A debate on accepting nations at war

[Jakome]

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1280024618' post='2387913']
Is it at all possible that he or others within what's now his former alliance might be insulted by the terms for their achieving peace or how members of your alliance have conducted this unprovoked aggression towards them? In the event you do hold this double standard why should anyone (including those who are aligned) care if you feel insulted by anything?[/quote]
They should care because we're not going to them for peace they are coming to us. Sure we aren't your typical raiding alliance with our mercy board and such. But if you don't like it you can fight back and ride out the wars as best you can. No one is being forced to participate.

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1280024618' post='2387913']
To be quite honest this sounds a lot more like what you want to be the case instead of what it really is. How did you come to such a conclusion while eliminating the possibility of it not only being incorrect but all of the possible explanations which don't even touch the value that peace has to him?[/quote]
First off I said us when I should have said me. I do not speak for anyone except myself.
I came to this conclusion because he came to us seeking peace. He received terms, did not complete them, then completely screwed the pooch when someone else did them for him. I can only assume that peace is not that important to him. Could I be wrong? Sure I'm just making an assumption, I honestly had no part in any of the events that took place I am just putting out what I saw and what I think.

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1280024618' post='2387913']
I see you telling others what to do (or what not to) but haven't seen you explain why they should listen to you and as such I remain unconvinced that said course of action should be practiced. Explain.[/quote]

[quote name='Jakome' timestamp='1280006662' post='2387700']
I thought the normal thing to do was allow the nation at war to sit on your AA until all the wars expired then allow them to become full members. Though the accepting alliance may approach the nations currently at war and seek peace for the member they are accepting.
[/quote]

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1280007054' post='2387704']
If by normal you mean the most widely conducted practice with regards to nations at war, yes, it is.
[/quote]

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='Jakome' timestamp='1280025517' post='2387929']
They should care because we're not going to them for peace they are coming to us. Sure we aren't your typical raiding alliance with our mercy board and such. But if you don't like it you can fight back and ride out the wars as best you can. No one is being forced to participate.[/quote]
I was more thinking of a "down the road" as opposed to any immediate interest. If in the immediate circumstances you show a blatant disregard for their feels while at the same time propping up your own for being vitally important it sounds like an entirely one-sided thing which takes away from how serious others should take you. Consistency is important even if not as the primary concern.

If you both feel insulted why not just call it even particularly when in this case one of your members would have been the first to do so? That isn't to say the other party should be excused for their slight afterwards but that it was an even exchange. It just strikes me as an unnecessary elongation of said war when you could move on from the drama and find a more profitable target.

[quote]First off I said us when I should have said me. I do not speak for anyone except myself.
I came to this conclusion because he came to us seeking peace. He received terms, did not complete them, then completely screwed the pooch when someone else did them for him. I can only assume that peace is not that important to him. Could I be wrong? Sure I'm just making an assumption, I honestly had no part in any of the events that took place I am just putting out what I saw and what I think.[/quote]
Is that your first assumption or have you considered alternative explanations and possibilities?


With regards to the sequence of quotes you've posted, if you're saying we should just fall in line because others are doing I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. Others doing it that way doesn't strike me as a sound basis for any policy being enacted anywhere particularly if there's no reason except that supporting it.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Hyperbad

[Jakome]

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1280026488' post='2387936']
I was more thinking of a "down the road" as opposed to any immediate interest. If in the immediate circumstances you show a blatant disregard for their feels while at the same time propping up your own for being vitally important it sounds like an entirely one-sided thing which takes away from how serious others should take you. Consistency is important even if not as the primary concern.[/quote]
So we raid a guy in a 4 man group. Said group then goes to war with our alliance in a valiant effort to defend their friend. This does not go well, leader comes to us for terms which are given. Leader then jumps ship, doesn't turn in peace terms on time or correctly. Now long term how would it look on us if we were to let this nation and his group off after that. Consistency in this area is one of GOONS strong suites and our fantastic Foreign Affairs group has done a splendid job at creating and maintaining relations with many strong alliances.

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1280026488' post='2387936']
If you both feel insulted why not just call it even particularly when in this case one of your members would have been the first to do so? That isn't to say the other party should be excused for their slight afterwards but that it was an even exchange. It just strikes me as an unnecessary elongation of said war when you could move on from the drama and find a more profitable target.[/quote]
Its been a long summer, a little drama never hurt anyone.

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1280026488' post='2387936']
Is that your first assumption or have you considered alternative explanations and possibilities?[/quote]
I've thought of other explanation and possibilities, this is just the one I feel fits best with the sequence of events.

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1280026488' post='2387936']
With regards to the sequence of quotes you've posted, if you're saying we should just fall in line because others are doing I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. Others doing it that way doesn't strike me as a sound basis for any policy being enacted anywhere particularly if there's no reason except that supporting it.
[/quote]
Having a nation ride out the wars without actually becoming a member seems to me like the safest action to take for an alliance. This allows the nation to ride out the current wars without risk of new ones being started, while at the same time leaving your alliance in the clear should things escalate between the applicant and the warring party. Sure take diplomatic steps to try help the applicant but attempting to force a peace agreement is a tricky move that could easily backfire.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1279999868' post='2387617']
Okay, next time IAA is in a war with a group (alliance, band of rogues, what have you), we'll make a point to accept the nations into our alliance with active wars against you and threaten you to peace out with them or else. Do you see how ridiculous the thing you're trying to defend is? Ignore for a moment that the cause of the war is a tech raid. The point of the matter is that it is a war. Even people such as Haflinger recognize that from the perspective of USSR we committed an act of war on them, which I'm guessing by his standards means it's a full scale war. While we think it was their fault for escalating it, that's not the point. The point is that there was a war and CoJ accepted a nation at war with us (with active wars even), if you do not see the problem with this, then I certainly hope for the sake of IAA you're not government. We easily could have pushed this issue, but we chose the more mature path and ignored nemesis' laughable threats. I made this thread to gather opinions from the community about the practice. Sadly I overestimated the community's ability to look past the start of the war and see the nuance involved in the issue.
[/quote]

The point is, that situation was started by aggressive attacks by GOONS. I understand it is a state of war regardless of who started it, but that does not mean that GOONS dictate who accepts which members. If CoJ wanted to accept a member with active wars, that is their choice.

Also good job ignoring the fact that I also discussed a GOONS member actively aiding a nation that went rogue on CoJ and Nemesis, which is why Nemesis threatened you. Nice deflection and distortion of fact.

The nuance is, Nemesis dictated terms for the aiding situation that GOONS did not accept. GOONS proposed a different offer and Nemesis did not seem to like it. Just like GOONS did not like the fact that an essay was written by a person they deemed acceptable and thus did not accept the essay.

again, boofrigginhoo for GOONS. Someone else is bullying them instead of them doing the bullying and the first thing they do is come to the forums crying.

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1279999974' post='2387618']
You should learn how to be more respectful when posting so people don't go ignoring the rest of your post like I just did.
[/quote]

You should learn not to leave out key components of something. For example, the fact that GOONS started an aggressive war instead of having an aggressive war launched on them, is why your definition matters little. Stick to the facts, and people would actually attempt to respect GOONS.

[quote name='Jakome' timestamp='1280008123' post='2387716']
Requirements were not met
We were threatened before mention of smacky receiving 50t
OP did not come to OWF crying, he came with a debate about accepting nations at war. GOONS made no mention of the incident until schat brought it up
[/quote]

[9:46:22 PM] <Beefspari[GOONS]> So once the wars end with that guy who's in CoJ he'll be off the hook and he can go about his business. Seems fair.
[9:46:33 PM] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> wait he is in CoJ now??
[9:46:33 PM] <Beefspari[GOONS]> We won't declare new wars with someone in CoJ.
[9:46:38 PM] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> well that changes things
[9:46:42 PM] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> see you cant attack CoJ
[9:46:47 PM] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> and then aid a guy attacking CoJ
[9:46:53 PM] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> and expect to just walk away from it whistling

From the logs nippy posted. Looks like the GOONS member aiding a rogue attacking CoJ was mentioned prior to any threats. The OP came to the OWF crying and obfuscating the truth of the situation to make it seem like GOONS were some poor victims of rogues. This is untrue and instead, GOONS attacks an alliance who defends themselves and have since been crying on the OWF how they are victims of some dastardly "aggressive" attack that they themselves have caused. The fact that I have seen many, many posts by GOONS gov stating "you should just ignore the fact that GOONS caused this war by techraiding the alliance since GOONS does not see the alliance as an alliance. That is until the alliance decides to defend their members, then it is an alliance wide war and all sorts of rules and international laws that we normally would scoff at, should damn well come into play so that we can state that CoJ and Nemesis are in the wrong, while GOONS are once again the victims of some sort of dastardly aggression."

[quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1280013159' post='2387780']
Earlier you said "Sadly I overestimated the community's ability to look past the start of the war and see the nuance involved in the issue."

Your argument is inconsistent.
[/quote]

Oh that was to me. proving GOONS as inconsistent seems to be getting quite easy.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1280015298' post='2387791']
The 600 word requirement was for the entire AA, which had declared war on us and engaged nations not involved in the raids on them. Requirements for individuals are far less stringent. It is not the same thing as a standard raid. The raid target became a full fledged war target after their counterattack. Accepting a war target, regardless of how the war started, was what I wished to discuss here. The fact that it started as a tech raid should not have any bearing on it. In fact, I would wager that other groups, if declared upon by a microalliance would ask for cash and tech reparations. By comparison, an essay is far easier to create.

Additionally If asked kindly we will almost always peace out, no questions asked.
[/quote]

GOONS declared war on the alliance, not the other way around. Those nations that GOONS members attacked were uninvolved in anything that GOONS were doing, until GOONS members aggressively hit them. seriously, are you that ignorant? the war became a full-fledged war when you hit them. had you not hit them, they would never have hit GOONS. cause and effect. you are the cause. the effect was them defending themselves.

again, how are GOONS the victim here? oh wait, you aren't.

[quote name='Jakome' timestamp='1280025517' post='2387929']
They should care because we're not going to them for peace they are coming to us. Sure we aren't your typical raiding alliance with our mercy board and such. But if you don't like it you can fight back and ride out the wars as best you can. No one is being forced to participate.[/quote]

False. You are forcing them to participate by attacking them aggressively without any just cause. Then the only way they get peace for defending themselves against GOONS aggression is by humiliating terms because GOONS find them funny. You wonder why you get very little sympathy? You keep acting like you are the victim, when you are not. You keep acting like you are just, when you are not.

I liked the idea of the mercy boards for something like actual rogues. not for an alliance GOONS techraids who defended themselves against what most see as aggression without any just cause.

[quote name='Jakome' timestamp='1280029617' post='2387986']
So we raid a guy in a 4 man group. Said group then goes to war with our alliance in a valiant effort to defend their friend. This does not go well, leader comes to us for terms which are given. Leader then jumps ship, doesn't turn in peace terms on time or correctly. Now long term how would it look on us if we were to let this nation and his group off after that. Consistency in this area is one of GOONS strong suites and our fantastic Foreign Affairs group has done a splendid job at creating and maintaining relations with many strong alliances.
[/quote]

Like NPO did prior to Karma. A big bully who aggressively attacks defenseless alliances solely to crush them or humiliate them. Good job.

inbeforeNPODIDWORSEGUYSNOTFAIRGOONSARETHEVICTIMHERE!!!!!!!!

[Alonois]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1280030887' post='2388004']
False. You are forcing them to participate by attacking them aggressively without any just cause. Then the only way they get peace for defending themselves against GOONS aggression is by humiliating terms because GOONS find them funny. You wonder why you get very little sympathy? You keep acting like you are the victim, when you are not. You keep acting like you are just, when you are not.

I liked the idea of the mercy boards for something like actual rogues. not for an alliance GOONS techraids who defended themselves against what most see as aggression without any just cause.

Like NPO did prior to Karma. A big bully who aggressively attacks defenseless alliances solely to crush them or humiliate them. Good job.

inbeforeNPODIDWORSEGUYSNOTFAIRGOONSARETHEVICTIMHERE!!!!!!!!
[/quote]

We're the victims of what now? Last I checked the argument being made here is that "We responded in kind. A few of us raided them. They attacked everyone, so we attacked everyone." And whether or not you think the mercy board should be for "rogues only" the mercy board exists for any attempts at peace.

I am curious why no one is calling out the leader for basically bailing on his allies and jumping over to CoJ. CoJ loves him so much they tried to do his homework for him.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Alonois' timestamp='1280031985' post='2388024']
We're the victims of what now? Last I checked the argument being made here is that "We responded in kind. A few of us raided them. They attacked everyone, so we attacked everyone." And whether or not you think the mercy board should be for "rogues only" the mercy board exists for any attempts at peace.

I am curious why no one is calling out the leader for basically bailing on his allies and jumping over to CoJ. CoJ loves him so much they tried to do his homework for him.
[/quote]

but the thing is no one is stating it like that. Most are stating "forget that we raided them and look at it as they aggressively attacked GOONS."

that was what Sardonic said to me. "Ignore for a moment that the cause of the war is a tech raid" see, if i ignore that the start of the war was a tech raid, then that leaves me to see the situation as an alliance attacking GOONS aggressively and not the other way around. The truth is GOONS aggressively attacked another alliance who defended themselves.

As for the leader jumping ship, yeah !@#$%* move on his part but that is small beans in comparison. Had GOONS just peaced out, this whole mess would not have occurred. he switched to a "true" AA. seems GOONS thought they could still get their laughs in and when it turned out CoJ basically played a joke on GOONS, GOONS stopped laughing. again, all i can say is boofrigginhoo.

[Alonois]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1280032741' post='2388039']
but the thing is no one is stating it like that. Most are stating "forget that we raided them and look at it as they aggressively attacked GOONS."

that was what Sardonic said to me. "Ignore for a moment that the cause of the war is a tech raid" see, if i ignore that the start of the war was a tech raid, then that leaves me to see the situation as an alliance attacking GOONS aggressively and not the other way around. The truth is GOONS aggressively attacked another alliance who defended themselves.

As for the leader jumping ship, yeah !@#$%* move on his part but that is small beans in comparison. Had GOONS just peaced out, this whole mess would not have occurred. he switched to a "true" AA. seems GOONS thought they could still get their laughs in and when it turned out CoJ basically played a joke on GOONS, GOONS stopped laughing. again, all i can say is boofrigginhoo.
[/quote]

But that is how they are stating it. They have continually stated "we tech raided, they were free to fight those guys back, but when they escalated it and attacked uninvolved goon nations we escalated the war in return". If they had stuck to the people raiding them we wouldn't have cared. It's in our constitution. You tech raid and screw up, it's on your head and anyone who helps you does so of their own free will.

As for CoJ, we're not going to peace out just because he wants to run under another flag instead of follow the easy terms given to him. We won't take the war any further, but that's it. None of us were crying, though we did find CoJ attempting to do his terms for him amusing. That and the empty threats that were thrown at us alongside expectations that we'll just peace out of wars because they said so. Actually, that's a recurring issue with people trying to circumvent government and tell our members what to do. The Cult knew exactly who they were bringing into their membership and what his past was. Their flag does not grant them immunity from whom they adopt.

Also, if you ask me it's a far worse thing to abandon your allies than it is to fight a war. But I value reliability and forthrightness.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Alonois

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Alonois' timestamp='1280033050' post='2388048']
But that is how they are stating it. They have continually stated "we tech raided, they were free to fight those guys back, but when they escalated it and attacked uninvolved goon nations we escalated the war in return". If they had stuck to the people raiding them we wouldn't have cared. It's in our constitution. You tech raid and screw up, it's on your head and anyone who helps you does so of their own free will.

As for CoJ, we're not going to peace out just because he wants to run under another flag instead of follow the easy terms given to him. We won't take the war any further, but that's it. None of us were crying, though we did find CoJ attempting to do his terms for him amusing. That and the empty threats that were thrown at us alongside expectations that we'll just peace out of wars because they said so. Actually, that's a recurring issue with people trying to circumvent government and tell our members what to do. The Cult knew exactly who they were bringing into their membership and what his past was. Their flag does not grant them immunity from whom they adopt.

Also, if you ask me it's a far worse thing to abandon your allies than it is to fight a war. But I value reliability and forthrightness.
[/quote]

1) then why do they keep asking people to forget it started with a tech raid?

2) your argument fails. you attacked uninvolved members of their alliance first, thus involving their alliance as a whole. you cannot even attempt to state that them attacking uninvolved members of GOONS is an attack on your whole alliance, if you again, did it to them first and fail to recognize that.

3) according to GOONS standards, any thread started on the OWF by alliances or nations they tech raid is crying. thus, by those standards, this is GOONS crying. plus, this is GOONS crying since ya'll continue to make it seem as if you were victims instead of aggressors.

[Alonois]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1280033686' post='2388063']
1) then why do they keep asking people to forget it started with a tech raid?

2) your argument fails. you attacked uninvolved members of their alliance first, thus involving their alliance as a whole. you cannot even attempt to state that them attacking uninvolved members of GOONS is an attack on your whole alliance, if you again, did it to them first and fail to recognize that.

3) according to GOONS standards, any thread started on the OWF by alliances or nations they tech raid is crying. thus, by those standards, this is GOONS crying. plus, this is GOONS crying since ya'll continue to make it seem as if you were victims instead of aggressors.
[/quote]

1) Because that is what you do when you say "for the sake of argument". You ignore the whole and start with single parts.

2) My argument fails? No it doesn't. That is our policy. Not once has any one of us spoken on if it is moral or right. We have stated that this is our policy. If you do not attack any one not actively raiding you, we don't care what you do to the people who are raiding you. This is stated GOONS policy.

3) Exactly what proof do you have for that?

Edited July 25, 2010 by Alonois

[Baldr]

[quote name='Alonois' timestamp='1280033050' post='2388048']
They have continually stated "we tech raided, they were free to fight those guys back, but when they escalated it and attacked uninvolved goon nations we escalated the war in return". If they had stuck to the people raiding them we wouldn't have cared. It's in our constitution. You tech raid and screw up, it's on your head and anyone who helps you does so of their own free will.
[/quote]

Hence the problem. You want the right to attack whatever nations you choose, and then you expect those nations to follow your rules. When you attack an alliance, you don't get to make the rules for that alliance.

When you attacked them, that started a war. They responded as if it were a war.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1280030887' post='2388004']
Also good job ignoring the fact that I also discussed a GOONS member actively aiding a nation that went rogue on CoJ and Nemesis, which is why Nemesis threatened you. Nice deflection and distortion of fact.
[/quote]
[22:22] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> I see
[22:22] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> well
[22:22] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> peace out the CoJ nations
[22:22] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> the attacks on the CoJ nation
[22:22] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> or we will engage
[22:22] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> those specific nations

This is the main threat, it has absolutely nothing to do with the aiding incident. The other laughably inane threat daggarz made against us wasn't even in the form of an ultimatum. This laughable threat was issued because of CoJ accepting which we were at war with. A nation which [b]was not ever tech raided by us, and in fact, declared a single offensive war on us[/b], the real threat was never about the aid incident, it was about the accepted member.

[quote]
again, boofrigginhoo for GOONS. Someone else is bullying them instead of them doing the bullying and the first thing they do is come to the forums crying.
[/quote]
You're kidding yourself if you think we were bullied by them, we ignored their toothless threats. Good work pushing the "GOONS came to the forums crying" meme though, maybe someday somebody with more than a few brain cells will believe it.
[quote]
You should learn not to leave out key components of something. For example, the fact that GOONS started an aggressive war instead of having an aggressive war launched on them, is why your definition matters little. Stick to the facts, and people would actually attempt to respect GOONS.
[/quote]
No, actually it doesn't matter in the context of accepting nations at war, not that we hit it in the least. If alliance A attacks alliance B does that mean alliance A forfeits their grounds to pursue targets in alliance B if they join other alliances? Moreover, we already have respect from people of quality in many alliances, we do not need it from people such as yourself.

[quote]
From the logs nippy posted. Looks like the GOONS member aiding a rogue attacking CoJ was mentioned prior to any threats. The OP came to the OWF crying and obfuscating the truth of the situation to make it seem like GOONS were some poor victims of rogues.
[/quote]
Yes except for the fact that I laid out pretty clearly that A tech raiding B started it, I had wished to avoid naming names, this was meant to be an academic debate, silly me for expecting such a thing possible here. Oh well, "GOONS are evil" threads can be interesting enough
[quote]
all sorts of rules and international laws that we normally would scoff at,
[/quote]
We do not scoff at rules and conventions, we are a very orderly alliance with strong laws and principals of our own.
[quote]
GOONS declared war on the alliance, not the other way around. Those nations that GOONS members attacked were uninvolved in anything that GOONS were doing, until GOONS members aggressively hit them. seriously, are you that ignorant? the war became a full-fledged war when you hit them. had you not hit them, they would never have hit GOONS. cause and effect. you are the cause. the effect was them defending themselves.

again, how are GOONS the victim here? oh wait, you aren't.
[/quote]
We never claimed to be the victim, and you are continuing to miss the point. Throughout this entire thread we have never once "cried" or considered ourselves treated "unfairly". I created this thread to find out if a practice was as commonly practiced as I feared. Fortunately the answers I got from people of intelligence was that no, it is not a typical thing to accept nations who are at war. Of course plenty of people such as yourself couldn't see past the tech raiding aspect, but I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised at that.
[quote]
False. You are forcing them to participate by attacking them aggressively without any just cause. Then the only way they get peace for defending themselves against GOONS aggression is by humiliating terms because GOONS find them funny. You wonder why you get very little sympathy? You keep acting like you are the victim, when you are not. You keep acting like you are just, when you are not.
[/quote]
We have plenty of just cause, they were a valid tech raid target, and our members like tech. Had USSR come to us and asked us nicely to stop, or better yet gotten a protector we would have stopped then and there. But nope, they counterattacked uninvolved nations. Of course with people such as Daggars arguing on their behalf, you have to forgive me if I discard the raiding issue involved completely, as nobody involved with the incident apparently cared at all either.

[22:33] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> is it would be easier for everybody
[22:33] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> literally everybody
[22:33] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> if you just told those guys to peace out
[22:34] <Sardonic[GOONS]> I'm not prepared to do that. You want us to stop, give USSR a formal protectorate.
[22:34] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> but I don't even like them
[22:34] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> I just want you to peace out the guy in CoJ
[22:34] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> i couldnt care less about USSR

[quote]
Like NPO did prior to Karma. A big bully who aggressively attacks defenseless alliances solely to crush them or humiliate them. Good job.
[/quote]
Please compare us to NPO, please. Because we have oh so much in common.

At the end of the day we did what we knew was right, we ignored the pathetic threats, and in the end we got our essay and pictures. They were pretty good too. Peace orders have already been sent to all involved. All that is left is the debate, the debate that apparently isn't really going to happen because people can't get past the fact that the war started over a tech raid. What a shame.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Sardonic

[Alonois]

[quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1280037386' post='2388123']
Hence the problem. You want the right to attack whatever nations you choose, and then you expect those nations to follow your rules. When you attack an alliance, you don't get to make the rules for that alliance.

When you attacked them, that started a war. They responded as if it were a war.
[/quote]

I'm not saying that they didn't think it was a war. I'm not using this argument to argue we "have the right to attack whatever nation we choose". Nor did I ever explicitly or implicitly state that. I said

"If they had stuck to the people raiding them we wouldn't have cared"

And that is true. This is not about right or wrong, this is about our response, why it was our response, and the fact that we have quite explicitly stated that if some one who raids get hit back and it goes poorly for them, the only help they get are from GOONS members that feel like it. This has nothing to do with "right". This has everything to do with the logic behind our response. We wouldn't have escalated our involvement if they hadn't attacked nations that hadn't tech raided them. This is not blaming them, this is literally stating the truth. We do not view it as a war if some one goes off, raids, and gets creamed in turn. We do perceive it as being at war if they hit a nation that wasn't involved in the raid so we act differently than if it was just a tech raid. I am not saying what they were doing was morally wrong. I'm saying it was a poorly thought out retaliation that a little bit of research would have dissuaded them from doing.

As for the actual topic at hand, if the war predates the nation joining an alliance then the war gets priority. But that does not mean new wars get declared.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1280033686' post='2388063']
1) then why do they keep asking people to forget it started with a tech raid?

2) your argument fails. you attacked uninvolved members of their alliance first, thus involving their alliance as a whole. you cannot even attempt to state that them attacking uninvolved members of GOONS is an attack on your whole alliance, if you again, did it to them first and fail to recognize that.

3) according to GOONS standards, any thread started on the OWF by alliances or nations they tech raid is crying. thus, by those standards, this is GOONS crying. plus, this is GOONS crying since ya'll continue to make it seem as if you were victims instead of aggressors.
[/quote]
1) Because it's extraneous to the debate about whether it is proper policy to accept members who are at war or not.

2) Who started it is not, nor has ever been, important in the actual meat of the policy debate.

3) What? I'm serious, what?

Edited July 25, 2010 by Sardonic

[Baldr]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1280037829' post='2388128']
We never claimed to be the victim, and you are continuing to miss the point. [/quote]

Earlier, you said "Your crime is far more severe than ours"

Looks like you did claim to be the victim.

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='Jakome' timestamp='1280029617' post='2387986']
So we raid a guy in a 4 man group. Said group then goes to war with our alliance in a valiant effort to defend their friend. This does not go well, leader comes to us for terms which are given. Leader then jumps ship, doesn't turn in peace terms on time or correctly. Now long term how would it look on us if we were to let this nation and his group off after that.[/quote]
"Letting them off" from what exactly?

[quote]Consistency in this area is one of GOONS strong suites and our fantastic Foreign Affairs group has done a splendid job at creating and maintaining relations with many strong alliances.[/quote]
You say that and yet I haven't seen you explain how GOONS is consistent here. Would you be willing to elaborate?

[quote]Its been a long summer, a little drama never hurt anyone.[/quote]
You are of course correct in that it doesnt but if the purpose of said practice is to see some sort of profit then a group taking it as an act of war and responding as such should certainly see a speedy resolution in order for you to get back to said practice, no?

[quote]I've thought of other explanation and possibilities, this is just the one I feel fits best with the sequence of events.[/quote]
Why is that?

[quote]Having a nation ride out the wars without actually becoming a member seems to me like the safest action to take for an alliance. This allows the nation to ride out the current wars without risk of new ones being started, while at the same time leaving your alliance in the clear should things escalate between the applicant and the warring party. Sure take diplomatic steps to try help the applicant but attempting to force a peace agreement is a tricky move that could easily backfire.[/quote]
Oh it certainly could backfire but then again it could do so just the same if he was a member the entire time, from beginning to end.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1280037829' post='2388128']
[22:22] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> I see
[22:22] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> well
[22:22] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> peace out the CoJ nations
[22:22] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> the attacks on the CoJ nation
[22:22] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> or we will engage
[22:22] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> those specific nations

This is the main threat, it has absolutely nothing to do with the aiding incident. The other laughably inane threat daggarz made against us wasn't even in the form of an ultimatum. This laughable threat was issued because of CoJ accepting which we were at war with. A nation which [b]was not ever tech raided by us, and in fact, declared a single offensive war on us[/b], the real threat was never about the aid incident, it was about the accepted member.[/quote]

considering from what i read, Nemesis and CoJ made the aid giving by a GOONS member to a rogue connected to the new CoJ member. so yeah.... and the nation was in an alliance techraided by your members making your alliance the aggressor. it honestly does not matter that you never attacked him straight on, you attacked his alliance.


[quote]You're kidding yourself if you think we were bullied by them, we ignored their toothless threats. Good work pushing the "GOONS came to the forums crying" meme though, maybe someday somebody with more than a few brain cells will believe it.[/quote]

then why this thread? you keep stating you wanted the opinion of the OWF but you had to do so by omitting key information in order to bias the opinions into your favor. so yes, that to me sounds like you came crying to the forums wanting the comfort of the OWF in backing your pathetic actions. now you are stating that you do not care about the opinion of the OWF still and we are all idiots because we don't believe you. if you did not care about the opinions of the idiots of the OWF, why post this thread? why lie and omit information? sounds like ya'll be crying to me.

[quote]No, actually it doesn't matter in the context of accepting nations at war, not that we hit it in the least. If alliance A attacks alliance B does that mean alliance A forfeits their grounds to pursue targets in alliance B if they join other alliances? Moreover, we already have respect from people of quality in many alliances, we do not need it from people such as yourself.[/quote]

again, every alliance has the right to do as it pleases or so you keep saying whenever anyone says GOONS does not have the right to do such and such. so now, alliances cannot do as they please because GOONS dictates how an alliance should act? interesting.... also, i am far better quality than anything your alliance has ever produced.


[quote]Yes except for the fact that I laid out pretty clearly that A tech raiding B started it, I had wished to avoid naming names, this was meant to be an academic debate, silly me for expecting such a thing possible here. Oh well, "GOONS are evil" threads can be interesting enough[/quote]

i kept getting told that the tech raid meant nothing and to forget about it. so i am not sure what you are talking about. when i kept pushing that techraiding an alliance is an aggressive attack on said alliance and therefore the techraiding alliance is the aggressor while the victim is defending itself, i get told to forget about the techraiding. some academic debate if i am getting told to forget about a key piece of information in order to bias the results into the victim becoming the aggressor. the names do not matter. had it been any alliance they would have been the aggressor. had it been IAA i would have been !@#$%*ing at my gov and the members for their stupidity especially in trying to make the defenders out to be aggressors.


[quote]We do not scoff at rules and conventions, we are a very orderly alliance with strong laws and principals of our own.[/quote]

you just scoff at others rules and conventions.

[quote]We never claimed to be the victim, and you are continuing to miss the point. Throughout this entire thread we have never once "cried" or considered ourselves treated "unfairly". I created this thread to find out if a practice was as commonly practiced as I feared. Fortunately the answers I got from people of intelligence was that no, it is not a typical thing to accept nations who are at war. Of course plenty of people such as yourself couldn't see past the tech raiding aspect, but I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised at that.[/quote]

the fact that gov members in your alliance and you yourself has kept telling people to forget about the techraid and focus on the "real issue", seems to say otherwise. forgetting about the tech raid means that it was the victim who becomes the aggressor and GOONS who becomes the victim. so, yes by stating you want us to forget about GOONS aggressively attacking another alliance as the sole cause of this whole situation is attempting to make GOONS look like the victim. spin it whatever way you want, but that is exactly what you are doing.

ahhh... http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=89562&view=findpost&p=2386129

i did answer. but i doubt you would actually acknowledge that because it does not fit in with you insulting me instead of going after my argument. love to see that the only thing you can resort to is ad hominems when people disagree. makes for quite a, what did you call it, "academic" debate. showing just how "academic" you are there.. good show.

[quote]We have plenty of just cause, they were a valid tech raid target, and our members like tech. Had USSR come to us and asked us nicely to stop, or better yet gotten a protector we would have stopped then and there. But nope, they counterattacked uninvolved nations. Of course with people such as Daggars arguing on their behalf, you have to forgive me if I discard the raiding issue involved completely, as nobody involved with the incident apparently cared at all either.[/quote]

stop with the uninvolved bit. that is utter nonsense when your alliance declared war on them. once that occurs there are no such things as uninvolved nations. that would be like saying that CnG, during the last war, could only counterattack the nations of TTIDFT that actually attacked one of their members. They could not hit any other nation in TTIDFT that had no active wars with a CnG alliance member. that is utter !@#$%^&* and the most ridiculous argument i have ever heard.

[quote][22:33] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> is it would be easier for everybody
[22:33] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> literally everybody
[22:33] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> if you just told those guys to peace out
[22:34] <Sardonic[GOONS]> I'm not prepared to do that. You want us to stop, give USSR a formal protectorate.
[22:34] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> but I don't even like them
[22:34] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> I just want you to peace out the guy in CoJ
[22:34] <Daggarz[Nemesis]> i couldnt care less about USSR[/quote]

kinda proves my point that Nemesis did not threaten you over the raiding but instead mostly over the aiding and the CoJ member incident.


[quote]Please compare us to NPO, please. Because we have oh so much in common.[/quote]

okay:

NPO- aggressively attacks an alliance for a reason they feel is completely acceptable
GOONS- aggressively attacks an alliance for a reason they feel is completely acceptable
NPO- continues fighting if alliance does not roll over and die and beg for mercy
GOONS- continues fighting if alliance does not roll over and die and beg for mercy
NPO- demands humiliating or draconic terms from victim
GOONS- demands humiliating terms from victim

yep, sounds bout right. this incident proves it. instead of peacing out, [22:34] <Sardonic[GOONS]> I'm not prepared to do that. You want us to stop, give USSR a formal protectorate.

yeah, that is a tech raid right there folks. since we are going by OWF conventions, i do believe even most tech raiders deem it more appropriate to stop hitting and send peace. not state "You want us to stop, give USSR a formal protectorate." which to any person of intelligence (zomg, yes i do have intelligence despite your ad hominems) means that GOONS will continue hitting USSR just because they can.

[quote]At the end of the day we did what we knew was right, we ignored the pathetic threats, and in the end we got our essay and pictures. They were pretty good too. Peace orders have already been sent to all involved. All that is left is the debate, the debate that apparently isn't really going to happen because people can't get past the fact that the war started over a tech raid. What a shame.
[/quote]

yes might makes right. o/ Pacif.....GOONS

wow it is sheer ignorance and stupidity that you can't get over the fact that GOONS are the aggressors and that we should not just "get over GOONS aggressively attacking an alliance, then crying about how the victim started the war by defending themselves". sorry, your story is pathetic as is your alliance.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Dochartaigh

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Alonois' timestamp='1280033828' post='2388070']
1) Because that is what you do when you say "for the sake of argument". You ignore the whole and start with single parts.

2) My argument fails? No it doesn't. That is our policy. Not once has any one of us spoken on if it is moral or right. We have stated that this is our policy. If you do not attack any one not actively raiding you, we don't care what you do to the people who are raiding you. This is stated GOONS policy.

3) Exactly what proof do you have for that?
[/quote]

1) so i ignored their little part and started in on my own single part. which is where yours and their argument falls apart.

2) and again, boofrigginhoo. i feel no sympathy towards ya'll whatsoever. and yes, your argument fails since you aggressively attacked an alliance without any just cause.

3) every thread a tech raid victim has ever started since ya'll reformed. check around, i am sure you gov would tell you it is true since they don't care about OWF opinion and all.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1280038492' post='2388135']
1) Because it's extraneous to the debate about whether it is proper policy to accept members who are at war or not.

2) Who started it is not, nor has ever been, important in the actual meat of the policy debate.

3) What? I'm serious, what?
[/quote]

1) not really. i would accept members that were being tech raided. and to me, the fact that GOONS began the war by tech raiding their alliance, means that you hit first. they are defending themselves. instead of peacing out since they have every right to defend their alliance mates as much as GOONS does should some random group of nations attack ya'll, ya'll state you are now defending yourselves.... !@#$%^&*. fact is ya'll raided them. fact is they defended themselves. fact is, ya'll could not handle it and said "zomg they declared war on us forget that we attacked them first!!!!!1111111"

sorry no. it is not extraneous as this circumstance is unique to any other.

2) actually it has and always will be important to the meat of the policy debate as every situation is unique and each has its own response. you just ignore anything that does not go your way or insult any opinion that differs from your preconceived notions. again, you did not want an academic debate, otherwise you would not be stifling any information or opinion. you would be actually, oh i don't know, debating it. what you have done is tell me to ignore this and then debate on a situation that is now entirely different from what the actual situation is.

3) already explained. all i hear every time your and others state "ignore the tech raid" is "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1280068167' post='2388303']
wow it is sheer ignorance and stupidity that you can't get over the fact that GOONS are the aggressors and that we should not just "get over GOONS aggressively attacking an alliance, then crying about how the victim started the war by defending themselves". sorry, your story is pathetic as is your alliance.
[/quote]
I give up, this statement is so mind-numbingly ignorant It is clear that trying to debate with you about the actual issue is pointless. You have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that you cannot see the nuance of the issue and would rather attack our good name with every passing post. At no point do we contest that we aggressively attacked an alliance (from their perspective) nor do we cry over the fact that they counterattacked. What the issue is, or was, was the question of is it proper policy to accept nations at war, and what the circumstances by which it is an acceptable practice if ever. But enough about that, you're clearly too far-gone for any logical debate, I shall stop responding to your insulting posts, and I advise my cohorts to do the same.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Sardonic

[Aurion]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1280068647' post='2388310']
1) not really. i would accept members that were being tech raided. and to me, the fact that GOONS began the war by tech raiding their alliance, means that you hit first. they are defending themselves. instead of peacing out since they have every right to defend their alliance mates as much as GOONS does should some random group of nations attack ya'll, ya'll state you are now defending yourselves.... !@#$%^&*. fact is ya'll raided them. fact is they defended themselves. fact is, ya'll could not handle it and said "zomg they declared war on us forget that we attacked them first!!!!!1111111"

sorry no. it is not extraneous as this circumstance is unique to any other. [/quote]

Did he actually [i]defend[/i] his alliance-mates? It looks like he declared a war (whoo!) and then hopped AA as soon as he could.

I could be wrong, but that's how I'm reading it atm.

The part about CoJ writing his essay for him and him forgetting to remove the bit about how they wrote it for him is pretty funny, though. And it actually isn't a half-bad idea to get around the spirit of GOONS' terms...if...you know...he'd remembered to remove that part.

[quote]2) actually it has and always will be important to the meat of the policy debate as every situation is unique and each has its own response. you just ignore anything that does not go your way or insult any opinion that differs from your preconceived notions. again, you did not want an academic debate, otherwise you would not be stifling any information or opinion. you would be actually, oh i don't know, debating it. what you have done is tell me to ignore this and then debate on a situation that is now entirely different from what the actual situation is. [/quote]

Apparently, what Sardonic wanted to know was if it was common or not for people to accept new members when those members have wars from their previous affiliations.

So far, I think all he's gotten back is some "well it depends on the situation" and a lot of "GOONS ARE EVIL RAWR".
[quote]
3) already explained. all i hear every time your and others state "ignore the tech raid" is "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
[/quote]

You're trying too hard.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

So GOONS, what if the answer to the (extremely disingenuous) question in the OP is that yes, it's fine to accept nations at war if you have the political clout to do so?

Or, since you appealed to "standard conventions", what if the standard convention around here is that GOONS are a special case and you can get away with more against them for various reasons?

[Baldr]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1280072524' post='2388344']
What the issue is, or was, was the question of is it proper policy to accept nations at war, and what the circumstances by which it is an acceptable practice if ever. [/quote]

That would be a decision for each alliance to make on their own. Just as your alliance chooses to raid and act like jerks at any given opportunity, other alliances have the right to make the decisions for their alliance.

You do not have the right to tell CoJ who they can and can't accept.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1280072691' post='2388345']

Apparently, what Sardonic wanted to know was if it was common or not for people to accept new members when those members have wars from their previous affiliations.

So far, I think all he's gotten back is some "well it depends on the situation" and a lot of "GOONS ARE EVIL RAWR".

[/quote]

I think the short answer would be, war not really, tech raids yes.

Because of the nature of a tech raid, and the fact that the tech raider slogan is pretty much "They should have joined an alliance" People pretty much expect a quick peaceing out as soon as the target picks up a legit AA. Its also generally expected that since the tech raiders launched aggressive attacks they take responsibility for avoiding needless drama and just move on to another open target. Guy gets his peace and the raider gets his warslot open again for a new target, everybody wins.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1280078227' post='2388398']
That would be a decision for each alliance to make on their own. Just as your alliance chooses to raid and act like jerks at any given opportunity, other alliances have the right to make the decisions for their alliance.

You do not have the right to tell CoJ who they can and can't accept.
[/quote]
Every alliance has the ability to make their own decisions, nobody contests that. The question I suppose I should be asking is "Had Nemesis followed through on their threat, and we began annihilating them as a result, exactly how many alliances would be stupid enough to support them?".

Edited July 25, 2010 by Sardonic

[Hiro Nakara]

CoJ they hold ODoAP, IAA hold a MDoAP and MK MDoAP, and seeing as you both hold a treaty with MK, I doubt they would involve themselves over such retardation.

IAA, I don't know.