Chief Savage Man Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 So limited, still? The two are not mutually exclusive. Politics and morality are not permanently divorced, in my mind. Morality is more often used as a disingenuous political tool then politics is used to defend genuine moral beliefs. I'm not saying that Grub doesn't believe what he's preaching but I say the two should be divorced. Saves everybody lots of headaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 We did not force them to do anything. As I said the wars were four ground attacks, and peace. The onus on proving that \m/, pc, and goons attacks would have resulted in FoA's destruction is on you, and I don't see anything substantial in that regard. Perhaps I exaggerated too much. Yes, it may have been true that FoA may not have been destroyed by the attacks but they wouldn't have rushed to accept a protectorate from Corp if they weren't raided. So, yes, your attacks forced them to take a course of action that they wouldn't normally have taken. If I enclose a cat in a box with a mechanism that has a 50/50 chance of either killing it or sparing it; is the cat alive or dead? I believe the cat would be alive and dead at the same time. More information can be found here. Yes, but that's not what \m/ did. They hit an alliance, same as you hit \m/. The only difference is you're trying to beat them into a mentality that it's not Ok to hit alliances. Do you see the double-standard now? And what's more, Grub's point of contention is motive. They went in to grab tech and land, and that's worse than going in to destroy !@#$ just to subjugate people to your viewpoint. This is your guy's argument plus a lot of babbling about how it was always community practice and you're the righteous knights enforcing it. And since no one answered me, pray tell - if most of CN attacks you for this, will you concede you had no mandate from the community to pull these shenanigans? Or will the revisionism train chug on? First of all, I'm not in NpO. Second of all, I direct you to look at my reply to Bob. I do not support the course of action that NpO took but I do agree with the reasoning that they used to take action. I would much rather have used political isolation and econmic sanctions than ar. From what I've read in NpO's DoW, NpO isn't in this to be moralists. They are here to perserve a standard in which they have a vested interst. They don't need anyone to give them permission to preserve their interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Answer me how are we making them do anything? As far as I see we only provide a reason to act, and we do not force any action to be taken. No, that doesn't work, because unlike most times that argument is used, you literally did put the proverbial gun to their forehead and forced them to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingEd Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Yawn. This community has descended into a new level of petty pathetic behavior. When multiple alliances who fought for a better world, will accept that \m/ are allowed to do whatever they like because they are sovereign, and that no one can touch anyone for any reason unless they happen to land on the opposite side of the ''treaty web'' you have a giant Charlie Foxtrot of stagnation spiralling into complete anarchy backed by the appearance of order. To all and sundry, I started what I started because I believe, I still do. I am just ashamed that some of my allies and their friends have such a desire for their own political agenda that they will not look at a slightly bigger picture. You will get what you want, your shot at the title, but it will be at a great cost, one I don't think you can comprehend just yet. If this ends in peace today, there will still be a massive fall out, things will never ever be the same. Reap what you sow, so plant while you may. Peace?, and we all thought this was going to escalate. What does Polar need to concede, aside from their privilege to beat the crap out of \m/ over something they find distasteful? Well, I guess \m/ didn't think that was good enough. But see, here's the funny thing, the inherent act of diplomacy is still dictating to another party, and an infringement of sovereignty by your definition. So please, feel free to show otherwise. Sure, one side, usually holding the big stick (Polar) dictates to the small guy (\m/), knowing full well that the small guy will give into whatever demands. Usually, you see the dictating party take a notch back in their demands because the small guy wont give in, sadly, I have not seen Polar do that. It's either their way or no way at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Meanĕ Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 They were declared on? \m/ nations attacked them? Their soldiers were in their territory? What are you trying to get at, because I'm not understanding the ridiculous question. Sovereignty here is not the same as sovereignty elsewhere. It is what nations are allowed to do, and what did we do that forced them to do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
askani the rotund Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 You did....we killed them together.... @ Grub....if you asked me to scrub Interstate 40 from coast-to-coast with a toothbrush, I would. o/ Polaris! I seem to remember we mostly killed them and they finished themselves off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
519 Nigras Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 That argument would work if you weren't the ones making it dangerous for them. In my stay on Planet Bob, I have not seen an alliance the size of FoA get raided until Athens, \m/, PC, and GOONS did it. Green Protection Agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fingolfin Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 So limited, still? The two are not mutually exclusive. Politics and morality are not permanently divorced, in my mind. "Morality" and politics are more than just not permanently divorced, they're intertwined as morality is just one of many means to an end and the careful crafting and utilization of the moral card is just one other tool in the arsenal of the consummate diplomat/leader/manipulator. This I am sure you are well aware of after using such methods to great effect in Vox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodemofi-NPO Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 What was infringed upon? We didn't say who they could ally with, if they should ally, who they can declare war on, what they can buy, or anything else. Everything was FoA's choice, in no way did we force them to act. We provided a reason why they should take action, but we didn't make them take any action. In the same way the NpO is providing a reason why you should take action, they aren't making you do it. If you're going to argue semantics, no alliance can ever make another alliance do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fallen Fool Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Did FOK wake you guys up?? Actually no. I got a restful 12 hours of sleep, and woke up to find that FOK, like Poison Clan before them, had totally ignored Free Districts. It was a pretty disappointing realization to be honest.Ah well. I guess I'll just have to wait for some other alliance to enable \m/'s blatant aggression instead of forcing them to accept terms which effectively amount to a white peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Meanĕ Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 No, that doesn't work, because unlike most times that argument is used, you literally did put the proverbial gun to their forehead and forced them to. No we didn't. A gun might be at someones head, but it is still up to them how to act, and it's just that the consequences for every action are different ala how we ended up in this mess. But if you truly believe that then tell me you believe sponge forced \m/ to disband. I bet you believe he didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozenrpg Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I believe the cat would be alive and dead at the same time. More information can be found here. In the same way it would be impossible to know what path or choice FoA would have made for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Sure, one side, usually holding the big stick (Polar) dictates to the small guy (\m/), knowing full well that the small guy will give into whatever demands. Usually, you see the dictating party take a notch back in their demands because the small guy wont give in, sadly, I have not seen Polar do that. It's either their way or no way at all. So...Essentially because \m/ wouldn't play ball, suddenly that means Polaris are the ones that failed at diplomacy. Don't see how what that has to do with what I said, aside from it obviously being an attempt to evade the question about diplomacy as a tool to violate your definition of sovereignty, but good to know you think that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Meanĕ Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 In the same way the NpO is providing a reason why you should take action, they aren't making you do it. If you're going to argue semantics, no alliance can ever make another alliance do anything. Exactly, now you get it. In the end it is up to each person how they want to act here. It is just that different actions will provide the means for them to act in different ways, but in the end no matter what happens it is down to the individual with how they act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmansfield68 Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I seem to remember we mostly killed them and they finished themselves off. Sir, you are correct...something about Jason 8 and a tech farm..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 No we didn't. A gun might be at someones head, but it is still up to them how to act, and it's just that the consequences for every action are different ala how we ended up in this mess. But if you truly believe that then tell me you believe sponge forced \m/ to disband. I bet you believe he didn't. I dunno, wasn't there. It's not like Sponge told them to disband in order to end the war, so it's not like that comparison even applies in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fingolfin Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Green Protection Agency. This post acts with impunity as "Ha, I proved you wrong that such a large alliance had never been raided before". But please do take a moment and closely consider your posts, the NPO ended up getting rolled in Karma for actions such as that. So I'm not really seeing how you can use the "BUT GPA WAS RAIDED BEFORE!" argument as a rationalization for why \m/ can raid FoA, clearly NPO paid dearly for such actions, as you guys are doing so now, whether its justified or not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoiL Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Sovereignty here is not the same as sovereignty elsewhere. It is what nations are allowed to do, and what did we do that forced them to do anything. You are allowed to attack an MK nation right now. That would be called an infringement on their sovereignty and they would respond in kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Meanĕ Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) It's not like Sponge told them to disband in order to end the war, so it's not like that comparison even applies in the first place. Wait, it wasn't disbanding it was to be an eternal tech farm. Later he said it was a joke, but at that time no one knew that. So did sponge force us to disband over that? Edited January 25, 2010 by Gerald Meane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 You are allowed to attack an MK nation right now. That would be called an infringement on their sovereignty and they would respond in kind. Merely attacking a nation does not infringe on its sovereignty. The ruler still has complete control over it. The same applies alliance-wide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Green Protection Agency. And it turned out so well for the NPO. I believe that was a case of NPO violating community standards and flaunting them in public. In the end, those who had a vested interest in that standard retaliated and brought down the NPO. In the same way it would be impossible to know what path or choice FoA would have made for themselves. Oh sure but you can't claim that their decision to accept Corp.'s offer and your raid were unrelated. Also, the main point of my argument is that it creates an environment in which raiding unaligned alliances is acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternalis Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 This post acts with impunity as "Ha, I proved you wrong that such a large alliance had never been raided before". But please do take a moment and closely consider your posts, the NPO ended up getting rolled in Karma for actions such as that. So I'm not really seeing how you can use the "BUT GPA WAS RAIDED BEFORE!" argument as a rationalization for why \m/ can raid FoA, clearly NPO paid dearly for such actions, as you guys are doing so now, whether its justified or not the NPO got rolled for revenge. Morals are a perversion to get what you want and look good doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireandthepassion Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 It was poorly phrased. It should have said "taking terms that tell them how to interpret their charter, and force them to interpret their charter in a certain way". Except their charter, until the recent changes, see http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki//m/_(2nd) , that recognized the community standard and public opinion. Again it was stated in a way that you could not interpret it any other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) You have no clue what your saying here, what you said is in no way the same as he was arguing for...not even on the same page. The way I read what your saying seems to be a round about threat, one I would sincerely tread softly about. That was not intended as a threat, and it should be noted that it's not even in my power to make such a threat if it was. I was simply trying to put Lord Fingolfin in \m/'s shoes, to see if he would still agree with his statement if carried out to its extremity. To his credit, he did - and while I may disagree with him, I accept that. Edited January 25, 2010 by NoFish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoiL Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Merely attacking a nation does not infringe on its sovereignty. The ruler still has complete control over it. The same applies alliance-wide. So they have control over what infra or tech is lost? Nah.. I must be dreaming, because there is no way this line of thinking is catching on. Wake up spoil, wake up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts