determining the difference between a large tech raid and an alliance war.

EDIT: sneaky sneaky; "inappropriately declared" indeed

The number isn't unimportant, however, when you have 30+ wars declared, it is most definitely above any sort of "counter" you could have.

LOL, at the guy who thinks that the actual trigger point of a major CN war has anything to do with why the war was fought. Two sides line up, they wait around awhile and then fight for some mountain-out-of-a-molehill reason that is meaningless in the long term. That is how every single major war has been since my nation came into existance in November 2006.

UJP -- BOTS

WOC -- Hyperion

Karma -- OV

Please don't tell me that you actually think that any of those alliances were material to those wars being fought? They were only material to the day they were fought but the existence of the war had nothing to do with them. In all 3 cases it was just a matter of time until the fire was lit, whether it was them or the next alliance down the line is meaningless to history.

P.S. I forget why GW 2 and 3 started but they were both caused by 2 obvious coalitions lining up and staring each other down.

The WOC had nothing to do with Hyperion. The NoCB war however did.

Once again, I repeat the thought process of raiding. Who said we could get away with raiding them? They have the ability to attack back, and raiders who actually uses anything aside from ground attacks should get rolled. We on the other hand raided them and would only do what a raider does. If they attacked back that is our loss you take it and leave it. If they on the other hand launched a full scale attack it'd be a different story considering it's a raid.

Did we ever said they had no right to fend for themselves? No!

Did we ever say they had no right to ask for reparations? No!

I believe, that the number of posts made by those indicating "we wanted tech/land" from the raiders shows that the raiders expected to "get away" with raiding.

[enderland]

I'm not debating what constitutes an alliance; I was merely curious what number of attackers Masterof9puppets would say constitutes an "alliance wide war"

I can't believe you even are considering this not an alliance-wide war.

I mean, I guess I could see that you could possibly see it as not an "alliance war" but there is almost no way to not see it as an "alliance wide war" unless you redefine the definitions of those involved words.

[Chasmic Descent]

I was under the impression that they didn't have protectors o.O

I was being presumptious that they did have protectors, but i havent been able to find out much about them, they dont even have a cyber wiki page (that or I cant find it)

But, if a 40 strong alliance has no treaties, well... that's quite irresponsible of them. The alliance leaders have left their members unprotected. Like it or not you cant remain out of the treaty web and hope that your alliance wont be tech raided.

I guess o7 to Athens for having chosen a great alliance to tech raid

[Geoffron X]

Hooray, I sense the blubbering insufferable morality brigade incoming in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

A part normally played by your alliance.

[enderland]

I was being presumptious that they did have protectors, but i havent been able to find out much about them, they dont even have a cyber wiki page (that or I cant find it)

But, if a 40 strong alliance has no treaties, well... that's quite irresponsible of them. The alliance leaders have left their members unprotected. Like it or not you cant remain out of the treaty web and hope that your alliance wont be tech raided.

I guess o7 to Athens for having chosen a great alliance to tech raid

Londo indicated that there is a treaty between MASH and KoN, in a post just made in the other thread.

[Tick1]

Normally when one alliance launches about 30 wars against another alliance it is considered a war.

Actually neither alliance launched 30 wars on Knight of Ni! Someone needs to brush up on their math skills. You fail to realize that Athens and FoB are two different alliances. The only reason you even consider us the same is because we are both part of CnG.

[Tick1]

Alright, the easiest way for me to provide everyone with said MDP was to post it in another section of our forum (which is visible for guests). I did this, so everyone who wants to see it, go to z11.invisionfree.com/kofn

You may have to register, but no mask is required. It's then in the application center.

Here's the link: http://z11.invisionfree.com/KofN/index.php?showtopic=404

Oh, and Tick1 already told me that M*A*S*H doesn't recognise the MDP with us, which is fine with me. I was merely pointing out the fact that we still have it and never got a notification that it was cancelled. We were under the impression it was still active. So it wasn't just some random talk on my part.

That's fine, it's just not everyone else realizes that this MDP was null.

[Osafune]

Actually neither alliance launched 30 wars on Knight of Ni! Someone needs to brush up on their math skills. You fail to realize that Athens and FoB are two different alliances. The only reason you even consider us the same is because we are both part of CnG.

Maybe he was using some hyperbole or some other literary term to that effect and did not mean literally 30 wars?

Either way, it's enough wars to be considered an alliance wide wars by even the most conservative of definitions.

[enderland]

Actually neither alliance launched 30 wars on Knight of Ni! Someone needs to brush up on their math skills. You fail to realize that Athens and FoB are two different alliances. The only reason you even consider us the same is because we are both part of CnG.

So how many were declared by each alliance? In specific, of course, because you appear to actually possess the numerical knowledge to bear that information.

Since most of the two 15 nations were triple teamed (when I checked earlier at least, I assume that some or many of those wars are peaced out now) which would indicate roughly 45 wars launched in total, against only the top nations, not to mention the lower NS ones and the wars they received.

The 33 current wars, in addition to the fact that several larger nations having deleted their three wars (Londo for example), indicate that this number is definitely a reasonable estimate.

Averaging that out, would result in about 22 wars launched by both alliances (assuming a 1:1 ratio of wars declared, which I believe to be slightly inaccurate and weighted incorrectly, with Athens). The fact that it currently stands, peaced wars not withstanding, 14/33 wars were FoB (including 2 from Mushi, not in FoB to the best of my knowledge) and 19/33 were Athens, and that two large athens nations that I am aware of deleted three wars, means that athens had a minimum of 25 wars against KoN.

Now, I would propose that 25 is about 30 (not to mention the possibility for others having deleted their wars which I am not personally aware of) and saying that "about 30 wars" were declared by Athens to be a damn factual statement.

edit: added info about Mushi not being in FoB to statistics

Edited November 15, 2009 by ender land

[Some-Guy]

Londo ain't no fool, he'll figure out a decent path through all this.

Also, if TOP ends up being the alliance that "Does something about it" then my head might explode from a joygasm, cause that's an epicly stupid thing to say and an "argument" that needs to be called on.

[enderland]

That's fine, it's just not everyone else realizes that this MDP was null.

Including Londo?

I have recently learned that this is true, but it was never announced on the OWF and not even known to most of MASH's gov. We will be working with Ni and MASH to resolve this in any case.

[Bilrow]

Replace "Knights of Ni!" with "PPF/Opethian" and the hypocrisy in this thread is overwhelming.

I thought it was a Bad Thing the ugly mess that is the treaty web, yet actions like this only compound the "problem" of too many treaties and is quite frankly talking out of both sides of your mouth.