Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Epik High]

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' date='15 February 2010 - 11:01 PM' timestamp='1266296472' post='2184612']
That would make sense if we saw you as an active threat before this war.

I see what you're trying to say. You (TOP) were afraid of C&G in the sense that some statements from the membership of certain alliances (namely MK) led you to believe we were a threat. We had 0 interest in fighting TOP, however, and made 0 moves against you.

So yeah, TOP was paranoid.


We'll see you back in the stone age.
[/quote]

Yeah, I think the TOP is paranoid line has been beaten to death. Anyways I just want to flesh out some of my points, because I think it is an interesting topic, though I get the sense that you're more in it for scoring propaganda points.

The main point is that the OP has officially stated that they see TOP as a threat. There are people in this thread who are trying to claim otherwise, that TOP shouldn't be seen that way. They are incorrect, or at least put too much hope in the ability of alliance leaders, who are held responsible for many tons of infra, to trust enemies. There is plenty of reason to see TOP as a threat, their attack on CnG being one of them. Another being the knowledge that TOP will also continue to see CnG as a threat in the event of a white peace. Which leads to the conclusion that there is no good way to stop this vicious cycle. This leads to two policy choices: drawn out wars to crush the enemy's stats, or heavy surrender terms to crush the enemy's stats. Either way, the stats must be destroyed. And that is exactly the pattern we've seen in any wars that were between two rivaling geopolitical powers. NPO and FAN, NpO and GOONS, TOP and NpO, Karma and NPO, etc. There is a third option, trying to be conciliatory and draw the enemy into your sphere of influence. That doesn't work for alliances that operate under the mindset that enemies will continue to harbor ill feelings toward your own alliance. The majority of alliances tend to be those that see enemies today as enemies tomorrow.

The question then is whether this will change. One exception to the rule is GWI. This *was* between two central rivals, but did *not* end in long war or high reparations. What I wonder is whether this was simply a mistake... maybe the leaders of LUE&Co just didn't know or care enough about how the game worked to really think about whether giving out white peace would be a good idea. Maybe they were hoping for reconciliation, and were rejected by a vengeful NPO. The interesting thing is, you can make the argument that the people in CnG today are the same type of people who won GWI back then. LUE2.0, ODN, etc etc. People could use this to predict that this war will see the same strategy of reconciliation, etc that really hasn't been seen since GWI, apart from in side-wars between alliances who never really hated each other. I don't place much money on that prediction. I think the white peace in GWI was more of a mistake than thought out strategy to reconcile, and so I don't think the types of people in charge now have any predisposition to follow reconciliation. You can glean from the OP their belief of eliminating threats rather than converting them. (sidenote: obviously, it takes two to tango--TOP probably isn't willing to reconcile either) And so if you're going to try to predict the way planet bob will work in the future, I say it will work the same way it always has. People who thought Karma would lead to a normative change in how alliances operate in an anarchic system were wrong, IMO.

Now, a whole other issue is which is the smartest policy? I believe there are two types of conflict: (1) Hatred leading to war (2) War leading to hatred. In situations where hatred leads to war, I don't think reconciliation a viable option. Sometimes ideologies differ so much that they can't really be spanned by the goodwill gesture of light surrender terms. NpO and GOONS in UJW for example. If NpO by some miracle gave white peace to GOONS, GOONS would have taken it and started gearing up to destroy NpO. NpO never offered it in the first place because they wanted to see GOONS destroyed. On the other hand, there are situations where war leads to hatred. For example, the TOP-NpO conflict, arguably. Yes, there was preexisting hatred which sparked war, but I don't think it was so deep that reconciliation was not a valid strategy. The thing is, we saw the heavy reparations create so much more hatred between the two alliances. In NpO-GOONS, the marginal gain in hatred between the two sides from harsh terms would be relatively small, since they hated each other so much and reconciliation was not an option. In TOP-NpO, the marginal gain in hatred might have been relatively high, especially because the opportunity to reconcile was forsaken for reparations.

Anyways, I am rambling a bit. How would the theory work in MK-TOP? I don't think reconciliation is possible and the ideological divide is too wide. TOP has historical baggage from being in a position of power--it participated or allowed the cycle of harsh reparations, war, harsh reparations. CnG cannot possibly adhere to lofty principals and give TOP easy peace given TOP's history of behaving in realpolitik terms. And they start the next cycle of harsh reparations, war, harsh reparations. Until some other power comes along and topples CnG, and use CnG's history of harsh reparations to justify another cycle of harsh reparations and war. It's a meta-cycle.

I am of the belief that this is the way the planet will work for a long time. The very small minority who actually believed or tried to bring about a normative change (either in the form of "white peace because it is moral" or "white peace because the game is more fun that way") I don't think are at all close to reaching positions of power high enough to make the decision to stop the cycle. And it's probably the case that by the time you reach that position of power, you look back at the sunk costs it took to earn that position and grow more attached to it. Which makes any decision that might risk your power for the sake of principals all that more difficult.

tl;dr - TOP is probably unwilling to reconcile with CnG. CnG's least risky response is to pursue threat elimination. lol Karma naiveté.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='16 February 2010 - 05:59 AM' timestamp='1266299979' post='2184914']
Now you're just clutching at straws. If we were to make such an agreement, what possible benefit would there be to breaking it? If either of us broke said agreement, we'd never be taken seriously again. Not only would it be very unwise to do so, but to suggest that we're not one to stick to our word seems pretty off base. I think you know very well that we honour our word. I realise being honest about that now wouldn't benefit your current argument though.
[/quote]

Quit your wishful thinking and man your guns. This kind of crap makes me sick.

[Believland]

[quote name='Chickenzilla' date='16 February 2010 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1266300255' post='2184936']
I would actually. I used to have a large nation, and went down nuking for twenty days. I didn't blow half my warchest.
[/quote]
Then it looks like I need a new admiral

[Jinnai]

So let me get this...

Either TOP would have hit C&G's allies in honor of its own treaties and they wouldn't have honored their treaties in which case this was an unprovoked attack and also shows that C&G doesn't honor all it's treaties

OR

TOP would have hit C&G's allies in honor of its own treaties and they would have honored their treaties in which case this was this is a valid military tactic of pre-emptive strike on an enemy who builds up its forces to strike you while you're busy. It also shows that C&G honors its treaties.

Those are the only 2 logical outcomes of such a scenario.
[quote name='Mundokiir' date='15 February 2010 - 09:28 PM' timestamp='1266290892' post='2184211']
You can't destroy an idea. Only suppress it. And good luck with that to those who would try.
[/quote]
Same could be said for both sides.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Jinnai

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Believland' date='16 February 2010 - 06:02 AM' timestamp='1266300146' post='2184930']
Woh now, Revanche. I thought Archon ran CnG. I never knew you were the trendsetter

I think I might be out of your range by then
[/quote]

Who us this Revanche you speak of?

[lebubu]

wow archon stop crying already

[Blue Lightning]

[quote name='delendum' date='16 February 2010 - 05:44 AM' timestamp='1266299088' post='2184855']
If CnG peaces out right now, we will have lost. You guys are still way above us in NS (both average and combined), you have a lot of nations who will be able to simply bounce back, while CnG will have a much harder time trying to rebuild. It would be the equivalent of us simply receiving a beating, it's just not something we can allow. That and it would be just your gentleman's word keeping you from attacking us again somewhere down the road. While I won't question your word, it's hard for us to base ourselves on just that, after having been aggressively attacked by you. The least we can do is make sure you're in at least as bad of a shape as we are when this is all over.
[/quote]
So rather than cutting your loses and going home, you're going to drag this war into mutual destruction. That's fair enough, but as I say, no need to pretend like it's anything else.

And no, we had no idea Polaris were going to undermine the whole coalition's effort with their white peace until it was posted. You guys apparently knew of our plans to attack, yet in the interests of peace you didn't think to mention that peace was imminent before we attacked or work towards peace once war was declared before much damage was done. I don't hold it against you since it was up to those on our side to keep us informed of these little details, but it kinda undermines the idea that you were just an innocent bystander eager to see peace.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='16 February 2010 - 12:09 AM' timestamp='1266300583' post='2184963']
And no, we had no idea Polaris were going to undermine the whole coalition's effort with their white peace until it was posted.
[/quote]
It was the last line of Grub's original DoW.

Paraphrasing here but: "This ends when \m/ wants it to."

[Believland]

[quote name='tamerlane' date='16 February 2010 - 01:09 AM' timestamp='1266300568' post='2184960']
Who us this Revanche you speak of?
[/quote]
Dunno man. My bad, Denial. I guess I just had a flash back to something... It was like staring into a strobe light. Again, my bad Denial

[Blue Lightning]

[quote name='tamerlane' date='16 February 2010 - 06:05 AM' timestamp='1266300353' post='2184944']
Quit your wishful thinking and man your guns. This kind of crap makes me sick.
[/quote]
Just cause we're smacking the !@#$ out of each other doesn't mean we can't have a friendly discussion about it. It's not like while I was posting in this thread my nation stopped being at war.

[edit]You guys talk too fast...
[quote name='Earogema' date='16 February 2010 - 06:14 AM' timestamp='1266300878' post='2184970']
It was the last line of Grub's original DoW.

Paraphrasing here but: "This ends when \m/ wants it to."
[/quote]
Yes, but given that they'd also OKed us to escalate the conflict, it seems fair to assume that if this offer was to be taken we would be informed about it beforehand so that we could amend our plans.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Blue Lightning

[Earogema]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='16 February 2010 - 12:17 AM' timestamp='1266301076' post='2184982']
Yes, but given that they'd also OKed us to escalate the conflict, it seems fair to assume that if this offer was to be taken we would be informed about it beforehand so that we could amend our plans.
[/quote]
So \m/'s decision should have been known to Polar in advance for some reason?

I mean, \m/ may not like Polar (although I personally do) but we do like PC, and we want what's best for them, just like how they wanted what was best of us. What was best for them was allowing to them to defend 3 long time allies as compared to one recent ally. We would have peaced eventually regardless of this situation (white or not, we'd just act as a puppet, doesn't really matter).

[LeDee]

[quote]We would also like to publicly assert that at no time did the Complaints and Grievances Union ever intend to aggressively pursue war against TOP or IRON. We do indeed recognize the fact that, had TOP or IRON hit our allies, we would be honor bound to defend them. We would also like to note that 2 + 2 = 4, as we feel these two statements are equally obvious. Had TIFDTT not wished to engage the Union, or had they wished to avoid the perceived threat, not attacking us or our allies would have been a really simple way to achieve this.[/quote]

LOL...well said...best part of the OP, and incredibly obvious to anyone with a brain.

o/ Archon
o/ MK
o/ C&G

[delendum]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='16 February 2010 - 06:09 AM' timestamp='1266300583' post='2184963']
So rather than cutting your loses and going home, you're going to drag this war into mutual destruction. That's fair enough, but as I say, no need to pretend like it's anything else.

And no, we had no idea Polaris were going to undermine the whole coalition's effort with their white peace until it was posted. You guys apparently knew of our plans to attack, yet in the interests of peace you didn't think to mention that peace was imminent before we attacked or work towards peace once war was declared before much damage was done. I don't hold it against you since it was up to those on our side to keep us informed of these little details, but it kinda undermines the idea that you were just an innocent bystander eager to see peace.
[/quote]

Every bit of MK hoped that the original war wouldn't happen, then that it wouldn't escalate, and once it did, hoped that it would end in peace quickly - that has nothing to do with TOP, that has to do with our allies killing each other, and it's a fact you really can't argue against. Our FA worked relentlessly to end that mess, but it was simply not something they could help in the end.

We anticipated the escalation, but MK was still yet to enter the conflict, and there's a lot of ways we could have done that (a decision we had yet to make). By preemptively attacking us, you not only dictated where we stand, but you also made it pretty clear that far from simply following treaties or defending allies or whatever else, you just wanted to "bloody us up" (said so right there on your DoW).

The fact that we found out about that intention a bit in advance by merit of your faulty OPSEC doesn't really change the fact that you were looking to come after us. And you did, and now we're fighting - how you can interpret that as us hoping you'd join the war so we'd get the chance to fight you as some sort of grand scheme is beyond me.

If mutual destruction is all we will have obtained in the end, then so be it. There's no way we're going to peace out and "cut our losses" when the people who aggressively attacked us are still well on their feet.

[magicninja]

There's a few things I don't get about TOP/IRON/Whoever's dow on C&G in the first place.

How was opening a new front on uninvolved parties that, up until that point, had no intention of entering the war going to help the Polaris Coalition at all? It wasn't going to help NSO fight off everyone they were engaged with. It wasn't going to help Polaris. Who were they helping by hitting C&G?

I'd like to hear the answer to that one before I draw any final conclusions.

[skokie]

[quote name='magicninja' date='16 February 2010 - 06:48 AM' timestamp='1266302927' post='2185083']
There's a few things I don't get about TOP/IRON/Whoever's dow on C&G in the first place.

How was opening a new front on uninvolved parties that, up until that point, had no intention of entering the war going to help the Polaris Coalition at all? It wasn't going to help NSO fight off everyone they were engaged with. It wasn't going to help Polaris. Who were they helping by hitting C&G?

I'd like to hear the answer to that one before I draw any final conclusions.
[/quote]

simple, Top/iron were going to be the aggressors attacking allies of C&G, because they knew that C&G would attack them back, they decided to strike C&G, that is really what this comes down to.

Kid A wants to beat up Kid B, but kid C and Kid B are really good friends, so he pushes kid C for "self defense" and then Kid C(&G) punch him really hard.
and now KID A is really upset and says everything could have been avoided.

Edited February 16, 2010 by skokie

[Believland]

[quote name='skokie' date='16 February 2010 - 01:56 AM' timestamp='1266303360' post='2185097']
simple, Top/iron were going to be the aggressors attacking allies of C&G, because they knew that C&G would attack them back, they decided to strike C&G, that is really what this comes down to.

Kid A wants to beat up Kid B, but kid C and Kid B are really good friends, so he pushes kid C for "self defense" and then Kid C(&G) punch him really hard.
and now KID A is really upset and says everything could have been avoided.
[/quote]
So what happened to Kid B? And also lolwut

[Gurney Halleck]

[quote name='skokie' date='16 February 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1266303360' post='2185097']
Kid A wants to beat up Kid B, but kid C and Kid B are really good friends, so he pushes kid C for "self defense" and then Kid C(&G) punch him really hard.
and now KID A is really upset and says everything could have been avoided.
[/quote]


Nah. Here, I'll help. I majored in analogies and got a cool C+ in tech school:

Kid M implies that he is going to fight Kid T at 5th period recess. Kid T asks Kid M's friend Kid P if he is gonna jump in if something goes down. Kid P says, "Nah, brah, it's cool." So, Kid T hits Kid M before 4th period lunch (in the hallway by the watercooler and the 'buy a yearbook' poster). Kid M says "What!? I wasn't serious! You are paranoid and this was aggressive!"


And upset? This isn't my upset face. All-in-all this is fun.


Carry on.

[flak attack]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='15 February 2010 - 10:58 PM' timestamp='1266292734' post='2184349']
doesnt mean it wasnt being discussed, either.
[/quote]
Agh, thought is a crime now!

[Mamazlilmistake]

Viva la kingdom o/

[Carrick]

Having finally caught up with everything, this is the greatest and most ridiculous war of all time. I whole-heartedly approve and am glad to finally be a neutral in a Global War

[Krack]

[quote name='AAlumni' date='16 February 2010 - 01:25 AM' timestamp='1266305146' post='2185166']
Nah. Here, I'll help. I majored in analogies and got a cool C+ in tech school:

Kid M implies that he is going to fight Kid T at 5th period recess. Kid T asks Kid M's friend Kid P if he is gonna jump in if something goes down. Kid P says, "Nah, brah, it's cool." So, Kid T hits Kid M before 4th period lunch (in the hallway by the watercooler and the 'buy a yearbook' poster). Kid M says "What!? I wasn't serious! You are paranoid and this was aggressive!"
[/quote]

You forgot the part where the previous week, there was a huge brawl in school that started when the Jerks attacked the Nice Kids. And Kid T (one of the biggest kids in school) spent the majority of the brawl slap fighting with the Jerks and saying things like "I won't really hit you hard if you promise not to hit me hard". And then when the brawl was almost over, and the Nice Kids were beating the tar out of the Jerks, Kid T made sure to threaten the Nice Kids and discourage anyone from punching his jerk friend, Kid I. And then Kid T spent the rest of the week gloating over and over again, how he basically won the brawl single handedly and all of the Nice Kids owed him big time. Basically, Kid T spent a week of his life annoying all the Nice Kids in school to the point that they really didn't want anything to do with him anymore.

So, when Kid T and Kid I decided to sucker punch Kid M before 4th period lunch, all of the Nice Kids filed out of the lunch room and proceeded to put the boots to Kid T and Kid I. Repeatedly. And the Nice Kids didn't even feel bad about it ... and really, they kind of enjoyed it.

[Fantastico]

[quote name='Epik High' date='16 February 2010 - 12:05 AM' timestamp='1266300320' post='2184943']
Yeah, I think the TOP is paranoid line has been beaten to death. Anyways I just want to flesh out some of my points, because I think it is an interesting topic, though I get the sense that you're more in it for scoring propaganda points.

The main point is that the OP has officially stated that they see TOP as a threat. There are people in this thread who are trying to claim otherwise, that TOP shouldn't be seen that way. They are incorrect, or at least put too much hope in the ability of alliance leaders, who are held responsible for many tons of infra, to trust enemies. There is plenty of reason to see TOP as a threat, their attack on CnG being one of them. Another being the knowledge that TOP will also continue to see CnG as a threat in the event of a white peace. Which leads to the conclusion that there is no good way to stop this vicious cycle. This leads to two policy choices: drawn out wars to crush the enemy's stats, or heavy surrender terms to crush the enemy's stats. Either way, the stats must be destroyed. And that is exactly the pattern we've seen in any wars that were between two rivaling geopolitical powers. NPO and FAN, NpO and GOONS, TOP and NpO, Karma and NPO, etc. There is a third option, trying to be conciliatory and draw the enemy into your sphere of influence. That doesn't work for alliances that operate under the mindset that enemies will continue to harbor ill feelings toward your own alliance. The majority of alliances tend to be those that see enemies today as enemies tomorrow.

The question then is whether this will change. One exception to the rule is GWI. This *was* between two central rivals, but did *not* end in long war or high reparations. What I wonder is whether this was simply a mistake... maybe the leaders of LUE&Co just didn't know or care enough about how the game worked to really think about whether giving out white peace would be a good idea. Maybe they were hoping for reconciliation, and were rejected by a vengeful NPO. The interesting thing is, you can make the argument that the people in CnG today are the same type of people who won GWI back then. LUE2.0, ODN, etc etc. People could use this to predict that this war will see the same strategy of reconciliation, etc that really hasn't been seen since GWI, apart from in side-wars between alliances who never really hated each other. I don't place much money on that prediction. I think the white peace in GWI was more of a mistake than thought out strategy to reconcile, and so I don't think the types of people in charge now have any predisposition to follow reconciliation. You can glean from the OP their belief of eliminating threats rather than converting them. (sidenote: obviously, it takes two to tango--TOP probably isn't willing to reconcile either) And so if you're going to try to predict the way planet bob will work in the future, I say it will work the same way it always has. People who thought Karma would lead to a normative change in how alliances operate in an anarchic system were wrong, IMO.

Now, a whole other issue is which is the smartest policy? I believe there are two types of conflict: (1) Hatred leading to war (2) War leading to hatred. In situations where hatred leads to war, I don't think reconciliation a viable option. Sometimes ideologies differ so much that they can't really be spanned by the goodwill gesture of light surrender terms. NpO and GOONS in UJW for example. If NpO by some miracle gave white peace to GOONS, GOONS would have taken it and started gearing up to destroy NpO. NpO never offered it in the first place because they wanted to see GOONS destroyed. On the other hand, there are situations where war leads to hatred. For example, the TOP-NpO conflict, arguably. Yes, there was preexisting hatred which sparked war, but I don't think it was so deep that reconciliation was not a valid strategy. The thing is, we saw the heavy reparations create so much more hatred between the two alliances. In NpO-GOONS, the marginal gain in hatred between the two sides from harsh terms would be relatively small, since they hated each other so much and reconciliation was not an option. In TOP-NpO, the marginal gain in hatred might have been relatively high, especially because the opportunity to reconcile was forsaken for reparations.

Anyways, I am rambling a bit. How would the theory work in MK-TOP? I don't think reconciliation is possible and the ideological divide is too wide. TOP has historical baggage from being in a position of power--it participated or allowed the cycle of harsh reparations, war, harsh reparations. CnG cannot possibly adhere to lofty principals and give TOP easy peace given TOP's history of behaving in realpolitik terms. And they start the next cycle of harsh reparations, war, harsh reparations. Until some other power comes along and topples CnG, and use CnG's history of harsh reparations to justify another cycle of harsh reparations and war. It's a meta-cycle.

I am of the belief that this is the way the planet will work for a long time. The very small minority who actually believed or tried to bring about a normative change (either in the form of "white peace because it is moral" or "white peace because the game is more fun that way") I don't think are at all close to reaching positions of power high enough to make the decision to stop the cycle. And it's probably the case that by the time you reach that position of power, you look back at the sunk costs it took to earn that position and grow more attached to it. Which makes any decision that might risk your power for the sake of principals all that more difficult.

tl;dr - TOP is probably unwilling to reconcile with CnG. CnG's least risky response is to pursue threat elimination. lol Karma naiveté.
[/quote]

I enjoyed reading this. It seems the die has been cast.

[Believland]

[quote name='Krack' date='16 February 2010 - 03:11 AM' timestamp='1266307896' post='2185259']
You forgot the part where the previous week, there was a huge brawl in school that started when the Jerks attacked the Nice Kids. And Kid T (one of the biggest kids in school) spent the majority of the brawl slap fighting with the Jerks and saying things like "I won't really hit you hard if you promise not to hit me hard". And then when the brawl was almost over, and the Nice Kids were beating the tar out of the Jerks, Kid T made sure to threaten the Nice Kids and discourage anyone from punching his jerk friend, Kid I. And then Kid T spent the rest of the week gloating over and over again, how he basically won the brawl single handedly and all of the Nice Kids owed him big time. Basically, Kid T spent a week of his life annoying all the Nice Kids in school to the point that they really didn't want anything to do with him anymore.

So, when Kid T and Kid I decided to sucker punch Kid M before 4th period lunch, all of the Nice Kids filed out of the lunch room and proceeded to put the boots to Kid T and Kid I. Repeatedly. And the Nice Kids didn't even feel bad about it ... and really, they kind of enjoyed it.
[/quote]

If you're saying CnG are the "nice" kids. Then... can I have what you're having?
If you're saying TOP are the "nice" kids. Then... can I have what you're having?

If you're saying SC are the "bad" kids. Then... can I have what you're having?
If you're saying TOP are the "bad" kids. Then... can I have what you're having?

Now, that we got that out of the way... No one is good or evil in this war. If you think so then, for the love of the lord, HOOK ME UP BRAH

Anyway, I think I have to agree with Jagged Fel, for the most part

Edited February 16, 2010 by Believland

[Sephiroth]

So the war continues indefinitely, sounds fun.

[Stetson76]

[quote name='magicninja' date='16 February 2010 - 12:48 AM' timestamp='1266302927' post='2185083']
There's a few things I don't get about TOP/IRON/Whoever's dow on C&G in the first place.

How was opening a new front on uninvolved parties that, up until that point, had no intention of entering the war going to help the Polaris Coalition at all? It wasn't going to help NSO fight off everyone they were engaged with. It wasn't going to help Polaris. Who were they helping by hitting C&G?

I'd like to hear the answer to that one before I draw any final conclusions.
[/quote]

I believe that your first assertion that C&G had not intention of entering the war can be answered by this quote:

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='15 February 2010 - 08:46 PM' timestamp='1266288410' post='2184044']
We do indeed recognize the fact that, had TOP or IRON hit our allies, we would be honor bound to defend them.
[/quote]

Now, he's not saying that they necessarily wanted to enter it but it is clear that if TOP/IRON had followed the treaty line, which everyone on the C&G side insists would have been find and dandy, they would have been countered by C&G. Does that make preemption smart? No. Does it make it tactically correct? At this point it is obvious that it wasn't. Was the premise of their thought process sound that no matter in what manner they became involved in this war they would end up fighting C&G correct? Absolutely, and the King of the leading C&G alliance admits it right here.

So, draw what conclusions you must, the final decision was flawed, but the reasoning behind it had merit.