Augustus Autumn Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 You know, for some reason I'm detecting a hint of irony in this. Do as I say, not as I do? This gets better and better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) But please, do not tech raid him. What about land raids? All someone has to do is put "not a tech raid" in the reason for war and if you come to his defence is will be an aggressive act of war on the part of Athens. Edited November 30, 2009 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferrous Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 It's not an excellent point at all. The charter clearly states that intervention from uninvolved parties is the problem. By declaring now that Athens will protect KB from all tech raiders, they are declaring that they will be an involved party should anyone decide to tech raid KB. It's a nonsensical point that has no real logic behind it. Far from excellent.Having said that I think this alliance is borderline idiotic, has no chance of any sort of success, but as long as Jack Diorno's having fun then good luck to him. I knew that my point would fall on deaf ears. There are two forms of intervention, proactive and passive. Most people understand the proactive or reactionary kind of intervention. After someone has done something wrong (according to a party), that party then commences on whatever action they feel is appropriate to intervene. In this case, Jack does not like it when proactive intervention occurs when there is no legal basis for the action. It is the second kind of intervention that is often ignored. By Athens declaring that they will declare on anyone who tech raids Jack, they are essentially putting walls around what other people can and cannot do. Granted, it's a very small wall, but the principle still holds. Since this is essentially a preventive measure, it's intervention that happens before the actual act. As I said, I have no qualms with Athens' protection of Jack, but if Jack is to uphold his values (or else prove himself a hypocrite), he'd either have to declare war on Athens or amend his own values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Autumn Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 As I said, I have no qualms with Athens' protection of Jack, but if Jack is to uphold his values (or else prove himself a hypocrite), he'd either have to declare war on Athens or amend his own values. Stop making sense already! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londo Mollari Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 What about land raids? All someone has to do is put "not a tech raid" in the reason for war and if you come to his defence is will be an aggressive act of war on the part of Athens. I'm afraid you are terribly mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 I knew that my point would fall on deaf ears.There are two forms of intervention, proactive and passive. Most people understand the proactive or reactionary kind of intervention. After someone has done something wrong (according to a party), that party then commences on whatever action they feel is appropriate to intervene. In this case, Jack does not like it when proactive intervention occurs when there is no legal basis for the action. It is the second kind of intervention that is often ignored. By Athens declaring that they will declare on anyone who tech raids Jack, they are essentially putting walls around what other people can and cannot do. Granted, it's a very small wall, but the principle still holds. Since this is essentially a preventive measure, it's intervention that happens before the actual act. As I said, I have no qualms with Athens' protection of Jack, but if Jack is to uphold his values (or else prove himself a hypocrite), he'd either have to declare war on Athens or amend his own values. He'd also have to declare war on every alliance that has a single signed treaty. I think you know that your idea of Jack's values doesn't match his own. I also think you know exactly the type of situation he refers to in his charter. I think you know it doesn't make sense to list every possibly stipulation in a charter to save it being 8 billion pages long. I think you're just trying to paint Jack as a hypocrite when really the situation doesn't fit it at all. Unless you really think he needs to declare war on every alliance in the Cyberverse with a single treaty to uphold his values, in which case I'd be astounded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 An Announcement from Athens Kap Bambino is under the full protection of Athens. Any and all unprovoked attacks on Kap Bambino will be seen as an attack on Athens and will be treated as such. Don’t mess. Athens will always be there for our friends, and one of our closest friends is Jack Diorno and we do not want to see him unjustly harmed in any way. Signed on behalf of the Government of Athens, Jgoods45, Theorodokos LOL, wow. You're actually going to try to defend this hot mess? I'm starting to see why some have said that Athens leadership is incompetent. I wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole while wearing a radiation suit. Good luck, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mussolandia Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Eh, I give it two weeks before he folds back into Athens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 I am still a bit confused (some will say that is not overly surprising but meh). You are going to automatically declare war upon any alliance that you believe is intervening in another alliance's "affairs"? So any war that breaks out you will automatically declare upon the aggressor (unless the aggressor is militarily smaller than the aggressed - noted) because every war is an alliance intervening, or attempting to, in the affairs of another. Sound policy. So any alliance that goes to war can automatically issue target lists against you because per your Charter you will already be in a de facto state of war with them, correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Eh, I give it two weeks before he folds back into Athens. I think you severely underestimate him. I'd wager on 3 weeks. If I lose, I send you 3 mil and if you lose, you send me 50 tech. Sound good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mussolandia Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 So wait, are you "straddling" on Jack? 2 weeks or less I win, 2-4 you win, more than a month I win again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rulesaints Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Good luck in your quest, Jack! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferrous Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 He'd also have to declare war on every alliance that has a single signed treaty. I think you know that your idea of Jack's values doesn't match his own. I also think you know exactly the type of situation he refers to in his charter. I think you know it doesn't make sense to list every possibly stipulation in a charter to save it being 8 billion pages long. I think you're just trying to paint Jack as a hypocrite when really the situation doesn't fit it at all. Unless you really think he needs to declare war on every alliance in the Cyberverse with a single treaty to uphold his values, in which case I'd be astounded. Actually, I'm not trying to paint him as a hypocrite. I'm trying to paint him as trying to engage in an idea that is half-baked at best. The problem with him not getting into specifics is that it gives him some leeway in interpretation - which can easily lead to hypocrisy - so people really like to see what he considers "bad" and what he considers "good" - specifics. Much more specific than the general categories that he presented in the OP. His original post states that he will declare war on alliances that commit one of the following: "[illegal] intervention," "hypocrisy," and "opportunism." He gives brief definitions, which as you can see, are highly circumstantial. In the end, while hypocrisy is fairly straightforward, intervention and opportunism are highly subjective. Therefore, it is necessary that Jack either be more specific about his own laws so he can't "pick and choose" which ones to enforce, or revoke some of the ideals altogether. I happen to be a person who thinks that treaties and charters should at least to their letter, in order to prevent miscommunication and misinterpretation. In this case, since Jack's OP downrides intervention of any kind, then yes, I do believe he should declare war on every single alliance that has an active treaty. That's what it says. If Jack disagrees, then he can either get more specific, or get rid of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Eh, I give it two weeks before he folds back into Athens. I considered this shortly after posting. Jack has the attention span of a small child and will likely run off to chase some other crazy adventure in a week or so. This is likely something that Athens won't have to deal with for long. Perhaps they took that into account when deciding to protect him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Gutenhagen Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Can I attack you? Or will you call in your large, tyrannical protector to attack me? I don't know if you have one or not, I didn't really both reading the announcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Chill I Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) Tech raiding of nations that fit into standards accepted by the community is fine. This typically includes all nations in AAs of 20? 15? 10? or smaller, when said AAs don't have protection from raids. Since Jack does have protection from raids, raiding him is not acceptable by the community's standards. I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here. Not to be a d*^k here but i have a small question. You say the community's standards are 20-15-10 man AAs for allowed tech raids. But you raid a 40 man AA (i know you guys said it was a mistake but never on the issue of the size). So in theory you didnt respect the community standards. Yet you are here holding community standards as basis for protecting Jack. I mean if you had said screw you all we do what we want cuz its our right to do it, id be fine with that. But im not getting the part where you take a dump on "community standards" one day and embrace them the next. Or am i not interpreting the situation correctly? Edited November 30, 2009 by King Chill I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Liberty is the central tenet of Moralism. Your argument is invalid. Also, Attica did it first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 LOL, wow. You're actually going to try to defend this hot mess? I'm starting to see why some have said that Athens leadership is incompetent. I wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole while wearing a radiation suit. Good luck, lol. That's why it specifies unprovoked attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TailsK Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Article IV: TreatiesSection 1 – Policy Kap Bambino will not sign any form of binding treaty with a foreign entity. How can you have a treaty with Athens, if you have this in your charter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 I think you severely underestimate him. I'd wager on 3 weeks. If I lose, I send you 3 mil and if you lose, you send me 50 tech. Sound good? I'm putting my money on 4 weeks, shall we start a pool? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 LOL, wow. You're actually going to try to defend this hot mess? I'm starting to see why some have said that Athens leadership is incompetent. I wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole while wearing a radiation suit. Good luck, lol. Careful there good buddy. Londo came around later and cleared that up. I have no problems with an alliance protecting a single person from tech raiders. What I do have a problem with is everyone in this topic who has said essentially "lol what if I insert idiotic reason or action here so I can tech raid him?" When Athens said they would protect him from tech raids they meant it, so stop trying to find dumb excuses to justify a tech raid. It makes ya'll look dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londo Mollari Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) Not to be a d*^k here but i have a small question.You say the community's standards are 20-15-10 man AAs for allowed tech raids. But you raid a 40 man AA (i know you guys said it was a mistake but never on the issue of the size). So in theory you didnt respect the community standards. Yet you are here holding community standards as basis for protecting Jack. I mean if you had said screw you all we do what we want cuz its our right to do it, id be fine with that. But im not getting the part where you take a dump on "community standards" one day and embrace them the next. Or am i not interpreting the situation correctly? We didn't knowingly raid someone who was protected. Nor would we. If we did by mistake, we would pay reps. Raiding an unprotected 40 man AA carries the risk of raising the ire of the global community, and is a very bad idea in general. We messed up on that. That's been done to death. Raiding a protected alliance not only involves the community in general, but their protectors specifically. Hope this clears things up for you. Edited November 30, 2009 by Londo Mollari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghuxalia Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 I rather like Article IV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinite Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 How can you have a treaty with Athens, if you have this in your charter? It doesn't bind Kap Bambino in any way . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Bad Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 LOL, wow. You're actually going to try to defend this hot mess? I'm starting to see why some have said that Athens leadership is incompetent. I wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole while wearing a radiation suit. Good luck, lol. Well its not like Athens could get any less popular. When your on top of the everyone wants to see you rolled list, you really don't have anything to loose by protecting this hot mess. I for one enjoy watching such madness unfold. No doubt this alliance with the crazy charter combined with Athens lack of ever thinking anything through will lead to many good times on Bob. Now what more could you want then that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.