Declaration of Neutrality

[RiceDoc]

[quote name='Bones Malone' date='14 February 2010 - 11:13 PM' timestamp='1266210799' post='2182282']
(OOC: how's Rice looking in basketball Doc?) [/quote]

OOC: Rice is improving rapidly, but is very young. With the newly redone gym and new coach, we ended up this year with substantial upgrades in talent, but still not where it needs to get. Give it another year, maybe two, and Rice is expected to be a player in CUSA basketball and not far from the return to one of the 26 million post season tourneys in NCAA basketball. We are seeing the same thing in football except we went at that backwards - new coach and now working on facilities upgrades. Result is the same: improved talent and depth across the board and poised for long term success after suffering through some growing pains.

[Shodemofi-NPO]

Would you say it would be unfair for an alliance to declare on you because one or more of your members is attacking them and you're doing nothing to stop them? Because that seems like a strong possibility of how this will end.

[Castles]

Welcome to the Confused war.

If you tinkle when you sprinkle make sure you wipe the floor.

[morab]

This is not an alliance and you don't look like a leader

[RiceDoc]

[quote name='Shodemofi' date='14 February 2010 - 11:26 PM' timestamp='1266211582' post='2182311']
Would you say it would be unfair for an alliance to declare on you because one or more of your members is attacking them and you're doing nothing to stop them? Because that seems like a strong possibility of how this will end.
[/quote]

I would say that the declaring alliance would be no more justified than they would to declare on any alliance with a rogue nation. In other words, you could play that semantic game with any and every alliance in the game if you so desired. Would you think it fair for an alliance to declare on you alliance if your alliance had told them that actions by certain of your alliance nations are neither supported or sanctioned by your alliance?

What I am saying is that if one or more of the NCAAbbs members attacks a nation, then that member needs to be ready to defend itself. If a nation that has NOT attacked is attacked, then the alliance will be supporting and defending the neutral nation. From a RL example, suppose that the USA declared on the Togo. Should Togo's friends declare on all of NATO? That just doesn't make sense and is not justifiable!

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='RiceDoc' date='15 February 2010 - 03:36 PM' timestamp='1266212191' post='2182330']
I would say that the declaring alliance would be no more justified than they would to declare on any alliance with a rogue nation. [/quote]

So wait, does that mean Beowulf and Magicspoon have gone rogue and you will be acting accordingly? Expelling them from your alliance for starters?

Or does it mean you somehow got the strange idea you could NOT do that, but still get people to play along as if you had?

[Shodemofi-NPO]

[quote name='RiceDoc' date='14 February 2010 - 11:36 PM' timestamp='1266212191' post='2182330']
I would say that the declaring alliance would be no more justified than they would to declare on any alliance with a rogue nation. In other words, you could play that semantic game with any and every alliance in the game if you so desired. Would you think it fair for an alliance to declare on you alliance if your alliance had told them that actions by certain of your alliance nations are neither supported or sanctioned by your alliance?

What I am saying is that if one or more of the NCAAbbs members attacks a nation, then that member needs to be ready to defend itself. If a nation that has NOT attacked is attacked, then the alliance will be supporting and defending the neutral nation. From a RL example, suppose that the USA declared on the Togo. Should Togo's friends declare on all of NATO? That just doesn't make sense and is not justifiable!
[/quote]
The difference is that in the example you outlined in your first paragraph, the alliance with the rogue nation would inform the attacked alliance that the nation in question is not sanctioned by the government. Then said government would either try and get that nation to stop attacking and pay reps, or failing that, expel that nation from their alliance. If the government of the rogue nation's alliance did neither of these things, I wouldn't think it unreasonable for the attacked nation's alliance to declare on the rogue nation's alliance.

That was mildly confusing to write, so I assume it's pretty confusing to read.

Nation A attacks Nation B
Nation B's alliance goes to Nation A's alliance and says "wtf?"
Nation A's alliance either:
a) Gets Nation A to peace out and send reps
b) Expel Nation A from their alliance

If Nation A's alliance did neither, then Nation B's alliance would be justified in attacking Nation A's alliance as Nation A's alliance is in effect supporting Nation A's actions.

There, hopefully that's less confusing.

I don't really understand what you're saying in your second paragraph, all the "nation"s and "alliance"s confused me.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Shodemofi

[RiceDoc]

[quote name='morab' date='14 February 2010 - 11:34 PM' timestamp='1266212061' post='2182328']
This is not an alliance and you don't look like a leader
[/quote]

Just how would you determine what is and is not an alliance? I'd sure like to know your definition! By Webster's, NCAAbbs is clearly an alliance.

I take it you think leadership is forcing your viewpoint down the throats of everyone in your alliance instead of allowing independent thought. Consider you are dealing with a bunch of collegiate sports fans, who regularly insult each others' teams AND join together to voice their displeasure with the NCAA and other entities operating under the NCAA umbrella. Perhaps you need a lesson from Webster as well:

Leader (n)... 2 : a person who leads: as a : guide, conductor b (1) : a person who directs a military force or unit (2) : a person who has commanding authority or influence c (1) : the principal officer of a British political party (2) : a party member chosen to manage party activities in a legislative body (3) : such a party member presiding over the whole legislative body when the party constitutes a majority ...

You will find that the NCAAbbs has a bunch of leaders under that definition, with each taking the lead on projects which are of particular interest to them. I felt it important to let everyone here know that the NCAAbbs was NOT supporting or opposing the positions its members may take in this war so that any attention they draw will be directed toward them rather than the NCAAbbs as whole. Why punish all members of the alliance for the strongly held views of a few? And why quash the few when they could, if they chose, simply join whichever side they decide to support? In this case, we all agree that the members should follow their own consciences and that neutral members should be protected.

By the way, I never said I was the leader of NCAAbbs. I said I was the spokesperson on this issue.

[SF Austin]

Why should I not treat your alliance like Invicta since your alliance has attacked three of my members?

[RiceDoc]

Sigrun,

Why do you think any alliance would be justified in declaring on another alliance based solely upon the actions of a nation which you know are not condoned by their alliance? Why does it make any difference whether that nation has been formally declared a rogue and expelled if there is a clear statement that they alliance is NOT defending them? Perhaps you better review the way your alliance deals with ghosts!

RE: Beowulf and Magicspoon (me too for that matter), that means Beowulf and Magicspoon and I have chosen to follow our consciences in the war and our actions are attributable only to the nations taking those actions. We do not expect to recieve any help from NCAAbbs and none will be forthcoming from the alliance. That is no more confusing that any of the rest of this war!

Shodemofi,

You forgot option c) Say they are unauthorized and on their own, then do nothing.

[RiceDoc]

[quote name='SF Austin' date='14 February 2010 - 11:59 PM' timestamp='1266213586' post='2182411']
Why should I not treat your alliance like Invicta since your alliance has attacked three of my members?
[/quote]

Because you KNOW that the NCAAbbs alliance did NOT attack your members. You KNOW that two NCAAbbs alliance members did so on an individual basis. Unlike Invicta, who has declared war on your alliance, the NCAAbbs expressly did NOT. In fact, the NCAAbbs has members who have expressed their support for your cause as well (albeit not publicly yet). Would you really want to be declaring on your supporters and on nations who have chosen to remain neutral?

[Shodemofi-NPO]

I don't think most alliances are going to see it that way, but for a minute lets say they do. You're saying that your alliance will be offering no support for the attacking nation for the duration of the war? Really, since your alliance isn't declaring war, the alliance who gets attacked can choose to keep your nation at war as long as they want. You're saying that's fine with you?

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='RiceDoc' date='15 February 2010 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1266213897' post='2182423']
Sigrun,

Why do you think any alliance would be justified in declaring on another alliance based solely upon the actions of a nation which you know are not condoned by their alliance? [/quote]

Make up your mind, are the actions of these two nations condoned by your alliance or not? You cant have it both ways. If they are rogues expel them and deal with them. If you wont do that, then you obviously [i]do[/i] condone their actions.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Sigrun Vapneir

[SF Austin]

[quote name='RiceDoc' date='14 February 2010 - 11:12 PM' timestamp='1266214362' post='2182439']
Because you KNOW that the NCAAbbs alliance did NOT attack your members. You KNOW that two NCAAbbs alliance members did so on an individual basis. Unlike Invicta, who has declared war on your alliance, the NCAAbbs expressly did NOT. In fact, the NCAAbbs has members who have expressed their support for your cause as well (albeit not publicly yet). Would you really want to be declaring on your supporters and on nations who have chosen to remain neutral?
[/quote]

All I can see is 20% of a alliance called NCAAbbs has decided it is worth their wild to attack Nordreich, It is then in my best interest to eliminate 100% of NCAAbbs to prevent further attacks. If you wish your friends no harm you have 22 hours to remove yourselfs from the NCAAbbs Alliance Affiliation.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='15 February 2010 - 01:17 AM' timestamp='1266214636' post='2182448']
Make up your mind, are the actions of these two nations condoned by your alliance or not? You cant have it both ways. If they are rogues expel them and deal with them. If you wont do that, then you obviously [i]do[/i] condone their actions.
[/quote]
Just because they aren't expelling the member doesn't necessarily mean they condone the actions of that nation, just that nation is responsible for getting peace with those they are fighting on their own.

[RiceDoc]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='15 February 2010 - 12:17 AM' timestamp='1266214636' post='2182448']
Make up your mind, are the actions of these two nations condoned by your alliance or not? You cant have it both ways. If they are rogues expel them and deal with them. If you wont do that, then you obviously [i]do[/i] condone their actions.
[/quote]

Their actions are neither condoned nor condemned by NCAAbbs. NCAAbbs is NEUTRAL! By the way, I'm still waiting for an explanation of why you consider these nations to be rogues and why NCAAbbs should accede to your demands to expel them. Why do you care what their AA says? They are not being supported in these actions by the NCAAbbs - THAT is what you should care about. Obviously you think that your way of doing things is the only way of doing things. But you can't explain why any other way is "not right"! You'll have to do a better analysis of the situation than that to convince the NCAAbbs to expel its members. Heck the United States didn't expel half its states when a civil war was going on either! I, quite frankly, think keeping the doors open for reconcilations post war is a far better approach than your approach. What am I missing here? Anything?

[RePePe]

You seem to be keen on United States examples. Now I'm totally neutral in this whole argument but let me present this:

Suppose just the state of New York declared war on, and attacked, Canada. Would the U.S. sit back and do nothing, claiming neutrality? Would the U.S. expect Canada to only counter on New York alone and take no action against the country as a whole? And would the U.S. sit back and let New York be wiped off the map?

The answers and symbolism in this example are crystal clear.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='nicktheww2fanatic' date='15 February 2010 - 12:02 AM' timestamp='1266210161' post='2182258']
at any rate, it is an alliance that serves no real purpose, and has no real future ahead of them on Bob
[/quote]
Ooof, bad news Invicta

[ProdigyNL]

Good luck with NCAAbbs RiceDoc and say hey to everyone there!

[SirWilliam]

Interesting interpretation and application of neutrality I must say. View it as you may however, many, if not most, others will inevitably view things differently, especially if members of NCAAbbs are attacking their members. Seems like this will cause more trouble for you guys than its worth, but to each its own.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='15 February 2010 - 01:42 AM' timestamp='1266216140' post='2182500']
Ooof, bad news Invicta
[/quote]
Good sir, I like the cut of your jib.

[RiceDoc]

[quote name='SF Austin' date='15 February 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1266214922' post='2182459']
All I can see is 20% of a alliance called NCAAbbs has decided it is worth their wild to attack Nordreich, It is then in my best interest to eliminate 100% of NCAAbbs to prevent further attacks. If you wish your friends no harm you have 22 hours to remove yourselfs from the NCAAbbs Alliance Affiliation.
[/quote]

I guess you can't see that 10% of the NCAAbbs nations are supporting your side in the war and that 70% have not entered the war at all? You would rather exterminate supporters rather than identify who is with you and who is against you? Why ratchet up a war unnecessarily? The reality is that you know that the alliance as a whole is neutral, that two nations have entered the war against you and one has entered the war aligned with you. What about the concept of alliance-wide neutrality/MDP's and no support for those who are aggressors do you not understand? It is clearly in your best interest to focus on those who are fighting against you rather than on those who either support your allies or are neutral.

[Sephiroth]

Right now anyone could jump to the NCAAbbs AA and attack whoever they want, to declare on the entire AA would automatically turn all those nations against you when they have no unified policy in this war. He has no control over who chooses to take up the AA and who they choose attack, but you take unnecessary damage by trying declaring on all of them for having that AA. Seems pretty straightforward.

[Shodemofi-NPO]

[quote name='RiceDoc' date='15 February 2010 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1266217468' post='2182531']
I guess you can't see that 10% of the NCAAbbs nations are supporting your side in the war and that 70% have not entered the war at all? You would rather exterminate supporters rather than identify who is with you and who is against you? Why ratchet up a war unnecessarily? The reality is that you know that the alliance as a whole is neutral, that two nations have entered the war against you and one has entered the war aligned with you. What about the concept of alliance-wide neutrality/MDP's and no support for those who are aggressors do you not understand? It is clearly in your best interest to focus on those who are fighting against you rather than on those who either support your allies or are neutral.
[/quote]
But how is he to know which nations in your alliance will join the fight against him? It's in his better interest to hit the whole alliance now to cripple it rather than let your nations come at him one at a time over a week or so.

[RiceDoc]

[quote name='Shodemofi' date='15 February 2010 - 01:15 AM' timestamp='1266218159' post='2182540']
But how is he to know which nations in your alliance will join the fight against him? It's in his better interest to hit the whole alliance now to cripple it rather than let your nations come at him one at a time over a week or so.
[/quote]

You, sir, miss the big picture here. If he attacks non-combatants, he is guaranteed a fight against the entire alliance. In fact, if he goes that route, he is guaranteeing that nations that are otherwise supporting his allies will enter the fight against him. If he watches who declares on whom, then he has a fight against only those who choose to enter the battle. In other words, it is better to fight the 20% who are against you and keep the 10% on your side with you (and actually that is closer to 30% by NS) and avoid the fight with the remainder. The damages would simply be far less in the long run and you haven't damaged allies in the process.