Declaraction of War

[William Blake]

They weren't though. YOu can say whatever you want about ghosts, but GOONS and Kronos would not have booted their member out, and indeed stated that they did things fine by their books. You stating the "what if" is all nice and good, but "what if" they were super secret spies placed by the NPO, "what if" they were Admin, "what if"... we all know the facts, and know full well that two of them weren't ghosts.

It is like Gremlins saying to their members that they can tech raid NpO, and their three top guys tech raid your highest NS nation and none of you can do anything to defend him because they are out of reach, and them telling you it was ok in their books, that they won't boot out their members, but speak with them to see about paying reps. Whatever reps you get from those 3 members would never cover the damages done in the first blitz, and your left standing having been cheated, attacked, and with no recourse what so ever. You may speak of the high road of diplomacy, but should this happen time and time again, you will one day draw a line in the sand.

Well, I guess if you're willing to take it to ridiculous lengths like this then there is no arguing. The fact is a dozen times a day a member of an alliance raids another member of an alliance, never does this result in an alliance wide war. Why? Because the raided alliance takes the 5 minutes to head over to the raider's irc and go "hey we just got hit by so-and-so, wtf?" then the other alliance's gov goes "wooops, yeah, he's a member, we'll !@#$%* him out and if you want to get us a number on the damages, we'll send out the aid for that asap" or just let him get beat up.

I know I've talked to alliances and they've booted members for raiding one of our nations, but I guess it's easier for you to make your point by saying that it couldn't possibly have happened here. Also, I'm not sure what alliances you usually deal with, but I've always dealt with ones that paid full reps for damages done. To your time and time again example, I'd say that I've dealt with that type of thing (just like plenty of other people) and it doesn't help to just flip out and childishly escalate things.

Edited December 9, 2009 by William Blake

[Nizzle]

No one will ever know what would have happened to the raiders because that route was not taken.

[Poyplemonkeys]

An alliance-wide tech raid which included government members has absolutely nothing to do with a lone unsupported member tech raiding a single nation. Do keep building up these straw men though, it's quite amusing to watch.

The tech raid wasn't unsupported though was it? It was within GOONS guidelines, set out by and condoned by their government? A government member condoning a tech raid through the guidelines they enforce, or actually taking part in a tech raid. I find the difference miniscule.

I really like how you snuck in a little jab at Polar accusing us of ignoring treaty obligations without getting into enough detail so that you would be required to actually support your bizarre claim.

Actually no. I can see why it would come across that way, and I sincerely apologise for my lack of clarity because I did not mean to accuse Polaris of anything of that manner. I merely meant you were willing to come to the defense of KoN!, perhaps indirectly as it seemed you cared more for Athens' getting their comeuppance than KoN!'s welfare, without that piece of paper in place. Hence the paper can mean little to NpO.

I cut out the beginning of your post because while I disagree with it, I have already mentioned the reasons why and I'd quite like to avoid a circle dance

Edited December 9, 2009 by Poyplemonkeys

[nippy]

The tech raid wasn't unsupported though was it? It was within GOONS guidelines, set out by and condoned by their government? A government member condoning a tech raid through the guidelines they enforce, or actually taking part in a tech raid. I find the difference miniscule.

I suppose that depends on your definition of 'supported'. As has been clarified time and time again (yet ignored for the purposes of arguing the legitimacy of RLMMO's war declaration), nations risk their own NS when techraiding. A techraid gone bad will be handled by that nation and that nation alone. It is a responsibility that lies SOLELY on the nation doing the raid. This is also clearly defined in our charter:

Unaligned nations are not afforded the protection given to alliance members, and may be attacked at the discretion of individual GOONS members. Should a GOONS member bite off more than he can chew and get beaten up while attacking an unaligned colony, he does not have an expectation of backup from other colonies, unless the beating up comes from members of a recognized alliance, in which case this may be taken as an act of war on their behalf.

GOONS does not recognize 'friendship' as a diplomatic tie. [OOC] People fail to realize how ludicrous the concept of 'military aid due to friendship' really is. As we're all aware of previous instances of 'OOC attacks' that have been condemned by the majority of nations on Bob (and rightfully so), to come to military aid of a nation due to 'friendship' is, in itself, an OOC attack.[/OOC]

[Poyplemonkeys]

An OOC attack to come to the aid of friends without a treaty? I would love to see that one justified.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

I suppose that depends on your definition of 'supported'. As has been clarified time and time again (yet ignored for the purposes of arguing the legitimacy of RLMMO's war declaration), nations risk their own NS when techraiding. A techraid gone bad will be handled by that nation and that nation alone. It is a responsibility that lies SOLELY on the nation doing the raid.

If you claim - as your colleagues have - that we do not know how you would have reacted should RLMMO have tried peace, you can't claim at the same time that all tech raids are handled by that nation and that nation alone. There is no telling how you would have reacted to a three-on-one retaliation on that nation.

My bet - and it's pure speculation - is that you would have offered peace. RLMMO would have refused it. You would have interpreted their refusal and counter-attacks as attacks on your alliance, outside the realm of a "tech raid".

I've seen raiders being left to face a responsive raided nation, in a 1v1. I've rarely seen a 3v1 go on against a raider for a week.

But hey, we can't tell, as it is. As it stands, you supported the raider.

[OOC] People fail to realize how ludicrous the concept of 'military aid due to friendship' really is. As we're all aware of previous instances of 'OOC attacks' that have been condemned by the majority of nations on Bob (and rightfully so), to come to military aid of a nation due to 'friendship' is, in itself, an OOC attack.[/OOC]

I had a good chuckle at this one. I hope you're not serious because we can easily prove our individual links to RLMMO, dating back to March '08 and before and those were IC.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[nippy]

An OOC attack to come to the aid of friends without a treaty? I would love to see that one justified.

[OOC]The 'friends' part is what makes the in-game attack 'OOC'. This was clearly the reasoning behind ZDF's entry into the fray.[/OOC]

Nations build allied strength through treaties. This has always been the case, and in order to keep things legitimate, this is how things should always be. Nuclear war is a serious thing, one that should take proper planning, reasoning, and discussion with allies prior to initiation.

[nippy]

and it's pure speculation

Precisely. The only thing you can do is speculate, because RLMMO didn't make an effort to find out.

I had a good chuckle at this one. I hope you're not serious because we can easily prove our individual links to RLMMO, dating back to March '08 and before and those were IC.

So, you have a treaty with them? What kind of 'links' are you referring to?

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[OOC]The 'friends' part is what makes the in-game attack 'OOC'. This was clearly the reasoning behind ZDF's entry into the fray.[/OOC]

OOC: Wait, you guys are serious? By the way, it's ZDP.

They're our "IC" friends. I don't know any of them, outside this realm. We talk of OOC, as well as IC things, just like most friends on this game do.

Seriously, claiming the OOC card is, by far, the most ridiculous line I've seen from you guys in two already loaded topics.

So, you have a treaty with them? What kind of 'links' are you referring to?

We don't need a treaty to express or define friendship. Actually, friendship should be a prerequisite to any treaty.

As for the links, we've been close to RLMMO since their first protectorate agreement with Echelon, an alliance we were part of (for Khy, gov't of). When developed close individual friendships with many of them and, as such, when we moved to TOP, Khyber made sure RLMMO would be signed as a protectorate. It was later dropped for various reasons that are unrelated to this topic.

When we formed, we made sure they knew where we stood.

Yep, friendship. IC.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[nippy]

OOC: Wait, you guys are serious? By the way, it's ZDP.

They're our "IC" friends. I don't know any of them, outside this realm. We talk of OOC, as well as IC things, just like most friends on this game do.

Seriously, claiming the OOC card is, by far, the most ridiculous line I've seen from you guys in two already loaded topics.

How does a nation have 'friends'? Especially 'friends' that they're willing to go into nuclear war in protection of without some form of treaty?

Something tells me the population of your nation is a bit worried about the stability of their leadership.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

How does a nation have 'friends'? Especially 'friends' that they're willing to go into nuclear war in protection of without some form of treaty?

Something tells me the population of your nation is a bit worried about the stability of their leadership.

OOC, last post on the matter since it is seriously ridiculous:

You do know that, when you made your nation, you also made a "ruler". As such, when you are role-playing, you are your nation's ruler, not merely a nation. Many famous characters have existed, on Planet Bob, relatively outside of the limits of their own nation: Schattenmann being a good example.

Few people, if any, actually role-play a nation for it is a very long process where you (can) have not ont but virtually an unlimited number of characters.

As it is, people in this realm usually role-play their ruler, as the official representative of their nation and its politics. As such, our (Khyber and I) numerous conversations with RLMMO over the years, regarding IC matters, have left us with a very good impression of them, an impression that translated into financial and military support when it came to it. The worst you could accuse us of would be of secret diplomacy because we didn't announce our mutual friendship to the world. If you want to do that, be my guest.

Frankly, though, I'm not entirely sure you should be giving role-play lessons. Our entrance in this war was perfectly IC, as is our friendship with RLMMO.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[nippy]

OOC, last post on the matter since it is seriously ridiculous:

You do know that, when you made your nation, you also made a "ruler". As such, when you are role-playing, you are your nation's ruler, not merely a nation. Many famous characters have existed, on Planet Bob, relatively outside of the limits of their own nation: Schattenmann being a good example.

Few people, if any, actually role-play a nation for it is a very long process where you (can) have not ont but virtually an unlimited number of characters.

As it is, people in this realm usually role-play their ruler, as the official representative of their nation and its politics. As such, our (Khyber and I) numerous conversations with RLMMO over the years, regarding IC matters, have left us with a very good impression of them, an impression that translated into financial and military support when it came to it. The worst you could accuse us of would be of secret diplomacy because we didn't announce our mutual friendship to the world. If you want to do that, be my guest.

Frankly, though, I'm not entirely sure you should be giving role-play lessons. Our entrance in this war was perfectly IC, as is our friendship with RLMMO.

Ah, so your justification is 'everyone else does it'? Alright, good to know.

I'm far from giving lessons here...I'm giving an opposing stance. You fine gentlemans are attempting to erode the foundation of Bob when trying to do away with treaties. I'm simply providing an excellent example of why they're necessary. It's rational, whereas your stance is irrational.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

I'm far from giving lessons here...I'm giving an opposing stance. You fine gentlemans are attempting to erode the foundation of Bob when trying to do away with treaties. I'm simply providing an excellent example of why they're necessary. It's rational, whereas your stance is irrational.

OOC (A very last one, I guess):

There is no rationality in your argument. It's essentially: "we have a treaty so it is IC, you don't have a treaty to intervene so it is OOC". It doesn't make any sense at all. A treaty doesn't define IC friendship. You're so far off, it's laughable.

[nippy]

OOC (A very last one, I guess):

There is no rationality in your argument. It's essentially: "we have a treaty so it is IC, you don't have a treaty to intervene so it is OOC". It doesn't make any sense at all. A treaty doesn't define IC friendship. You're so far off, it's laughable.

As I've stated already, 'friendship' is not a concept adopted by nations between one another. One nation's population can have a favorable opinion of another nation's population, but in no case does this justify entry into a nuclear war...not without lines having been drawn. Your 'no line' policy goes against established policies, sure enough, but it doesn't make sense when put into context.

[Poyplemonkeys]

As I've stated already, 'friendship' is not a concept adopted by nations between one another. One nation's population can have a favorable opinion of another nation's population, but in no case does this justify entry into a nuclear war...not without lines having been drawn. Your 'no line' policy goes against established policies, sure enough, but it doesn't make sense when put into context.

I am not a nation. I am a person, a ruler of a nation. I have friends I have made during my time in The Cyberverse that I would commit my nation to defend. It is my right as the supreme ruler of my nation, to do what I wish with it, and then deal with the consequences of those actions.

Your claims that a friendship cannot be justified on the Cyberverse makes me wonder what GOONS treaties are based on, if not the very same friendship that calls ZDP to the defense of RLMMO now.

[nippy]

I am not a nation. I am a person, a ruler of a nation. I have friends I have made during my time in The Cyberverse that I would commit my nation to defend. It is my right as the supreme ruler of my nation, to do what I wish with it, and then deal with the consequences of those actions.

Your claims that a friendship cannot be justified on the Cyberverse makes me wonder what GOONS treaties are based on, if not the very same friendship that calls ZDP to the defense of RLMMO now.

Your views are so incredibly skewed that I can understand why you're having difficulty comprehending what I'm saying. Unfortunately, I do not believe I am able to put enough peanut butter on my explanation for you receive any nutritional value from it. Wasted calories.

Treaties are made between alliances by alliance governments run by several rulers, usually in the best interest of the alliance. When a treaty is signed just because Bobby Joe made a funny and you think he's peachy keen, that's not in the best interest of your alliance.

[lamuella]

The tech raid wasn't unsupported though was it?

it was unsupported. As we keep pointing out, if he'd got himself into trouble we'd have left him twisting in the wind.

If RLMMO had just attacked nizzle and not declared war on GOONS as a whole, we'd have let him get smacked around.

[lamuella]

If you claim - as your colleagues have - that we do not know how you would have reacted should RLMMO have tried peace, you can't claim at the same time that all tech raids are handled by that nation and that nation alone. There is no telling how you would have reacted to a three-on-one retaliation on that nation.

sure there is:

In times of peace, GOONS recognize the sovereignty and security of other alliances. An "alliance" is defined as a group with diplomatic ties. "diplomatic ties" may be of the form of MDP, ODP, Protectorate, or any variation thereof. Exceptions may be made both for smaller groups we wish to recognize and larger groups we do not, should the closet so decide.

Unaligned nations are not afforded the protection given to alliance members, and may be attacked at the discretion of individual GOONS members. Should a GOONS member bite off more than he can chew and get beaten up while attacking an unaligned colony, he does not have an expectation of backup from other colonies, unless the beating up comes from members of a recognized alliance, in which case this may be taken as an act of war on their behalf.

see that last part where we say he doesn't have an expectation of backup?

[Poyplemonkeys]

Your views are so incredibly skewed that I can understand why you're having difficulty comprehending what I'm saying. Unfortunately, I do not believe I am able to put enough peanut butter on my explanation for you receive any nutritional value from it. Wasted calories.

Cute.

Treaties are made between alliances by alliance governments run by several rulers, usually in the best interest of the alliance. When a treaty is signed just because Bobby Joe made a funny and you think he's peachy keen, that's not in the best interest of your alliance.

Ok, so GOONS signs treaties based on the best interests of their alliance, not on the friendships and relationships developed between the alliances? Good luck with that. I doubt it's the case though, I think you have a treaty with MK because, well you think MK is just swell.

All this is sort of getting away from your laughable opinion that defending a friend is an OOC attack though, so maybe we should get back to the original point at hand.

[Louisa]

I think you have a treaty with MK because, well you think MK is just swell.

Actuyally, every one should have a treaty with MK (them permitting/allowing) because when you ally with them you know that you will get unbendable partners who are always there for you. Just a free tip

[magicninja]

Here I was thinking I had heard it all. Friendship between nations as well as alliances is hereby abolished.

[Nizzle]

If you claim - as your colleagues have - that we do not know how you would have reacted should RLMMO have tried peace, you can't claim at the same time that all tech raids are handled by that nation and that nation alone. There is no telling how you would have reacted to a three-on-one retaliation on that nation.

My bet - and it's pure speculation - is that you would have offered peace. RLMMO would have refused it. You would have interpreted their refusal and counter-attacks as attacks on your alliance, outside the realm of a "tech raid".

I've seen raiders being left to face a responsive raided nation, in a 1v1. I've rarely seen a 3v1 go on against a raider for a week.

But hey, we can't tell, as it is. As it stands, you supported the raider..

Yeah, I would have been pretty screwed if they had only attacked the attacker instead of nuking the uninvolved.

[nippy]

Here I was thinking I had heard it all. Friendship between nations as well as alliances is hereby abolished.

Like I said, not enough peanut butter.

There's meaning within the words if you read them in sentence format, as they were presented.

[Khyber]

yes it had. From the moment nukes were promised, it was a nuclear war.

Really? Lamuella, you should fire the crack team of monkeys making these arguements for you.

Threats do not make it a reality, no matter how you cut it.

For example, lets say I got hot under the collar and said "I will nuke each one of your nations while going down." It doesn't make it a reality unless I actually do it. Hence their threat to nuke you all is just that, a threat, until carried out.

I came to you before the threat was carried out to find a peace, you however shot it down. RLMMO is being told to seek diplomacy when they get tech raided, yet you don't have to when someone threatens you then asks me to find find a peaceful resolution before they carry out any threat.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Khyber

[Khyber]

Except that isnt what happened...and you really do know it

Your right, Gremlins did not attack the NpO, and I know that. However, I was trying to put an NpO member in thier shoes since they seemed to have zero ability to comprehend how after getting tech raided time and time again by alliances that allow it to happen, RLMMO would draw a line in the sand to fight back against alliances that permit their alliance to be rolled.

Clearly there is a reason GOONS does not allow the tech raiding of those that are not allied, or are large alliances. It is not up to their members to make those decisions, it is the alliance that does not permit it, and that is because they fear retaliation. Why then is RLMMO not allowed to retaliate, and seen as aggression then when it was them that first go attacked?

Edited December 9, 2009 by Khyber