Joint Statement

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Co God Ben' date='18 February 2010 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1266511417' post='2189766']
I find certain irony in that an alliance that signed this "white peace" offer indignantly rejected the same offer to them becaust peace with a neutrality clause isn't white peace. Glad to know your sense of lulz hasn't been dulled this war.
[/quote]
Interesting. Since there are so many alliances listed in the OP could you be more specific?

[janax]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='18 February 2010 - 10:42 AM' timestamp='1266511336' post='2189762']
I agree with the need to deescalate. If TOOL or Argent would like to accept peace with the promise to remain neutral for the rest of the conflict, I'd be happy to discuss the issue.
[/quote]

We leave, when you leave and as one of your other triums was told, threatening us with harsh reps for not leaving on your timing won't change that.

[Co God Ben]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='18 February 2010 - 11:44 AM' timestamp='1266511477' post='2189768']
Interesting. Since there are so many alliances listed in the OP could you be more specific?
[/quote]
Yea, I could.

[Wargarden]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='18 February 2010 - 04:40 PM' timestamp='1266511209' post='2189760']
Did you really pull one sentence out of my comment and use it out of context to go on a rant about how this war isn't about who is top dog when that was not what I said or even remotely close to the point I made in the post you only partially referenced? Just asking for clarity here.
[/quote]
No. Damn, I meant to seperate the rant from the rest. I chopped my answer up cause it was so long and reedited it. Sorry. I needed to rant because I haven't said one thing really about this whole sheebang. But your comment caught my eye and I wanted to say soemthing about it.

An edit of my post is needed BRB...

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Co God Ben' date='18 February 2010 - 11:46 AM' timestamp='1266511606' post='2189773']
Yea, I could.
[/quote]
Ah, okay. A general lack of cognitive ability seems to permeate a great percentage of "debate" here.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Ivan Moldavi

[gambona]

Well, I know for a fact Legion rejected peace with neutrality clause.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='18 February 2010 - 05:37 PM' timestamp='1266511038' post='2189758']
Of course they are the aggressors. If anyone in NSO says otherwise you can direct them to me for clarification. I believe IRON and TOP know that their declaration on a non-combatant bloc constitutes an aggressive act. I would hope that it hasn't been stated otherwise. In every war there is an aggressor, that does not change the dynamics of the situation. Escalation occurs because treaties exist, if you never want to be part of escalation then you should have no treaties.
[/quote]
I stated as such because a majority of the people that signed this document are saying they are "defending their friends and allies" or stuff like that... Which is ofcourse true to an extent, but there is more to it, as I have said.
Escalation doesn't occur because of existing treaties (why would mostly all of them have non-chaining clauses then?), but because leaders of (said) alliances [i]chose[/i] to involve themselves in this conflict. That's what I was pointing out, nothing more, nothing less.
[quote]
Your assertion that any alliance that comes to the defense of those aggressors are automatically aggressors of equal weight however I disagree with. The aggression takes place, that creates a war situation, in general a one alliance versus another alliance system. If another alliance or group of alliances decide that instead of letting their ally sit and be attacked by the aggressor they are going to counter [b]then they have made an aggressive act (in defense of an ally)[/b] towards the initial aggressor. Thus escalation begins. Each alliance that declares is the aggressor by default of the definition of declaring but those subsequent declarations are not tantamount to equating to the initial declaration.
[/quote]
I disagree. (First of all, I want to point out that with regards to the part I bolded: you can't be agressive and defensive at the same time. What kind of logic is that? )
When alliance Z attacks alliance A that holds military treaties with B, C and D, you know what you're getting into. Effectively you are declaring war on all 4 of them. (MDPs always read something like: "An attack on one signatory is considered an attack on both.") So it is not true that B, C and D start an agressive war against Z, therefore anyone that declares on B, C and D start another agressive war (in support of Z).

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='gambona' date='18 February 2010 - 11:49 AM' timestamp='1266511767' post='2189781']
Well, I know for a fact Legion rejected peace with neutrality clause.
[/quote]
Oh okay. Thanks for clearing that up. I will simply assume that The Legion is the alliance Co God Ben was poorly alluding to.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='janax' date='18 February 2010 - 11:45 AM' timestamp='1266511533' post='2189769']
We leave, when you leave and as one of your other triums was told, threatening us with harsh reps for not leaving on your timing won't change that.
[/quote]
So you wouldn't be willing to accept the offer you made in this thread then. Oh and threats of harsh reps wouldn't make us peace early with you either so... Good for you I guess.

Edit: Yes I realize Argent isn't on the list. It was a collective other side you. Probably not the best wording, admittedly.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Delta1212

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='18 February 2010 - 04:44 PM' timestamp='1266511477' post='2189768']
Interesting. Since there are so many alliances listed in the OP could you be more specific?
[/quote]

Read my post a bit further up the page, and that's what makes this announcement so shameful frankly. It was not just a one certain alliance, it was [i]eight[/i]. And they didn't reject it, they were the ones who proposed their own surrender, only to unpropose it a bit later at the urging of another, which in itself is fine but to then turn around a few hours later and go out of their way to grandstand . . .

Edited February 18, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Tromp' date='18 February 2010 - 11:50 AM' timestamp='1266511852' post='2189783']
I stated as such because a majority of the people that signed this document are saying they are "defending their friends and allies" or stuff like that... Which is ofcourse true to an extent, but there is more to it, as I have said.
Escalation doesn't occur because of existing treaties (why would mostly all of them have non-chaining clauses then?), but because leaders of (said) alliances [i]chose[/i] to involve themselves in this conflict. That's what I was pointing out, nothing more, nothing less.

I disagree. (First of all, I want to point out that with regards to the part I bolded: you can't be agressive and defensive at the same time. What kind of logic is that? )
When alliance Z attacks alliance A that holds military treaties with B, C and D, you know what you're getting into. Effectively you are declaring war on all 4 of them. (MDPs always read something like: "An attack on one signatory is considered an attack on both.") So it is not true that B, C and D start an agressive war against Z, therefore anyone that declares on B, C and D start another agressive war (in support of Z).
[/quote]

So by this logic FOK! was defending racism when it declared on Polar? I know the answer, but I hope you can see my point. While I am aware that the racism was not the main impetus of the war, it was a catalyst that led directly to the declaration so it was impactful. If all aggression must be equal to the initial reason for aggression then all defense must likewise be equitable, correct?

In regards to the aggression as a defense position, it is generally believed by many that the best defense is a good offense and that the two are not automatically and universally separate.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Tromp' date='18 February 2010 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1266510725' post='2189747']
In short, you agree with me... The IRON/TOP side being agressors. I couldn't care less what those on that side of the fence think about alliances who are refusing to support the agressors, as it is not important to me. What is important, is that all the alliances that are willing to support IRON/TOP (and they solidified it now with this announcement) are making themselves as responsible for the war as IRON/TOP and have to face the consequences of it.
[/quote]

I hardly agree with you. I said TOP and IRON's decision was poor. You can see it as a war of agression, personally I see it as a pre-emptive based on different circumstances. Bottom line, it doesn't matter. Alliances jumping on our side did it with full knowledge we'd be facing high odds and strong counter-attacks. The reason we all did it was not because we supported a war of agression (regardless of the academic discussion of there being one or not, vide any of Bob Janova's posts) nor because we endorsed the - universally considered - poor decision of TOP and IRON doing the pre-emptive strike. The reason we all joined a losing war was because we were not going to let our friends (each one's respectively) die alone doing it. Labeling it as supporting an agressive war is blunt in all accounts.


[quote name='raasaa' date='18 February 2010 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1266510662' post='2189746']
Lovely example....only issue with that example is the fact that Athens apologized, worked with Knights of Nii to resolve the situation..and paid out reparations.

I am yet to see anything similar to that from TOP and IRON
[/quote]

raasaa I love you, but your reply only almost makes sense, for I was not refering to TOP & IRON, but to the reason why their allies joined them in the war. Do you somehow believe that even if Athens had not apologized, MK would have let them to die? I don't think either of us believes in that. Whether TOP or IRON are willing to apologize or pay out reparations is not my concern - I couldn't care less - and has nothing to do with the reason we are standing behind them like MK and CnG would have made in the Athens-Knights of Ni! debacle had Athens not decided to be reasonable.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='18 February 2010 - 11:52 AM' timestamp='1266511973' post='2189786']
Read my post a bit further up the page, and that's what makes this announcement so shameful frankly. It was not just a one certain alliance, it was [i]eight[/i]. And they didn't reject it, they were the ones who proposed their own surrender, only to unpropose it a bit later at the urging of another, which in itself is fine but to then turn around a few hours later and go out of their way to grandstand . . .
[/quote]
Well, I know a little bit about grandstanding that I didn't really see this announcement as such. I did not think it would be received well and my government conveyed that thought to some of those that are signatories, but what do I know? I haven't been listened to since the beginning of this mess so why should they start now when things are going so well?

[janax]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='18 February 2010 - 10:52 AM' timestamp='1266511940' post='2189785']
So you wouldn't be willing to accept the offer you made in this thread then. Oh and threats of harsh reps wouldn't make us peace early with you either so... Good for you I guess.
[/quote]


We didn't sign this. We are in this for TOOL and TOOL alone, not some grander crusade. That being said, the terms listed are the same ones CRAP has accepted, and been told they aren't allowed to accept....twice.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='18 February 2010 - 11:26 AM' timestamp='1266510400' post='2189742']
I don't believe the world has been multi-polar. The ex-hegemony group was more or less beat down in Karma and were not really an effective power again until recently, even if they had some level of influence and while I would like to personally claim that Frostbite was some big badass coalition it was two mid tier alliances and one big alliance and that is it. Realistically, not a real powerhouse, even if my bravado and hubris would portray it otherwise.

The world has effectively been reduced to one hyperpower, CnG, with one tag-a-long, SF and a few peripheral groupings. If CnG wanted (wants?) something to happen, it generally happened. I know first hand that MK had more influence within Frostbite than NSO, a signatory, did because of its longstanding ties with STA and Polar. I believe the same could be said for SF with other allliances connectivity.

Karma saw the emergence of CnG as the ultimate force in the Cyberverse. I can't fault them for it, they did a good job at securing the post. I never bought into the idea of a "brave new world" and believe that by and large the status quo has been maintained, just that the key players on the stage have shifted.[/quote]
Before this war it was [i]at least[/i] bi-polar with a powerful wildcard. While some of TOP's friends had been beaten down, they had at least part of Citadel with them, depending on the scenario. They probably could've counted on all of Citadel if they were defending, for instance. I really wouldn't call CnG a hyperpower simply because if TOP and IRON hadn't screwed the pooch, CnG had a very good chance of losing the war conventionally. Hell, CnG could've walked into a serious defeat over the TPF nonsense. A hyperpower cannot lose a conventional war, by most definitions. They were obviously a great power, and certainly exerted a lot of political power (mostly MK of course), but they could've been defeated if the other poles of the power structure were better card-players.

[quote]As far as the idea of perma-ZI goes, the only reason that has changed is because one alliance pushed it a lot (apparently - it never did so when I was around before) and that alliance lost control. If such a policy had been in effect within MK and the general CnG population then I do not believe we would be observing any substantive difference now.[/quote]
The forces that opposed permanent ZI triumphed against those that used it. Even if we hold that the alliances that fought against the NPO et al in Karma are not a shred different from their opponents except for the matter of perma-ZI (and I don't buy that a bit), the victors [i]still opposed perma-ZI[/i].

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='18 February 2010 - 11:29 AM' timestamp='1266510542' post='2189743']
To address your edit.

I never held any false expectations on what our entry meant and no one has seen the NSO lamenting the effects even now. I understand that a lot of alliances don't like the idea of losing their precious infrastructure but, by and large, the people that join NSO knew that at some point we would end up in a major conflict that would probably not end well because of my generally sunny disposition towards other alliances.
[/quote]
It's not about the infrastructure so much as you entry led to political and strategic defeat. I thought the goal in CN was to play to win, or at least that you were sympathetic to that viewpoint. Why did you play poorly?

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='18 February 2010 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1266512130' post='2189792']
Well, I know a little bit about grandstanding that I didn't really see this announcement as such. I did not think it would be received well and my government conveyed that thought to some of those that are signatories, but what do I know? I haven't been listened to since the beginning of this mess so why should they start now when things are going so well?
[/quote]

Aye, if you removed the names of those eight particular alliances who tried to surrender the very same afternoon this was announced, there would be little wrong with the announcement besides being odd. By itself its not grandstanding just merely unorthodox, but when you couple it with them attempting to surrender a few hours prior, it's grandstanding at best and lunacy at worst.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[raasaa]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='18 February 2010 - 11:53 AM' timestamp='1266512038' post='2189791']
raasaa I love you, but your reply only almost makes sense, for I was not refering to TOP & IRON, but to the reason why their allies joined them in the war. Do you somehow believe that even if Athens had not apologized, MK would have let them to die? I don't think either of us believes in that. Whether TOP or IRON are willing to apologize or pay out reparations is not my concern - I couldn't care less - and has nothing to do with the reason we are standing behind them like MK and CnG would have made in the Athens-Knights of Ni! debacle had Athens not decided to be reasonable.
[/quote]
Let me make it clearer.

Athens did take remedial measures, learnt from their mistake and fixed it accordingly. If they repeated the blunder, i guess they would have been whipped and punished by their own allies.

In the case of IRON, this is NOT their first blunder (preemptive attack). I am yet to see remorse or anything similar to remedial measures for there consecutive blunders. I guess as long as they have allies to meatshield, their habit of blundering will continue. TOP, i am not all that familiar with....

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='18 February 2010 - 11:59 AM' timestamp='1266512366' post='2189796']
It's not about the infrastructure so much as you entry led to political and strategic defeat. I thought the goal in CN was to play to win, or at least that you were sympathetic to that viewpoint. Why did you play poorly?
[/quote]
From my point of view, I won before the first shot was fired.

Rebuilding nations that already have large numbers of improvements and wonders is a relatively easy exercise, creating a cohesive bonded core for an alliance is not something that is simply done via a few small wars and great rhetoric, even if that rhetoric is really really great.

The NSO will emerge from this war beaten and battered, but not defeated. We are stronger as a community now than we have ever been and we have dispelled some of the beliefs about our willingness to fight, our ability to hold our own and our cohesiveness. We have gained the respect of many that called us enemies before and made friends of several.

My plan has been successful throughout. I always win, even when I lose.

[tobiash]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='18 February 2010 - 05:22 PM' timestamp='1266510175' post='2189734']
As dear Archon taught us during the Athens/Knights of Ni! debacle, just because a friend took a poor decision and is in the middle of a messed up situation, their friends won't let him die alone. Now, you can see it as supporting a war of agression, but personally (and apparently to Archon too in that situation), [b]standing behind that friend has little to do with supporting their actions[/b].
[/quote]

How true!

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Tromp' date='18 February 2010 - 10:35 AM' timestamp='1266510914' post='2189754']
If TOP/IRON were wronged, then maybe I could've understand it. Now, not so much.
They started this war because they felt it was the opportune moment to do so, and out of dislike for CnG. (Read the TOP DoW again.)

You are fighting for the grudge TOP/IRON holds against CnG, not for your treatypartners alone. This announcement made that clear, if it wasn't already.
[/quote]

So, Athens was wronged when MK stood up and said, no matter what our friends do, we'll stand by them?

Again, let me reiterate that this statement is by no means intended to insult the other side but merely to provide clarity to our position. At no point in this conflict will the signatories of this statement impose reps on our opponents. Not now when it seems bleak, and not in the future, even if should Admin choose to part the Red Sea and swallow up our adversaries.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='18 February 2010 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1266512456' post='2189799']
Aye, if you removed the names of those eight particular alliances who tried to surrender the very same afternoon this was announced, there would be little wrong with the announcement besides being odd. By itself its not grandstanding just merely unorthodox, but when you couple it with them attempting to surrender a few hours prior, it's grandstanding at best and lunacy at worst.
[/quote]

I do believe this announcement came in late one week or something.

EDIT:

[quote name='raasaa' date='18 February 2010 - 05:02 PM' timestamp='1266512534' post='2189801']
Let me make it clearer.

Athens did take remedial measures, learnt from their mistake and fixed it accordingly. If they repeated the blunder, i guess they would have been whipped and punished by their own allies.

In the case of IRON, this is NOT their first blunder (preemptive attack). I am yet to see remorse or anything similar to remedial measures for there consecutive blunders. I guess as long as they have allies to meatshield, their habit of blundering will continue. TOP, i am not all that familiar with....
[/quote]

I am pretty sure remedial measures will be taken afterwards this event, just like they were taken afterwards the Athens event.

As for IRON and their blunders, well, I am sure they learned their lesson by now.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Lusitan

[kerschbs]

This announcement confuses me. What makes anyone think that the alliances on the losing side of a war can, in anyway, stipulate to the alliances they surrender to "hey you guys have to stay nuetral for the conflict, just like us!" I have a lot of respect for the nations in TSO who we are fighting, and I would love to see you guys get peace sooner rather than later (I doubt GATO would ever ask for reps anyway.) However for example, if you think GATO is going to give you guys peace, and then declare nuetrality as our allies continue to fight, it's ridiculous. If you want peace that is all well and good, but why on earth would we agree to an agreement that ties our hands for the rest of this fight? If I am misreading the OP I apologize, but really?

I guess more nukes it is

[Tromp]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='18 February 2010 - 05:53 PM' timestamp='1266512018' post='2189788']
So by this logic FOK! was defending racism when it declared on Polar? I know the answer, but I hope you can see my point. While I am aware that the racism was not the main impetus of the war, it was a catalyst that led directly to the declaration so it was impactful. If all aggression must be equal to the initial reason for aggression then all defense must likewise be equitable, correct?
[/quote]
First of all it wasn't racism. I'll post the logs of the conversation that makes you say this if you want to.
Second, I'm definitely not saying that those who are supporting TOP/IRON should be treated likewise when terms are being discussed. I do believe they share responsibility for this escalating by declaring war in support of them.
[quote]
In regards to the aggression as a defense position, it is generally believed by many that the best defense is a good offense and that the two are not automatically and universally separate.
[/quote]
OK, I must have misinterpreted your initial statement then.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='janax' date='18 February 2010 - 11:56 AM' timestamp='1266512164' post='2189793']
We didn't sign this. We are in this for TOOL and TOOL alone, not some grander crusade. That being said, the terms listed are the same ones CRAP has accepted, and been told they aren't allowed to accept....twice.
[/quote]
You missed the edit. The phrasing was poor and my fault.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Tromp' date='18 February 2010 - 12:06 PM' timestamp='1266512817' post='2189811']
First of all it wasn't racism. I'll post the logs of the conversation that makes you say this if you want to.
Second, I'm definitely not saying that those who are supporting TOP/IRON should be treated likewise when terms are being discussed. I do believe they share responsibility for this escalating by declaring war in support of them.
[/quote]
It was perceived as such by many, and thus it was since perception is the only relevant measurement when it comes to such things. I can say I hate a certain group of individuals or whatever and think that I am just and right in saying so but if it is offensive to the hated body then to them it is a biased/racist/whatever issue.

I know what was said. The logs are not relevant to the end result however in my opinion. Just as my opinion on whether it was racist or not is irrelevant since I was not the one aggrieved.

Regardless, any alliance that escalates, on either side, must accept some portion of responsibility for the escalation. Just as you were aware before entering to defend PC that NSO would thus enter to defend Polar, you took the step anyway because you felt it was your duty to do so, but that doesn't change the realization that your action, just as mine did, led to a lot of this mess.