An Announcement from Zero Hour

[Sal Paradise]

So basically, if mhawk had betrayed you guys first instead of the other way around, it would've been you that got rolled instead of him?

Good to know

This is pretty much the only difference. ZH came clean about their stillborn plan to do MOST HEINOUS ACTS 5 months after the fact; TPF only when the bombs were raining down on them. And the biggest sticking point for Athens, Ragnarok et al is that there is no proof that mhawk formally canceled the MOST HEINOUS ACTS.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Sal Paradise

[kulomascovia]

So, it's okay for alliance leaders to concoct these sort of plans, but only if they don't succeed? So I could theoretically form an alliance with the intent to destroy your alliance's community through internal strife, but if the alliance I'm talking to decides to back out I'm suddenly in the clear?

Oh no, wait. I have to be at war first, because that justifies it right?

Oh, of course the operation not OK at all, even in war, but the action does not justify a war. Since TPF did this in wartime, they should be punished justly by paying reps. Usually, alliances that lost a war pay reps for the damages they did during the war. This shouldn't be any different. Starting a different conflict for actions taken during a previous war is unnecessary; the operation was ceased as soon as TPF got peace.

[WarriorConcept]

No, but it is an example of crimes being forgiven after an extended period of time. Half a year on Planet Bob is a fairly long time.

EDIT: Not to mention what their situation was at the time.

You go ahead letting people off the hook for plotting against you after a while, the rest of us will take appropriate measures.

[kulomascovia]

So you agree with their plan to put a mole in someone's alliance with the explicit purpose of causing harm to the community, not their nations, but the community that alliance has created?

I suppose you think tech-raiding is bad too?

I do think tech raiding is bad but that's another topic.

Look at my previous post for an answer to your first question.

[WarriorConcept]

And the biggest sticking point for Athens, Ragnarok et al is that there is no proof that mhawk formally canceled the MOST HEINOUS ACTS.

More like the fact that they did it to an alliance they weren't at war with.

[Merrie Melodies]

Oh, of course the operation not OK at all, even in war, but the action does not justify a war. Since TPF did this in wartime, they should be punished justly by paying reps. Usually, alliances that lost a war pay reps for the damages they did during the war. This shouldn't be any different. Starting a different conflict for actions taken during a previous war is unnecessary; the operation was ceased as soon as TPF got peace.

Well in a sense they are now paying reps, in the form of land, tech, money and infra

[Lennox]

Someone lend this man a pair of glasses.

I believe he is right actually. This war was initiated because of spying by TPF, however its clear that the operation created during the karma war and terminated not long after that. At least ZH kept to their word and promised they'd destroy mhawk.

[Mixoux]

TPF doing it in the first place to an alliance it wasn't at war with is valid enough.

Wish you hadn't posted that, now we're going to get 5+ pages of e-lawyering debating whether or not they were 'technically' at war with Athens et al.

[Desperado]

Since the operation was part of TPF's Karma effort, I would think it's very likely that TPF would have terminated it when they seriously went to peace negotiations. The people that terminated it, while officially in ZH, if the CB is to be believed were really agents of TPF at that time anyway, so the difference is minimal.

The only reason anything was ever thought of was strictly because Athens et all told NPO they would never get peace.

[itseZe]

I see the bad analogy society is in this thread as well. The appropriate analogy is 'does a burglar not get punished if he is caught planning a burglary, but never actually commits it'. I hope you can work out the answer to that.

Does a person not get punished if he sends out someone else to commit a crime and that person gets caught?

Yes he does, otherwise the entire mafia business is legal and the bosses would never get punished

[Tygaland]

So attacking TPF without knowing what they would have done is justifiable?

I wasn't aware I was trying to justify anything. I was merely pointing out a fact no one had bothered to mention.

ZH planned to shut down the operation before the war ended. They even ended the operation a day before the surrender terms (log says topic was changed on Aug. 2, TPF official surrender thread was created on Aug. 3). I don't see how this suggests TPF intended to leave the cell operating afterward as TPF had no say in the matter.

You assume that the only discussion of this mission took place the day ZH decided to pull the pin on the mission. In all the logs I have seen not one mentions this mission ending the day peace is agreed. Even when the NPO had agreed to peace not one mention from TPF about ending the mission. It was only ZH members who wanted out after becoming disillusioned with it. The fact that ZH had to inform TPF of their termination of the mission in the 2nd August suggests TPF were unaware the mission was to end at the point peace was agreed.

So, to me, this leaves open the possibility that TPF fully intended to leave this mission running after peace was agreed and that only ZH pulling the pin saw it terminated.

[Sal Paradise]

More like the fact that they did it to an alliance they weren't at war with.

They did what to an alliance they weren't at war with?

MOST HEINOUS ACTS.

[WarriorConcept]

They did what to an alliance they weren't at war with?

MOST HEINOUS ACTS.

They planned this whole operation that kicked off.

[Keres]

Thanks for proving that you didnt do any spy ops after 4th of august. How kind of you.

Does it matter? even if this OP had been set up 2 years ago, Its still an act of war, and a plan that recently came to light to destroy alliances from the inside, no matter how late, it is my understanding that it goes any and all common sense that any alliance would actually condone this... no matter how late, this is an act of war and "letting it go" in this case would be letting mhawk start over... hopefully with you our your allies...

[Desperado]

So attacking TPF without knowing what they would have done is justifiable?

ZH planned to shut down the operation before the war ended. They even ended the operation a day before the surrender terms (log says topic was changed on Aug. 2, TPF official surrender thread was created on Aug. 3). I don't see how this suggests TPF intended to leave the cell operating afterward as TPF had no say in the matter.

They ended it before this. They exclaimed their extreme hatred, both IC and OOC of mhawk, the day after he left. Anything was abandonded before this, especially in their own minds.

[Heft]

This whole situation is just dumb. Why, why, why?

[Sal Paradise]

They planned this whole operation that kicked off.

Sorry, my mistake.

MOST HEINOUS PLANS.

[kulomascovia]

Yes mhawk's aggression to an alliance they weren't at war with.

The basis of the CB was that Athens did not think that mhawk was still aggressive towards Athens and that they were going to defend themselves from his aggression. There was no aggression. The operation ceased after the war.

I think many people are misunderstanding me. I do not think that TPF's actions were justifiable. I condemn TPF for using such low tactics. However, I don't think declaring war without any negotiations was the answer. TPF committed these acts during wartime. As such, they should be punished in a more appropriate manner, with reps, apologies...etc.

[Desperado]

I wasn't aware I was trying to justify anything. I was merely pointing out a fact no one had bothered to mention.

You assume that the only discussion of this mission took place the day ZH decided to pull the pin on the mission. In all the logs I have seen not one mentions this mission ending the day peace is agreed. Even when the NPO had agreed to peace not one mention from TPF about ending the mission. It was only ZH members who wanted out after becoming disillusioned with it. The fact that ZH had to inform TPF of their termination of the mission in the 2nd August suggests TPF were unaware the mission was to end at the point peace was agreed.

So, to me, this leaves open the possibility that TPF fully intended to leave this mission running after peace was agreed and that only ZH pulling the pin saw it terminated.

No, a vietTPF plan would involve eternal war and peace never being achieved.

[WarriorConcept]

Sorry, my mistake.

MOST HEINOUS PLANS.

I accept your mistake at mislabeling the act.

[Hyperbad]

Trying (and failing) to destroy an alliance without declaring war is equivalent to a war crime.

I find the focus in the community on war declarations to be peculiar when so many treaties state "an attack on one is an attack on both" and they have mandatory aggression clauses. If the TPF and NPO shared any such treaties then regardless of whether or not they made an announcement, the TPF was defacto a party in the NPO -Athen's (et al) frontof the war. That they merely wished to minimize damage received to themselves by manipulation and public manuevers and didn't actively engage any of them is moot for those who declare on the NPO are declaring on TPF by their contractual agreement.

Edit to add bolded, bolded not for emphasis.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Hyperbad

[Tygaland]

No, a vietTPF plan would involve eternal war and peace never being achieved.

That is nice, but it doesn't address the point I raised.

[WarriorConcept]

The basis of the CB was that Athens did not think that mhawk was still aggressive towards Athens and that they were going to defend themselves from his aggression. There was no aggression. The operation ceased after the war.

I think many people are misunderstanding me. I do not think that TPF's actions were justifiable. I condemn TPF for using such low tactics. However, I don't think declaring war without any negotiations was the answer. TPF committed these acts during wartime. As such, they should be punished in a more appropriate manner, with reps, apologies...etc.

His aggression was shown through the operation being kicked off to an alliance he was not at war with.

[Bob]

Oh what fun.

This should add drama into an already dramafilled situation.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris

[Bob Janova]

So, it's okay for alliance leaders to concoct these sort of plans, but only if they don't succeed? So I could theoretically form an alliance with the intent to destroy your alliance's community through internal strife, but if the alliance I'm talking to decides to back out I'm suddenly in the clear?

Don't alliances concoct plans all the time? This really never got beyond the 'talking about it' stage because of the timing of the surrender, and talking about a hostile act isn't in itself a good reason for war. Essentially, TPF created a hostile splinter alliance when they were in a coalition war, and once the war was clearly going to end the plan was dropped and ZH became a normal alliance (something which Athens clearly agree with since they are still protecting ZH today).

Wish you hadn't posted that, now we're going to get 5+ pages of e-lawyering debating whether or not they were 'technically' at war with Athens et al

They were on opposite sides of a coalition war. It was Karma vs Hegemony. Athens and RoK were at war with TPF's best buddy MADP partner NPO, so whichever side you think was aggressing in each of those wars, there was a de jure war with TPF as well. TPF was entirely justified in performing acts of war against still-engaged Karma alliances at any time during the Karma war, and once the Karma war ended for them (on 3rd August) their actions during the war are deemed to be paid for.

A coalition war doesn't have neat fronts that you can say 'But we weren't at war with X'. The deployments in Karma (on both sides) were a result of strategic decisions in one major coalition v. coalition war, and acts of war on the 'wrong front' are not justification for a new war later.

Edit:

Does a person not get punished if he sends out someone else to commit a crime and that person gets caught?

That's not analagous to this situation at all. No-one actually committed the crime in this case. ZH were all prepped and ready, they had the getaway car and everything, and then the war ended and they backed out.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Bob Janova