A Brosian Rant on the War and Assorted Other Things

[D34th]

[quote name='bros2' date='23 February 2010 - 06:19 PM' timestamp='1266959959' post='2199603']
The alliance that was raided held no treaties whatsoever, so yes, it was valid to attack them.

I'm not saying it was smart.

But it was valid.

And it was resolved for 2-3 days before Grub attacked. That is the fact everyone loves to gloss over.
[/quote]

So you are saying that is valid attack an alliance just because they held no treaty but is silly attack the ones who attacked in first place? Amazing logic.

And I see you just ignored the insults thing.

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='D34th' date='23 February 2010 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1266961538' post='2199685']
So you are saying that is valid attack an alliance just because they held no treaty but is silly attack the ones who attacked in first place? Amazing logic.

And I see you just ignored the insults thing.
[/quote]

[quote]
(06:04:58 PM) Newhotness: yeah that too. Why does FoA no longer have a say in this one when they were the one who was attacked? why are you disregarding what they want?
(06:05:06 PM) AlmightyGrub: It is what I want
(06:05:15 PM) Newhotness: but you werent hurt by it
(06:05:19 PM) Newhotness: so why does it matter what you want
(06:05:26 PM) AlmightyGrub: why doesnt it matter
(06:05:33 PM) AlmightyGrub: I dont like you
(06:05:40 PM) AlmightyGrub: I dont like how you behave
-------------
(06:08:18 PM) AlmightyGrub: I have no issue with you raiding
-------------
(06:12:38 PM) AlmightyGrub: Grub is an !@#$%^& <-- not related but funny
-------------
(06:12:57 PM) AlmightyGrub: I am not interested in FOA in the slightest
-------------
(06:13:30 PM) AlmightyGrub: I am telling you there is a boundary
(06:13:46 PM) AlmightyGrub: set by me
[/quote]

By the way, this is all before people in #\m/ started acting like clowns towards grub. So here's the chronology of the whole thing. \m/ raids FoA with PC and GOONS. Corp brokers peace and a protectorate. Grub threatens war. Grub comes onto #\m/, tells us he doesn't like the way we behave, admits it has nothing to do with raiding, and admits he thinks has the authority to define community standards. [b]Then[/b] two members get fed up with him and start clowning around. Grub justified his threats with something that happened after them. It's pretty ridiculous. More importantly, it's over. Grub more than paid for his asshattery and we paid for ours too.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Grub took a stand for civilisation and he is still being demonised for it. Lovely.

No wonder this game keeps degenerating.

It does put those of you trying to put both TOP and Grub down simultaneously in something of a pickle though. If it was OK for metal to attack an alliance just because they thought they could get away with it, why not for TOP and co. to attack 7?

At least I am consistent. I see both as cases of uncivilised and uncalled for aggression.

Let's face it, the part of the game that Admin created is not particularly special or interesting. What makes this game worth playing is the community, the standards, the enforcement mechanisms that we the players have built on top of it, and that is not a done-and-set thing, it is a continuous process. Kill that and you kill what makes this game worth playing for a lot of people.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='23 February 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1266966131' post='2199892']
Grub took a stand for civilisation and he is still being demonised for it. Lovely.

No wonder this game keeps degenerating.
[/quote]

Bros called NpO's reason for war on \m/ silly. I see no demonizing here.

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='23 February 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1266966131' post='2199892']
It does put those of you trying to put both TOP and Grub down simultaneously in something of a pickle though. If it was OK for metal to attack an alliance just because they thought they could get away with it, why not for TOP and co. to attack 7?

At least I am consistent. I see both as cases of uncivilised and uncalled for aggression.
[/quote]

Raiding the nations a 40-ish nation alliance with no political treaties is not the same as declaring war on a 7 alliance bloc for... let us say "contested reasons". You're fully within your right to view both acts as "cases of uncivilised and uncalled for aggression". But to call someone who sees them as different types of acts "incosistent" is being ignorant of the facts.

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='23 February 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1266966131' post='2199892']
Let's face it, the part of the game that Admin created is not particularly special or interesting. What makes this game worth playing is the community, the standards, the enforcement mechanisms that we the players have built on top of it, and that is not a done-and-set thing, it is a continuous process. Kill that and you kill what makes this game worth playing for a lot of people.
[/quote]

Someone doing something you disagree with just shows that the standards and enforcement mechanisms are either not in place, or are not effective enough. It has nothing with trying to destroy those systems, maybe it is simply an act of pushing against them and seeing what can be got away with.

Edited February 23, 2010 by ktarthan

[Homura]

[quote name='bros2' date='23 February 2010 - 05:40 PM' timestamp='1266946810' post='2199196']
I would start out this wall by discussing the casus belli used to start this war, but that appears to be impossible, as no casus belli was used to start this war.
[/quote]
Contrary to popular belief, the term "casus belli" does not actually imply that the reasons were valid, or that they make sense. It's just a Latin phrase, which basically means their public justification for going to war.

Athens, in attacking Knights of Ni!, did not have a casus belli, because they did not announce their war or provide a reason for it.

Valhalla, in attacking Hyperion, arguably did not have a casus belli, if you believe there is truly an OOC-IC line, since Crescendolls did not admit to being Chickenzilla.

TOP declared they were against what C&G "stands for", which was the reason they went to war. Members of C&G Alliances were highly vocal in support of \m/, and even if this wasn't official alliance policy, it was enough for the leadership of TOP to feel justified in attacking. You can argue that it was wrong, but you can't say they don't have a reason.

[Kzoppistan]

"I don't like you." is not a valid CB.

"I don't like you and you are a threat." is a quasi valid excuse.

"You have transgressed against me." is the most valid.

*In my opinion of the pseudo-legalities of Bob.

I like toast with preserves.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Kzoppistan

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' date='23 February 2010 - 03:21 PM' timestamp='1266967316' post='2199950']
"I don't like you." is not a valid CB.

"I don't like you and you are a threat." is a quasi valid excuse.

"You have transgressed against me." is the most valid.

*In my opinion of the pseudo-legalities of Bob.

I like toast with preserves.
[/quote]

Any CB is a valid CB as long as those declaring it believe that it is. That does not mean that the general public will agree with your actions, or that they will not act against them.

[D34th]

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' date='23 February 2010 - 07:25 PM' timestamp='1266963951' post='2199801']
By the way, this is all before people in #\m/ started acting like clowns towards grub. So here's the chronology of the whole thing. \m/ raids FoA with PC and GOONS. Corp brokers peace and a protectorate. Grub threatens war. Grub comes onto #\m/, tells us he doesn't like the way we behave, admits it has nothing to do with raiding, and admits he thinks has the authority to define community standards. [b]Then[/b] two members get fed up with him and start clowning around. Grub justified his threats with something that happened after them. It's pretty ridiculous. More importantly, it's over. Grub more than paid for his asshattery and we paid for ours too.
[/quote]

My point stands, declare war to keep a community standard(having the autority or not to do it) is one ofe the silliest reasons for war that you have seen? Because for bros2 is.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='D34th' date='23 February 2010 - 03:25 PM' timestamp='1266967738' post='2199966']
My point stands, declare war to keep a community standard(having the autority or not to do it) is one ofe the silliest reasons for war that you have seen? Because for bros2 is.
[/quote]

I haven't been around long enough for "silliest declaration I've seen" to have much weight, but I'm going to say that declaring yourself sole arbiter of community standards is [i]quite[/i] silly.

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='23 February 2010 - 07:24 PM' timestamp='1266967695' post='2199963']
Any CB is a valid CB as long as those declaring it believe that it is. That does not mean that the general public will agree with your actions, or that they will not act against them.
[/quote]

That's true, but for practical purposes one must be able to convince a good number of other people of the validity of that claim, too. That is easier to do when the justification is stronger, and justification leans strongest towards righting a wrong, and farthest away from frivolity, somewhere close to the middle of that range is the usually questionable 'opportunism'.

[Roadie]

[quote name='bros2' date='23 February 2010 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1266959959' post='2199603']

The alliance that was raided held no treaties whatsoever, so yes, it was valid to attack them

[/quote]

No treaties is a valid CB? I've heard it all now. That means all of Bob has a CB against FAN.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Katsumi' date='23 February 2010 - 11:17 PM' timestamp='1266967274' post='2199946']
Members of C&G Alliances were highly vocal in support of \m/, and even if this wasn't official alliance policy, it was enough for the leadership of TOP to feel justified in attacking. You can argue that it was wrong, but you can't say they don't have a reason.
[/quote]

The above quote is patently not true. The posts by CnG centered around how silly the thought of war was...not about our support of \m/. In fact, many in CnG made it clear that support of \m/ was never what we were about.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Rush Sykes

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Roadie' date='24 February 2010 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1266969873' post='2200032']
No treaties is a valid CB? I've heard it all now. That means all of Bob has a CB against FAN.
[/quote]

Valid, in that case, is a subjective term. Of course, you know that, but it doesnt help your point to play by what you know. Athens charter at the time had been changed to allow raids on any AA that was untreatied. It IS how the charter read. It doesnt make it smart, but it DID make it a valid raid target. It is the nonsense of the situation that caused subsequent internal changed in Athens.

[Newhotness]

[quote name='bros2' date='23 February 2010 - 12:36 PM' timestamp='1266946810' post='2199196']
But then Grub, the moral beacon of CN, decided to attack \m/ for one of the silliest reasons I can remember in CN.


[/quote]
lolcakes. that was funny

[quote name='bros2' date='23 February 2010 - 12:36 PM' timestamp='1266946810' post='2199196']
On Toast: Best prepared with peanut butter. Rosemary toast with peanut butter on it is delicious.


[/quote]
White bread with an $@! load of butter is the only way to go with toast

[arentak]

[quote]On the war itself, TOP has acted rather silly, such as in the case of Trace, an MK member. Trace asked TOP if he could be allowed to slip into peace mode, due to RL problems. He came back recently and came out of peace mode. TOP proceeded to yell at him because they think they should've been able to attack him after he exited peace mode.[/quote]

Right, so TOP shows some class and compassion for a fellow human being and you mock us for it as we get screwed over for being the good guys. You're a ********.


Edit: Catching up
[quote name='bros2' date='23 February 2010 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1266959959' post='2199603']


Nobody will win it militarily (except for MK, we're the only ones fighting worth a damn that i've noticed)

[/quote]

Yes, every opponent who wasn't in MK who I've faught has been less then entirely skilled. Now I've got a STA guy, so maybe I'll get to see some skill outside of MK opponents now.

In case I wasn't clear, MK does fight pretty good compared to everyone else I'm fighting.

Edited February 24, 2010 by arentak

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='D34th' date='23 February 2010 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1266967738' post='2199966']
My point stands, declare war to keep a community standard(having the autority or not to do it) is one ofe the silliest reasons for war that you have seen? Because for bros2 is.
[/quote]

Justifying a threat by something that happened after it? That [b]is[/b] the silliest reason for war I've ever seen.

[bros]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='23 February 2010 - 05:58 PM' timestamp='1266966131' post='2199892']
Grub took a stand for civilisation and he is still being demonised for it. Lovely.

No wonder this game keeps degenerating.

It does put those of you trying to put both TOP and Grub down simultaneously in something of a pickle though. If it was OK for metal to attack an alliance just because they thought they could get away with it, why not for TOP and co. to attack 7?

At least I am consistent. I see both as cases of uncivilised and uncalled for aggression.

Let's face it, the part of the game that Admin created is not particularly special or interesting. What makes this game worth playing is the community, the standards, the enforcement mechanisms that we the players have built on top of it, and that is not a done-and-set thing, it is a continuous process. Kill that and you kill what makes this game worth playing for a lot of people.
[/quote]

Grub is NpO emperor, not Police Commissioner of Cybernations. He is not law and order in the game.

A few bad words =/= bad

NpO is not CNARF, last I checked.

[quote name='Katsumi' date='23 February 2010 - 06:17 PM' timestamp='1266967274' post='2199946']
Contrary to popular belief, the term "casus belli" does not actually imply that the reasons were valid, or that they make sense. It's just a Latin phrase, which basically means their public justification for going to war.

Athens, in attacking Knights of Ni!, did not have a casus belli, because they did not announce their war or provide a reason for it.

Valhalla, in attacking Hyperion, arguably did not have a casus belli, if you believe there is truly an OOC-IC line, since Crescendolls did not admit to being Chickenzilla.

TOP declared they were against what C&G "stands for", which was the reason they went to war. Members of C&G Alliances were highly vocal in support of \m/, and even if this wasn't official alliance policy, it was enough for the leadership of TOP to feel justified in attacking. You can argue that it was wrong, but you can't say they don't have a reason.
[/quote]

Okay, then justified in the eyes of the public

Athens/Londo = Morons

Valhalla are also full of idiots. Didn't they attack Hyperion because hyperion refused to give Valhalla a CB to attack MK with?

Being against what someone stands for is not a reason that holds up.

There is a difference between holding a feeling about someone/something and acting on it. TOP was wrong in indulging their urge. Now they pay for it.

[Banksy]

I preferred it when we were talking about bro's toast preferences. Jam wins btw.

I have to say that, personally, I have found TOP to be honourable opponents, at least when they are not pushing the tiresome eternal war line. It's a shame about Trace's situation, but they did agree to peace out with him- which I believe is quite exceptional.

[Chief Savage Man]

I'm not sure which CnG members you were talking to.

[Coursca]

Lively debate in here, so I'll throw my hat in.

First, TOP did what they felt they had to do. No use debating about it at this point, in my mind: what's done is done and things seem to be drawing down finally. I still love them dearly (even you, Blue) even though we, in some horrible happenstance one could only find in a Shakespearean tragedy, are on opposite sides.

The Trace thing...yeah, I can kind of understand why that'd irrate them. They had the good nature to let him slip into Peace Mode. Basic courtesy would've been to let them know when he was coming out. Get a break, give a break I say. That's just me, though.

As for GGA, I'll just express my view on the coup in a series of emotions:

That should cover it all. Needless to say its been an awfully frustrating time in CN lately for many of us and hopefully things will be sorted out soon.

[Homura]

[quote name='bros2' date='24 February 2010 - 12:39 AM' timestamp='1266972154' post='2200124']
TOP was wrong in indulging their urge. Now they pay for it.
[/quote]

That indeed, they will.

You and your comrades will be called the new hegemony for it. However, whether that's bad or not is up to you to decide. In my view, it's not the wrong choice to do what's best for your alliance in a vicious world.

[The Eye]

This is IC, moving

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='24 February 2010 - 09:10 AM' timestamp='1266966836' post='2199921']
Bros called NpO's reason for war on \m/ silly. I see no demonizing here.[/quote]

"Silly" may be a relatively mild word qua word, but in context it is also one of the most loaded. It is not "silly" to put oneself and ones alliance on the line to oppose a precedent that would damage the community as a whole IMOP, and if the meme that it is silly comes to be widely accepted (as appears to be happening) then this game is headed straight for the toilet.

[quote]Raiding the nations a 40-ish nation alliance with no political treaties is not the same as declaring war on a 7 alliance bloc for... let us say "contested reasons". You're fully within your right to view both acts as "cases of uncivilised and uncalled for aggression". But to call someone who sees them as different types of acts "incosistent" is being ignorant of the facts. [/quote]

Trying to draw a distinction between "raiding" and warring is what is really silly here. Even metal says there is no difference, and that is the one point on which I agree with them. So the two cases are identical in important respects. In one case aggression was initiated without so much as an announcement or an attempt to make a case for war. In the other, aggression was initiated with an announcement at least, but without anything much resembling a valid case for war. (Two reasons were cited, one to backup Polaris which fails on its face since the alliances attacked were not actually involved in that war, the second being a desire to bloody a group Crymson dislikes, which is quite simply not a valid cassus belli at all, only a confession of laziness at best.) Metal chose their target based on the expectation they were too weak and unconnected to fight back, TOP chose their target on similar grounds (CnG was not weak or unconnected, but Crymson clearly and mistakenly believed they were at a vulnerable point just the same) - so both were attacks of opportunism. In this respect they are nearly identical actions.

I think, I hope, if not all then at least a good majority can agree that we want this game to have a healthy, growing playerbase. Strengthening, certainly not continuing to erode, the unwritten standards that make it possible for communities to form, learn, and grow here with some chance to prosper, some expectation that as long as they dont do something to justify it they are unlikely to be assaulted and destroyed for lulz, should be important to you too if you agree with the previous sentence.

Thus the unwritten rule that one doesnt attack without posting an announcement giving a valid reason for the attack. Without that this game would have become a nearly-vacant wasteland like so many other similar games long, long ago. I am perfectly aware that it has been violated many times, but also such violations have come back to bite the violators many times as well. This is how community standards in an anarchic society work. There is no central authority to go around enforcing the standards, everyone is to a degree on their own, to take reasonable steps to defend themselves and to deter attack and everyone faces the possible consequences of failing to do that. Everyone is free to take whatever action they want to take, but in the same way they too must face the consequences of those actions. If they take actions that violate community norms like this then they generate a hostile reaction which has consequences as well, as each individual ruler expresses his or her disgust as they are able to do, the results can be varied, from an individual who would have joined your alliance deciding to go elsewhere, to treaties being cancelled or simply not signed when they otherwise would have been, all the way to the point of another large alliance deciding to give you a lesson physically.

The most extreme on that scale of reactions doesnt have to happen all the time for the community to enforce its standards, but it does need to happen often enough that the possibility comes to mind, and at least the less extreme reactions need to be pretty reliable. Otherwise the community is ineffective in enforcing its standards and the planet deteriorates into barbarism, into a constant, senseless war of all against all. Now that may be fun for some of us, I personally have a very old well developed nation with a warchest that can sustain war pretty well indefinitely and (remembering that this is an OOC forum and I am speaking as a player here NOT a nation ruler) as a result I might well have fun in such a scenario. But would it be good for the game? Would it be any fun at all for people that dont have those advantages? Would new players in particular find being punching bags for those of us with such advantages to pound on for no reason an attractive prospect that would motivate them to stick around? I think the answer to those questions is clearly no.

[bros]

[quote name='Coursca' date='23 February 2010 - 08:00 PM' timestamp='1266973460' post='2200172']
Lively debate in here, so I'll throw my hat in.

First, TOP did what they felt they had to do. No use debating about it at this point, in my mind: what's done is done and things seem to be drawing down finally. I still love them dearly (even you, Blue) even though we, in some horrible happenstance one could only find in a Shakespearean tragedy, are on opposite sides.

The Trace thing...yeah, I can kind of understand why that'd irrate them. They had the good nature to let him slip into Peace Mode. Basic courtesy would've been to let them know when he was coming out. Get a break, give a break I say. That's just me, though.

As for GGA, I'll just express my view on the coup in a series of emotions:

That should cover it all. Needless to say its been an awfully frustrating time in CN lately for many of us and hopefully things will be sorted out soon.
[/quote]

He did tell TOP when he was coming out.

[quote name='Katsumi' date='23 February 2010 - 08:00 PM' timestamp='1266973465' post='2200173']
That indeed, they will.

You and your comrades will be called the new hegemony for it. However, whether that's bad or not is up to you to decide. In my view, it's not the wrong choice to do what's best for your alliance in a vicious world.
[/quote]

But the old Hegemony sucked.

We have Archon (whom the other side tried to recruit a few times, mostly NPO trying to get him ) AND babyjesus so we are better by default

[Homura]

[quote name='bros2' date='24 February 2010 - 01:16 AM' timestamp='1266974412' post='2200211']
But the old Hegemony sucked.

We have Archon (whom the other side tried to recruit a few times, mostly NPO trying to get him ) AND babyjesus so we are better by default
[/quote]
I remember that, the NPO regime trying to recruit Archon over. Maybe back when the NPO was stronger, that would have been a great idea. However, the hegemony that was defeated was a decayed and empty shell, a ghost in the image of once great alliances.