NoV War Discussion

[Captain Flinders]

Stand up for whats right? You mean defending allies in a curbstomp..?

Something else you wanna share with the class because im drawing a blank

Sorry, I'm a little slow on the up-take as of late. Like I said, you stood up for your allies in the spotlight. But I can remember back in the days of NoV and maroon when the !@#$ hit the fan behind the scenes, you guys were no where to be found whether we held a treaty with you or not. It's always easiest to stand for what is right when everyone is watching and will remember. Just know that some of us still remember what happened outside of the spotlight.

[Benjamin Arouet]

Sorry, I'm a little slow on the up-take as of late. Like I said, you stood up for your allies in the spotlight. But I can remember back in the days of NoV and maroon when the !@#$ hit the fan behind the scenes, you guys were no where to be found whether we held a treaty with you or not. It's always easiest to stand for what is right when everyone is watching and will remember. Just know that some of us still remember what happened outside of the spotlight.

I'm sorry, I was going to let this fly until I saw this reasoning as you're entitled to your opinion, but what on earth are you talking about? We didn't hold a treaty with NoV outside of a sphere-wide NAP as best as I can remember from those days, nor did we particularly ever like NoV. You can think what you want about that war or any other, but I've never seen it considered any particular moral imperative to defend those you don't like, regardless of the circumstances, unless you were dumb enough to sign a treaty with them.

Nothing happened outside of the spotlight, as far as I'm concerned, except us not particularly wanting to stand up for an alliance which had a strong history of hegemonic ambitions on Maroon and was included in any NAP pacts as merely a courtesy to a neighbor. If you want to go after us for that, go for it.

Edit: Okay, my memory might indeed by faulty, Lol Maroonity was effectively disbanded before the NoV situation came to pass. Doesn't change any of what I said, though.

Edited November 17, 2009 by Benjamin Arouet

[NoFish]

Sorry, I'm a little slow on the up-take as of late. Like I said, you stood up for your allies in the spotlight. But I can remember back in the days of NoV and maroon when the !@#$ hit the fan behind the scenes, you guys were no where to be found whether we held a treaty with you or not. It's always easiest to stand for what is right when everyone is watching and will remember. Just know that some of us still remember what happened outside of the spotlight.

Wait, so you're mad because someone you didn't have a treaty with didn't stand up for you when you got attacked? I must have misunderstood that.

[Xiphosis]

Nothing happened outside of the spotlight, as far as I'm concerned, except us not particularly wanting to stand up for an alliance which had a strong history of hegemonic ambitions on Maroon and was included in any NAP pacts as merely a courtesy to a neighbor.

The funny part is, for all the labeling of Q as the Hegemony, NoV actually founded a Maroon bloc with that exact damn name after UJW. You guys were fooling yourself if you thought anyone wanted you around.

[Captain Flinders]

I'm sorry, I was going to let this fly until I saw this reasoning as you're entitled to your opinion, but what on earth are you talking about? We didn't hold a treaty with NoV outside of a sphere-wide NAP as best as I can remember from those days

Decent enough memory. lol Maroonity is probably what you're thinking of. And while that had no explicit information clause it did have a clause which was pretty damn close to ensuring open and helpful communication to help in "avoiding conflict within Maroon". When we felt around for information we knew to be out there, not only did you not volunteer it (as per the treaty) but you certainly were not there offering the information. Again, behind the scenes you're far less noble than your heroic stands would have people believe.

nor did we particularly ever like NoV.

Do you make a habit of having treaties with those you dislike? We certainly didn't dislike you.

You can think what you want about that war or any other, but I've never seen it considered any particular moral imperative to defend those you don't like, regardless of the circumstances, unless you were dumb enough to sign a treaty with them.

Please see above and note I wasn't talking about defense.

Edit: Okay, my memory might indeed by faulty, Lol Maroonity was effectively disbanded before the NoV situation came to pass. Doesn't change any of what I said, though.

The signatories of lol Maroonity started to leave days before NoV was attacked. You were clearly aware of the situation and allowed it to pass. I don't wholly blame you because as you said, you didn't even like us, but it still speaks to the less than noble tactics used to solidify yourself in the sphere behind the scenes.

Wait, so you're mad because someone you didn't have a treaty with didn't stand up for you when you got attacked? I must have misunderstood that.

You did.

The funny part is, for all the labeling of Q as the Hegemony, NoV actually founded a Maroon bloc with that exact damn name after UJW.

Clearly if two largely unrelated entities (as unrelated as the complex treaty web can make two entities) have the same name they must inherently share the same characteristics. You caught me, NoV was the NPO.

You guys were fooling yourself if you thought anyone wanted you around.

I don't know about that. I remember some pretty steadfast allies fighting that war out with us. Some to their destruction. And here we are once again with more steadfast allies. Those who are able to see past the discrimination of our people have enjoyed some amazingly beneficial friendships. I know because I can point to people in this world who after getting over the initial bias placed in their heads about Nordlanders went on to become them, befriend them, and generally enjoy our company.

[Xiphosis]

I don't know about that. I remember some pretty steadfast allies fighting that war out with us.

Name one on Maroon.

...

That's what I thought.

[Captain Flinders]

Name one on Maroon.

...

That's what I thought.

I didn't know you were referring solely to Maroon but ok. Clearly my entire post has been invalidated due to this misunderstanding. Woe is me.

[Big Z]

Decent enough memory. lol Maroonity is probably what you're thinking of. And while that had no explicit information clause it did have a clause which was pretty damn close to ensuring open and helpful communication to help in "avoiding conflict within Maroon". When we felt around for information we knew to be out there, not only did you not volunteer it (as per the treaty) but you certainly were not there offering the information. Again, behind the scenes you're far less noble than your heroic stands would have people believe.

That's not what the treaty read at all.

The signatory alliances agree to resolve all conflicts with other signatories through the use of diplomacy and affirm their dedication to avoiding conflict within Maroon. No signatory alliance shall raise arms against a fellow signatory or its allies. Furthermore, no signatory alliance will engage in acts espionage against a signatory, whether it be at the alliance or national level.

The phrase "avoiding conflict within Maroon" is meant as a further reaffirmation of the NAP within that clause. It's a condemnation of intra-maroon conflict. It is definitely not one of information sharing and damn well doesn't require it. Nice try though.

[Captain Flinders]

That's not what the treaty read at all.

I already said it didn't explicitly say it. But signing a treaty with someone you don't like, then staying quiet while you watch them burn because speaking up may associate them with yourself (even though a treaty does that as well) only reaffirms but feelings about CSN and the rating I gave them.

[Benjamin Arouet]

I already said it didn't explicitly say it. But signing a treaty with someone you don't like, then staying quiet while you watch them burn because speaking up may associate them with yourself (even though a treaty does that as well) only reaffirms but feelings about CSN and the rating I gave them.

We signed that treaty and included Norden Verein because even though we might not have had much love for NoV (and we had certain reasons for those feelings, such as the fact that NoV and its predecessors long treated Maroon as their playground which we were simply allowed to exist in), we recognized the importance of sphere unity and thought promoting that cause was extremely important. We might not have loved you but we certainly were committed to stopping inter-Maroon conflict.

While I agree with Big_Z about the very minor level of relevance of lol, Maroonity, I would also point out that we withdrew from it only a couple days prior to the GATO-1V war, and we were a bit distracted to be focusing on things like NoV at that point. We violated neither the letter nor the spirit of a treaty which was built solely on the principle of non-aggression. All of the Maroon treaties have been building towards the Chestnut Accords, and this was but the lowest initial rung on that ladder. I don't think we ever claimed to be heroic, but we always have and always will follow our treaties and attempt to do the right thing both behind the scenes and in public.

[SpacingOutMan]

I already said it didn't explicitly say it. But signing a treaty with someone you don't like, then staying quiet while you watch them burn because speaking up may associate them with yourself (even though a treaty does that as well) only reaffirms but feelings about CSN and the rating I gave them.

You really must have been naive to think that Lol, Maroonity was anything substantial in the very end. It was a mere stepping stone to Chestnut, as Arouet pointed out, and our current situation at the time demanded my focus elsewhere, being curb stomped and all because of a silly treaty.

[Captain Flinders]

We violated neither the letter nor the spirit of a treaty

If you believe that having knowledge of an ally's impending destruction and doing nothing, whether explicitly stated in your treaty or not, is honoring the spirit of a treaty, you're out to lunch. Of course you're not the worst offenders, so don't worry. But it just seems to me that whenever someone calls your actions into question you point back to this one instance where you stood with your allies. You know you can't bank those actions for karma points down the road right?

Edited November 17, 2009 by Captain Flinders

[Lord Brendan]

If you believe that having knowledge of an ally's impending destruction and doing nothing, whether explicitly stated in your treaty or not, is honoring the spirit of a treaty, you're out to lunch. Of course you're not the worst offenders, so don't worry. But it just seems to me that whenever someone calls your actions into question you point back to this one instance where you stood with your allies. You know you can't bank those actions for karma points down the road right?

Perhaps I should leave it to people who were in the alliance back then to respond, but I'm going to say that somehow I doubt that Continuum was sharing information with us at that point... seeing as we were at war with them.

[Big Z]

If you believe that having knowledge of an ally's impending destruction and doing nothing, whether explicitly stated in your treaty or not, is honoring the spirit of a treaty, you're out to lunch. Of course you're not the worst offenders, so don't worry. But it just seems to me that whenever someone calls your actions into question you point back to this one instance where you stood with your allies. You know you can't bank those actions for karma points down the road right?

I don't consider a NAP partner to be an ally by any stretch of the imagination. We agree not to attack each other and to use diplomacy first in case of any conflict between the signatories, while maintaining senate guidelines. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. The fact that you think a NAP partner not coming to your defense is breaking the spirit of the NAP is hilarious.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Big Z

[Benjamin Arouet]

If you believe that having knowledge of an ally's impending destruction and doing nothing, whether explicitly stated in your treaty or not, is honoring the spirit of a treaty, you're out to lunch. Of course you're not the worst offenders, so don't worry. But it just seems to me that whenever someone calls your actions into question you point back to this one instance where you stood with your allies. You know you can't bank those actions for karma points down the road right?

First of all, as Big_Z said, NAP partner does not equal ally, just someone you've committed to refrain from aggressive action against. Secondly, unless I have my timeline wrong, the NoV thing started on May 10, more than a week after we were engaged against the Continuum in a war of our own, and more than a week after we had withdrawn from lol, Maroonity. Therefore, even if we had had information of your impending doom, it wouldn't even have been a case of not telling a treaty partner of any kind, just of not telling some random alliance.

I don't intend to point back to that situation at any time to justify current actions, but when you question us for not standing up for what is right, this is the obvious situation to go back to. The reason it is brought up in relation to CSN often (usually by people who are not members) is that it is one of the few times we were in the spotlight, not that we particularly like to bring it up. If you rate us down because you don't like us, fine, but saying it's because we "don't stand up for what is right" or don't support our treaty partners is ridiculous and patently false.

[Delta1212]

So, in summary, CSN has no moral fortitude because they did not take the time to inform someone they did not like and had no obligation to share information with that said alliance was in trouble because they were too busy being beaten down after defending another alliance they had a treaty obligation to help.

[Style #386]

So, in summary, CSN has no moral fortitude because they did not take the time to inform someone they did not like and had no obligation to share information with that said alliance was in trouble because they were too busy being beaten down after defending another alliance they had a treaty obligation to help.

Truly they are the new hegemony.

Am I doing it right?

[Benjamin Arouet]

Truly they are the new hegemony.

Am I doing it right?

Not fair, don't tell people. They have to figure it out on their own.

[zimmerwald1915]

So, in summary, CSN has no moral fortitude because they did not take the time to inform someone they did not like and had no obligation to share information with that said alliance was in trouble because they were too busy being beaten down after defending another alliance they had a treaty obligation to help.

NoV never had the moral high ground. Flinders is just trying to claim it for form's sake.

[Captain Flinders]

NoV never had the moral high ground. Flinders is just trying to claim it for form's sake.

When an alliance is declared on or completely OOC reasons and these reasons are highly discriminatory, said alliance automatically gets the moral high ground.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Captain Flinders

[Xiphosis]

When an alliance is declared on or completely OOC reasons and these reasons are highly discriminatory, said alliance automatically gets the moral high ground.

Anyone who read the DOW remembers there was a lot of IC ground to roll you guys. Want a refresher? I still have it memorized.

[Captain Flinders]

Anyone who read the DOW remembers there was a lot of IC ground to roll you guys. Want a refresher? I still have it memorized.

Really? Because I remember the first line of the CB stating the alliance was a "white supremacist" alliance. Now unless we were hugely into the white sphere, that's highly OOC. A photobucket account was also used in the CB. Also, OOC. Shall I go on?

[Xiphosis]

Really? Because I remember the first line of the CB stating the alliance was a "white supremacist" alliance. Now unless we were hugely into the white sphere, that's highly OOC. A photobucket account was also used in the CB. Also, OOC. Shall I go on?

I also remember a fairly sizable amount of proof you guys knowingly accepted a Blood Reich member into your government, both as Nordreich and later as NoV, who was very much so an IC white supremacist and advertised it.

The standing form of government of Ásgarðr is a National Socialist styled Monarchy, under the pretence that all members of the Great nation are interrelated through out history by their Noble Aryan Blood.

Alliances & Ranks Aquired

Axis of Imperial Nations (AIN) -- Minister of Security, Wermacht 2IC

Nordreich (NoR) --- Soldaten

Holy German Empire (HGE) --- Ministry of Security

Stand or Die Invisible Order (S/D) --- Member

Blood Reich ---Reichsfuhrer

Norden Verein (NoV)--- Minister of Economics, Oberst, Standartenfuhrer, Brigandfuhrer, Feldmarschal, Generalfeldmarschal, Reichsgeneral

Sons of Muspel (SoM)--- Member, Graphic Artist, Drengr

All of which was cited in the DoW against Norden Verein. You were saying?

Edit: Nevermind, you're right. TOTALLY OOC reasons.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Xiphosis

[Captain Flinders]

I also remember a fairly sizable amount of proof you guys knowingly accepted a Blood Reich member into your government, both as Nordreich and later as NoV, who was very much so an IC white supremacist and advertised it.

While I've never seen evidence to suggest we knowingly let someone with such things on their wiki in, those were stated over and over again not to be the beliefs of NoV. So you're saying that the CB labeled the entire alliance as white supremacists (including those who aren't actually white) based off this one person? Judging an entire people based on the shortcomings of a select few examples. My, that sounds a lot like discrimination to me.

All of which was cited in the DoW against Norden Verein. You were saying?

You've cherry-picked one select part of the CB. Pictures of Kaiser Martens, photobucket accounts, and RL information of other members were the bulk of the CB and there is no hiding that.

Edit: Nevermind, you're right. TOTALLY OOC reasons.

As far as I'm aware, that wiki was made by the same person who made the first one you highlighted. So you're not really bolstering your case much. Edited November 19, 2009 by Captain Flinders

[Donnerjack]

I have split this discussion from the Rating Alliances thread so as to end the derail. Remember that this is still in an IC forum, for the moment at least. Leave the other thread alone now please.