cooltoye Posted June 5, 2010 Report Share Posted June 5, 2010 In only a week, NNK, CR, NpO, and even my own alliance ARES has retaliated against a foreign alliance's Nation with out diplomacy, or warning. These are mearly the events ARES are involved in. The enire world of planet bob has simular events. Retaliation with out warning, or diplomacy can not be tolerated in any alliance government. So I apeal to the alliances of planet bob to agree to stand strong against such policies and actions. We must remember keeping a nation intact is best, destroying a nation second best, as attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of perfection. Rather victory with-out fighting a single battle is the true pinnacle of perfection. Zero Infrastructure is not a punishment to be taken lightly, as prolonged war takes a toll on both sides not just the victor. When you retaliate against another alliance's member, you must warn that alliance of the situation, otherwise it can be seen as you are the attackers. When you retaliate against another alliance's member, you must use diplomacy first, because you may not have the full story, as peace may not have been accepted, or the situation's point of view may have been destorted. It is better to get reparations from a nation, than to send them into anarchy, and request reparations when they can not afford it. If a officer of your alliance ups and joins another alliance with out warning, you must first find out why before attacking them on the grounds of spying, because after you attack them, you will have a damn hard time finding out any information about reason, explaination, or anything else for that matter. The logic these days on planet bob seem to be flawed. Retaliation seems to be a form of screwing yourself, rather than a form of justice these days. Point of view is retorical, as no two people see the same situation the same. retaliation by one may be a war crime to another. we must always conduct diplomacy, and give warning before any retaliation to any offenses. I will like to know here and now How many Alliance leaders agree to stand against such policies, this is my pledge here and now, to not retaliate with out warning, or diplomatic reasoning before hand. How many of you will make the same pledge? Signed, ARES Senator, and Deputy Minister of War, Cooltoye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernando12 Posted June 5, 2010 Report Share Posted June 5, 2010 Time is critical. FAR nations are expected to immediately militarize and retaliate against attacks and fellow FAR nations are asked to be ready to help out their fellow alliance member. When one of our nations is attacked we immediately try to find out the reason for it, but by no means will we be waiting and giving up any advantage to an aggressor. So no this leader and this alliance cannot pledge to this as we will deal with situations on a case by case basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted June 5, 2010 Report Share Posted June 5, 2010 I'm lost, please someone enlighten me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted June 5, 2010 Report Share Posted June 5, 2010 [quote name='D34th' date='05 June 2010 - 02:29 PM' timestamp='1275762575' post='2324689'] I'm lost, please someone enlighten me. [/quote] He's complaining about something as far as I can tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted June 5, 2010 Report Share Posted June 5, 2010 It means both sides take time and take a look from the other persons prospective before you go and hit a person. Instead of jumping the gun and attacking someone from something that you aren't 100% sure on, you should go and talk to said person before you go and attack them. Which in the end could cause a war. Glad to see you voicing this out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhysicsJunky Posted June 5, 2010 Report Share Posted June 5, 2010 (edited) [quote name='cooltoye' date='05 June 2010 - 02:14 PM' timestamp='1275761645' post='2324669']Point of view is retorical, as no two people see the same situation the same[/quote] I don't think the word you're trying to spell means what you think it means. Unless you're implying that the phrase itself hints at there only being one point of view; which is sort of antithetical to its existence. Edited June 5, 2010 by PhysicsJunky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitropenta Posted June 5, 2010 Report Share Posted June 5, 2010 Well, it 's up to every alliance how to deal with such circumstances. If they make the wrong choice because they jumped at someone without consideration and seriously break something, they get to keep the pieces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurunin Posted June 5, 2010 Report Share Posted June 5, 2010 why not attack the person while trying to talk diplomatically? govt members are not on 24/7 so even if a representative from your alliance is trying to contact them in-game/their forums/IRC, there is still a high chance you wont be able to get a hold of them for hours or even days if your members are actively watching the war screens and are able to jump the guy then they are essentially lessening the damage to your other member and deterring the guy from any future attacks are they not? plus if the guy is a ghost/rogue then there's always that chance that peace wont be declared no matter what govt contacts them and reps will never be given. i can see where you are coming from on both sides but the practice of deterrence is usually more effective than diplomacy from what i've seen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jtkode Posted June 5, 2010 Report Share Posted June 5, 2010 (edited) Please note that this is not endorsed by the Ascended Republic of Elite States -MoFA of ARES We believe in just attacking everyone to get what we want! >.> <.< Edited June 5, 2010 by Jtkode Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted June 5, 2010 Report Share Posted June 5, 2010 This is why only Imperators Emeritus of NPO are allowed to have their own doctrine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurunin Posted June 5, 2010 Report Share Posted June 5, 2010 [quote name='Jtkode' date='05 June 2010 - 03:34 PM' timestamp='1275766451' post='2324768'] Please note that this is not endorsed by the Ascended Republic of Elite States -MoFA of ARES We believe in just attacking everyone to get what we want! >.> <.< [/quote] but he is a field marshal which means war dept of ARES right? if so wouldnt he have the power to tell nations to stand down about attacks? also find it funny that he says "Zero Infrastructure is not a punishment to be taken lightly" , yet his bio threatens permanent Anarchy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltoye Posted June 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2010 that is refering to unallied nations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jtkode Posted June 5, 2010 Report Share Posted June 5, 2010 (edited) *edit* He just doesn't speak for ares Edited June 5, 2010 by Jtkode Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Nakara Posted June 5, 2010 Report Share Posted June 5, 2010 To be honest I would NEVER request reps of ARES ever and you should take the military action first. When ARES guy nuked me after peace was declared (he waited days after peace and on the last day nuked me) You guys sucked at paying reps, you dragged your heels and had me chasing the money/tech. I eventually got that tired with the whole process, I just told you to keep the remaining 8 mil and 200 tech. And your here whining about how people should take reps? From ARES? You're kidding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted June 5, 2010 Report Share Posted June 5, 2010 A doctrine to tell people how to handle attacks by aligned nations? Most people know how to deal with situations like that, especially if they're in the position to make the relevant decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltoye Posted June 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2010 It is called the cooltoye doctrine because it is my own policy, I am not require anyone to fallow it, But I will not give a order to destroy a nation with out 1st warning their alliance, of why, or with out diplomatic attempts A doctrine is a codification of beliefs this is cooltoye doctrine so it is my personal policies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhysicsJunky Posted June 5, 2010 Report Share Posted June 5, 2010 [quote name='cooltoye' date='05 June 2010 - 04:49 PM' timestamp='1275770976' post='2324917'] It is called the cooltoye doctrine because it is my own policy, I am not require anyone to fallow it[/quote] Making an "Alliance Announcement" with the name of your alliance in the title, and your government positions listed, would suggest that it wasn't. Perhaps the idea should have lain fallow for awhile before being brought into fruition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted June 5, 2010 Report Share Posted June 5, 2010 [quote name='cooltoye' date='05 June 2010 - 04:49 PM' timestamp='1275770976' post='2324917'] this is cooltoye doctrine so it is my personal policies [/quote] So why do they need to be posted in Alliance Announcements, under the guise of an ARES announcement? All I can see from that is that you're trying to illicit some sort of reaction, and when we tell you that (generally) people are smart enough to make the decision yourself, you claim it's only "your personal policy" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted June 5, 2010 Report Share Posted June 5, 2010 [quote name='cooltoye' date='05 June 2010 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1275761645' post='2324669'] When you retaliate against another alliance's member, you must warn that alliance of the situation, otherwise it can be seen as you are the attackers. When you retaliate against another alliance's member, you must use diplomacy first, because you may not have the full story, as peace may not have been accepted, or the situation's point of view may have been destorted. It is better to get reparations from a nation, than to send them into anarchy, and request reparations when they can not afford it. If a officer of your alliance ups and joins another alliance with out warning, you must first find out why before attacking them on the grounds of spying, because after you attack them, you will have a damn hard time finding out any information about reason, explaination, or anything else for that matter. The logic these days on planet bob seem to be flawed. Retaliation seems to be a form of screwing yourself, rather than a form of justice these days. Cooltoye [/quote] You're tired of having to deal with the situations you describe above, I assume I know the feeling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterchief777 Posted June 5, 2010 Report Share Posted June 5, 2010 tl;dr who is this guy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted June 6, 2010 Report Share Posted June 6, 2010 [quote name='Masterchief777' date='05 June 2010 - 06:55 PM' timestamp='1275778535' post='2325202'] tl;dr who is this guy? [/quote] A guy who knows what he is talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted June 6, 2010 Report Share Posted June 6, 2010 [quote name='The Reccesion' date='05 June 2010 - 08:55 PM' timestamp='1275785691' post='2325398'] A guy who knows what he is talking about. [/quote] Good, now that you've vouched for him I can really take him seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesalius Posted June 6, 2010 Report Share Posted June 6, 2010 Absolutely not. If someone is attacking my member, I'm going to have them trashed. In the mean time, I'll find out what originated the attack and why it is happening, and deal with it appropriately. One of the biggest purposes of an alliance is joint military protection. You attack a member of Kronos, you will not leave the ordeal in tact. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Ozujsko Posted June 6, 2010 Report Share Posted June 6, 2010 Quite a bit of fail here...but duly noted. To retort: CR handled the situation with nato12 with great professionalism. Please read the entire thread and understand all the actors in the play before making judgments on our decisions. Hell, I'm the MoFA for DT and we're protecting CR...I have no problem with throwing diplomacy out the window when a nation repeatedly attempts to extort our ally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireandthepassion Posted June 6, 2010 Report Share Posted June 6, 2010 What have we, the New Polar Order, done? Or are you mistaking the New Polar Order (NpO) for the New Pacific Order (NPO)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.