An Announcement from the Mushroom Kingdom

[Ivan Moldavi]

Why ask? We should just go ahead and do it. Then STA/NpO can scold us a bit behind the scenes and then the matter will be resolved. That is the way things are done in this BRAVE NEW WORLD that has been ushered in for us.

Because you and I both know that this "brave new world" is anything but and while some alliances seem to now have impunity such leeway would not be granted to us. Hell, they tried to roll us for messages, could you imagine a coordinated "tech raid" on a whole alliance? Secret treaties would be coming out of the woodwork.

[Blacky]

Sure, can NSO tech raid a 40 nation alliance and not get any flak from MK about it because it is an "internal matter" to Frostbite? Just wondering.

Clearly it was an error in judgement on Athens' part and so they rightly received flak for their misjudgement.

What makes this any of our business is in being members of the international community. Basically it's an internal matter until there is a foreign intervention.

Essentially for every action there is a consequence. Some are more direct than others. In this case the biggest of which was a degradation of Athens' good name for this mistake in judgement. As for your question, the answer is just the same. If it were NSO who had attacked KoN I think you would have gotten less flak from the international community and MK, than we have seen here. It depends which 40 nation alliance you raid really. e.g; Nemesis has the exact same amount of members as KoN, however unlike KoN we have close allies and friends. Raiding Nemesis would be akin to running into a train.

[Neo Uruk]

I do not believe the statement made here needed to be made as it was. I expected better of Archon to be honest. The threats and posturing were overkill and unnecessary. So much more could have been achieved with a softer touch. Isolating one group of allies in support of another through threats seems a bit too harsh. And me thinking that the message was too harsh says something.

I don't think the message was directed solely at Polaris. It does hurt to be caught between two allies, though, and I'm sure Archon didn't appreciate threats towards Athens. Voicing his concerns in an assertive manner was probably the best way to handle it on MK's part.

Considering your past actions, you thinking the message is harsh is probably more to do with your ties to NpO than the actual message.

The only reason you care is because it's Athens.

Heh, is that why nobody's mentioning FoB? I never would've guessed.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Unavailable Contact

[Blacky]

Because you and I both know that this "brave new world" is anything but and while some alliances seem to now have impunity such leeway would not be granted to us. Hell, they tried to roll us for messages, could you imagine a coordinated "tech raid" on a whole alliance? Secret treaties would be coming out of the woodwork.

1) Who is they?

2) What deterred them?

I'm always up for a good laugh.

[The Corrupt Teacher]

Unlike some of us, Grub can see the big picture. He can accept a slight today so that fuller victory can be achieved tomorrow.

Just be glad he is the Emperor and not some others I could think of.

It was a dumb thing to say I took it back.

[Ivan Moldavi]

1) Who is they?

2) What deterred them?

I'm always up for a good laugh.

Do some research. I am not a comedian.

[Blacky]

Do some research. I am not a comedian.

It's funny you should say that. When you make claims it's expected that you can substantiate them and not expect others to do that for you.

[Ivan Moldavi]

It's funny you should say that. When you make claims it's expected that you can substantiate them and not expect others to do that for you.

I believe it was generally well known that certain groups were seeking to attack NSO at the time and spoke directly with our allies about it, even asking for permission to do so. I don't need to substantiate that which is commonly known. If you were left out of the loop, I am sorry, it isn't my concern.

[Blacky]

I believe it was generally well known that certain groups were seeking to attack NSO at the time and spoke directly with our allies about it, even asking for permission to do so. I don't need to substantiate that which is commonly known. If you were left out of the loop, I am sorry, it isn't my concern.

If it's so commonly known why are you afraid to name names? Either way you're still expected to substantiate a claim that you make whether or not you perceive it to be commonly known or not. I must admit this is entertatining.

[SirWilliam]

I believe it was generally well known that certain groups were seeking to attack NSO at the time and spoke directly with our allies about it, even asking for permission to do so. I don't need to substantiate that which is commonly known. If you were left out of the loop, I am sorry, it isn't my concern.

And your allies stood up for you then, no? That was the wrong thing for them to do, right, just as it was wrong of us to stand up for Athens? Just as Athens ought to have faced the consequences unimpeded you should have as well, no?

Making points by asking questions is fun.

[Rebel Virginia]

Groveling? I doubt Athens is the type to grovel. They want a peaceful solution, do doubt about it, but Londo is not the type to actually bend under pressure.

Have you noticed the number of apologetic statements Londo has made on this in the last 24 hours? I'd say that counts as both apologizing and bending under pressure.

[TehChron]

If it's so commonly known why are you afraid to name names? Either way you're still expected to substantiate a claim that you make whether or not you perceive it to be commonly known or not. I must admit this is entertatining.

Common knowledge doesn't need to be substantiated because of the inherent nature of it being common knowledge and therefore is widely known. Moreover, you're being overeager to try and force an argument on a completely unrelated topic, as it's not relevant who told Archon they were going to roll Athens, merely that it is common knowledge that there were several interested parties.

Learn to debate. And stop being entertained by your own inanity, it's annoying.

And your allies stood up for you then, no? That was the wrong thing for them to do, right, just as it was wrong of us to stand up for Athens? Just as Athens ought to have faced the consequences unimpeded you should have as well, no?

Making points by asking questions is fun.

I'm pretty sure there's a pretty large degree of difference between the two situations. Messagings < Undeclared alliance wars on the "Bold-faced bullying" scale.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Chron

[Blacky]

Common knowledge doesn't need to be substantiated because of the inherent nature of it being common knowledge and therefore is widely known. Moreover, you're being overeager to try and force an argument on a completely unrelated topic, as it's not relevant who told Archon they were going to roll Athens, merely that it is common knowledge that there were several interested parties.

If it's such common knowledge why can't you just say it? I really don't know. If Ivan wants to point out a double standard, and use an example by alluding to something which is supposedly common knowledge, but he wont substantiate it then that argument falls on it's face. I'm tired of watching you guys play the persecution or victim card when you're so eager to push peoples buttons.

[Azaghul]

So I assume that you are answering in the affirmative to the rest of that remark.

Just to clarify, the NSO never officially condemned the acts of Athens. I personally believe it should have been properly labeled simply as a war, and said so in the other thread. There was some private discussion on us acting on the Moldavi Doctrine but considering the Doctrine does not, as assumed by many, dictate that we must act, but instead states that we can and will act when it is in our interests to do so, supporting Ni!, whom I have never heard of or had any direct communication with, didn't seem to be the most prudent course of action for us.

That being said, if our friends in Polar felt that it was a Just cause, we would stand with them.

I do not believe the statement made here needed to be made as it was. I expected better of Archon to be honest. The threats and posturing were overkill and unnecessary. So much more could have been achieved with a softer touch. Isolating one group of allies in support of another through threats seems a bit too harsh. And me thinking that the message was too harsh says something.

I don't believe the topic was just aimed at Polar. There was no attempt to isolate anyone, but to remind everyone that attacking (or "tech raiding") Athens would result in much more than just a war against Athens, to dissuade anyone from trying.

Why ask? We should just go ahead and do it. Then STA/NpO can scold us a bit behind the scenes and then the matter will be resolved. That is the way things are done in this BRAVE NEW WORLD that has been ushered in for us.

No one is claiming that just a "scolding behind the scenes" will resolve this, they are working towards making amends.

[Cataduanes]

Archon and MK showing the way once again

OK. ODN is a bunch of cowards that are hardly fit to continue existing as an alliance.

Oh yeah what a great generalization, of course no one in ODN could live up to the high standards the likes of yourself have set right?

Edited November 15, 2009 by Cataduanes

[TehChron]

If it's such common knowledge why can't you just say it? I really don't know. If Ivan wants to point out a double standard, and use an example by alluding to something which is supposedly common knowledge, but he wont substantiate it then that argument falls on it's face. I'm tired of watching you guys play the persecution or victim card when you're so eager to push peoples buttons.

When did the argument fall flat on it's face? If you knew how to debate instead of trying to spin things towards irrelevancies then maybe you'd be making sense, but as I just said, the fact that it's common knowledge that there were folks eager to attack us at the time is about as relevant to nature of those events as the identity of the folks who wanted to attack Athens is now.

Actually, you know what? Put up or shut up, smart guy. Who went to Archon about rolling Athens? After all, that's kinda what this announcement is about after all. If you're going to demand names, you should at least be even-handed enough to show you adhere to the same standards of "debate" you demand of others.

[Blacky]

When did the argument fall flat on it's face? If you knew how to debate instead of trying to spin things towards irrelevancies then maybe you'd be making sense, but as I just said, the fact that it's common knowledge that there were folks eager to attack us at the time is about as relevant to nature of those events as the identity of the folks who wanted to attack Athens is now.

The specific contention that I'm taking issue with is Ivan playing the persecution card and claiming that if it were NSO in Athens position they would be getting rolled now. He then alluded to an event which neither he, nor you has substantiated as a citation for that claim. I called him out on it and asked him to substantiate it and he refused to do so on the grounds that it was common knowledge. Do you see now why that argument falls flat on it's face?

Actually, you know what? Put up or shut up, smart guy.

I wish I was as good at debating as you. Put up or shut up. Why didn't I think of that?

Who went to Archon about rolling Athens? After all, that's kinda what this announcement is about after all.

That's news to me. If you want to tell me something I don't already know then by all means, go ahead. But that does not make it any more ridiculous to not substantiate a claim made on the grounds that it is common knowledge. When that in and of itself is disputed.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Blacky

[SirWilliam]

I'm pretty sure there's a pretty large degree of difference between the two situations. Messagings < Undeclared alliance wars on the "Bold-faced bullying" scale.

Both, in the past, have been considered acts warranting war. Going by precedence and the controversy they caused they're actually quite comparable.

[Dochartaigh]

Quite frankly none of us (their allies) had a chance to respond given how quickly it was broken to the public. The moment I found out about it via query, and well before checking these forums, I was flipping out at Athens over it. So um...no. You can't make that statement as a factual one because there *was* no chance for them to do anything because we didn't have the time.

not gonna read through the entire thread but just gotta say that the simplest way for this to not have occurred would have been for Athens/FoB to discuss this with their allies first and foremost. Frankly, Athens/FoB took advantage of the treaties they held, knowing that they would be supported against any reprisals simply due to their treaties.

i am fairly certain that Athens never discussed this with IAA and from what i have gathered, does not appear to have talked to any of their other allies prior to this other than FoB. not sure on FoB as outside of CnG i do not know who they are treatied too, just know that they are not treatied to IAA (thank god).

[Amossio]

Is it me or is NSO going on another deviate topic and look at me thread....????

Whether it was because of public pressure, guilt etc Athens has apologised several times and maybe they will ratify themselves, who knows, but they stoped the drama with all the apologising etc.

I for one like the drama-lama in planet bob, I was hoping KoN would go nuclear, but I was severily dissapointed I do applaud MK for enforcing the idea that Athens made a mistake and is standing strong by her allies, don't get me wrong though, MK isn't one of my favoured alliances in Bob but I do have respect for them.

[eyriq]

-Snip-

That is all true, and no, I don't want other cultures, with their own perspectives, butting in on my or my mates business.

However, what Xiphosis states cannot be applied to all intra-alliance or even inter-alliance affairs if there is to be a semblance of the rule of law. More insight into his meaning is my main interest.

[TehChron]

Both, in the past, have been considered acts warranting war. Going by precedence and the controversy they caused they're actually quite comparable.

Hence why I did not say they were not equitable, just that there was a significant difference of degree involved.

The specific contention that I'm taking issue with is Ivan playing the persecution card and claiming that if it were NSO in Athens position they would be getting rolled now. He then alluded to an event which neither he, nor you has substantiated as a citation for that claim. I called him out on it and asked him to substantiate it and he refused to do so on the grounds that it was common knowledge. Do you see now why that argument falls flat on it's face?

I'm sorry? I believe all Ivan said was:

Surely if the NSO had done this others would not be seeking to jump to conclusions and the voice of reason would be that our friends in Frostbite and Terra-Cotta would deal with us with a firm lecture. I bet we could have all discussed it quietly over tea and biscuits and had a laugh at how horrible the Sith are for declaring a war and calling it a tech raid but nothing further would have happened. Right?

Who are we kidding. This is just the same double standard !@#$%^&* that has existed around here for years. I know, I helped perpetuate it for a long time. Those in control make the rules, I am well aware of that.

But I do love the "Don't. $%&@. With. Us." in caps and periods all serious like. That made me smile.

So, you're gonna need to clarify how saying you disproved a point Ivan didn't make is not in any way a strawman.

I wish I was as good at debating as you. Put up or shut up. Why didn't I think of that?

That's news to me. If you want to tell me something I don't already know then by all means, go ahead. But that does not make it any more ridiculous to not substantiate a claim made on the grounds that it is common knowledge. When that in and of itself is disputed.

The bolded made me smile. Telling you to stand by your own principles is such a clever way of threatening a show of force, why didn't I think of that? Please. Your entire train of argument is ridiculous on it's head because it's ultimately irrelevant to what actually happened. Archon doesn't need to name names for everyone to know that there were folks gunning for Athens, it's common knowledge that this was the case.

I don't see why you feel this pressing need for Archon to get up and list those that wanted a piece of Athens in order to prove that there were parties interested in attacking Athens.

[wickedj]

I have read the logs. Anyway, not the point. Keep thinking that posturing rules the day. Remember it next time I decide to posture.

oh the irony. its nothing short of hilarious

[Stonewall Jaxon]

Because you and I both know that this "brave new world" is anything but

Exactly. If you look at things in the long run, Karma didn't make the world more "free" for sovereign alliances to act as they wish, nor did they create a world in which everybody is "cuddly and nice." All Karma did, in the long run, was take revenge on Pacifica for its past "regressions" and make a world with a slightly weaker NPO. Everything from the old dynasty still remains, just now with a different face.

Also, more on topic, I personally would not have minded Athens' war if they had just had the cojones to declare war. If Londo had just announced "KofN, your infra will be gone tomorrow, just because we feel like it," I would've posted in that topic "Whatever floats your boat, Londo. Have fun." The issue here is that Athens just tried to make a war on the sly, like cowards, and that is highly condemnable.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Stonewall Jaxon

[delendum]

Exactly. If you look at things in the long run, Karma didn't make the world more "free" for sovereign alliances to act as they wish, nor did they create a world in which everybody is "cuddly and nice." All Karma did, in the long run, was take revenge on Pacifica for its past "regressions" and make a world with a slightly weaker NPO. Everything from the old dynasty still remains, just now with a different face.

Also, more on topic, I personally would not have minded Athens' war if they had just had the cojones to declare war. If Londo had just announced "KofN, your infra will be gone tomorrow, just because we feel like it," I would've posted in that topic "Whatever floats your boat, Londo. Have fun." The issue here is that Athens just tried to make a war on the sly, like cowards, and that is highly condemnable.

Unless it somehow escapes you that it was a tech raid and so burning infra was never on the list. Don't you think if they just wanted to smash things up they would've done it in a way that didn't only revolve around ground attacks and peace offers? Sounds like a very inefficient way to blow !@#$ up if you ask me.

I'm curios, aside from "they have 40 members" what other arguments do you have in favor of separating this from a usual tech raid?