Ragnarok Declaration of War

[Phetion]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281376453' post='2407882']
Do you or do you not dispute these facts?
[/quote]

It's easy to post facts without the context that created them, and surrounds them. To be honest, it's as simple as Hoo told NSO that if they aided that nation, it would consider it an act of war. Which it did. There was no need for diplomatic talks to prevent this war, as NSO threw diplomacy out of the window when they aided a nation that was directly involved in war with a Rok Protectorate after being explicitly warned not to, beforehand.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Phetion

[Keres]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281376453' post='2407882']
The bulk of my posts present the undisputed facts, so how do people respond? They call me delusional of course!

Fact: Heft screwed up in violation of Sith policy to not aid new members until they have settled their conflicts
Fact: People of superior rank to Heft reached out to RoK with an offer of a diplomatic solution
Fact: RoK rushed to their allies to attack with enough immediately available nations to stop NSO from going into peace mode, foregoing diplomatic negotiation
Fact: The incident involved a trivial amount of aid to a trivial sized nation, and is not anything that a day of negotiation could not have solved.

Do you or do you not dispute these facts?
[/quote]

Fact: The guy had wars going when he was accepted
Fact: He was aided by a reprsentative on NSO
Fact: Hoo gave a fair warning and made sure consequences were understood
Fact: NSO called Bluff
Fact: We arent idiots, crap hit NSO in the face, apparently (although still needs to be proven)they hurried to "backtrack" so they wouldnt have to face the consequences... fail sith indeed

Edited August 9, 2010 by Deathistan

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Phetion' timestamp='1281376789' post='2407892']
It's easy to post facts without the context that created them, and surrounds them. To be honest, it's as simple as Hoo told NSO that if they aided that nation, it would consider it an act of war. Which it did. There was no need for diplomatic talks to prevent this war, as NSO threw diplomacy out of the window when they aided a nation that was directly involved in war with a Rok Protectorate.
[/quote]I'm sorry, you don't seem to be answering my question. I don't know why, I think the facts are pretty obvious. Please, bear with me here. This isn't some sort of trick of them being taken out of context.

Though you do seem to dispute the fact that Heft acted in violation of Sith policy. But he did, and the reality is you can hardly lay the blame on NSO as a whole. Especially when [i]Heft's superiors were actively seeking a diplomatic resolution.[/i]

I think it's because to explicitly admit to the facts is to basically admit that RoK acted aggressively, because they wanted this war to happen, and that runs directly counter to the current line of reasoning that NSO just up and decided they wanted to get rolled one day. Yes, the classic justification that the victim actually wants to suffer through the crime being committed. What a shock to see you fall back on to that one.

Edited August 9, 2010 by HeroofTime55

[Phetion]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281377304' post='2407918']
I'm sorry, you don't seem to be answering my question. I don't know why, I think the facts are pretty obvious. Please, bear with me here. This isn't some sort of trick of them being taken out of context.

Though you do seem to dispute the fact that Heft acted in violation of Sith policy. But he did, and the reality is you can hardly lay the blame on NSO as a whole. Especially when [i]Heft's superiors were actively seeking a diplomatic resolution.[/i]

I think it's because to explicitly admit to the facts is to basically admit that RoK acted aggressively, because they wanted this war to happen, and that runs directly counter to the current line of reasoning that NSO just up and decided they wanted to get rolled one day. Yes, the classic justification that the victim actually wants to suffer through the crime being committed. What a shock to see you fall back on to that one.
[/quote]


Or maybe it's as simple as this: Rok told NSO don't aid him, or it's an act of war. NSO aided him. Rok followed through on their promise.

Yeah, Rok are acting aggressively, because NSO forced their hand and called their bluff.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Deathistan' timestamp='1281377183' post='2407909']
Fact: The guy had wars going when he was accepted
Fact: He was aided by a reprsentative on NSO
Fact: Hoo gave a fair warning and made sure consequences were understood
Fact: NSO called Bluff
Fact: We arent idiots, crap hit NSO in the face, apparently (although still needs to be proven)they hurried to "backtrack" so they wouldnt have to face the consequences... fail sith indeed
[/quote]You didn't answer my question, but I'll respond to what I can

1) This is Sith policy.
2) Sith policy is to not aid nations until they settle their conflicts. Heft acted in violation of this policy. His superiors were seeking to correct the issue.
3) To Heft, who violated the policy listed in #2.
4) Heft did, and aided the nation in violation of the policy outlined in #2, while his superiors actively sought diplomatic resolution.
5) I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here.

Now please go back and answer my question. Seriously it's a simple yes or no question, why are you trying to skirt around it?

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Phetion' timestamp='1281377527' post='2407922']
Or maybe it's as simple as this: Rok told NSO don't aid him, or it's an act of war. NSO aided him. Rok followed through on their promise.

Yeah, Rok are acting aggressively, because NSO forced their hand and called their bluff.
[/quote]My question is a simple yes or no question, why can't you answer it? Do you or do you not dispute the facts of the situation which I have listed? Why are you trying to skirt around the issue? It is a simple question of the facts, pretty much to test if we even share a common understanding of the situation, wherein the dispute would then lie in the interpretation of what those facts mean. But if we are disputing reality itself, that's a much bigger problem. So please, answer my question.

[Phetion]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281377719' post='2407926']
Now please go back and answer my question. Seriously it's a simple yes or no question, why are you trying to skirt around it?
[/quote]


Objectively, the facts are correct though worded in a manner to make Rok look bad. For example, 'trivial'. Looking at it in this manner would cause people to sympathise with NSO.

However, subjectively, and when you add into the context and the shared deixis that we pretty much all have, people can understand the situation and why these 'facts' came into play. Thus, causing people to support Rok.

So, to clarify the facts are true. They're just displayed in a manner that suits your propaganda.

[Keres]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281377719' post='2407926']
You didn't answer my question, but I'll respond to what I can

1) This is Sith policy.
2) Sith policy is to not aid nations until they settle their conflicts. Heft acted in violation of this policy. His superiors were seeking to correct the issue.
3) To Heft, who violated the policy listed in #2.
4) Heft did, and aided the nation in violation of the policy outlined in #2, while his superiors actively sought diplomatic resolution.
5) I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here.

Now please go back and answer my question. Seriously it's a simple yes or no question, why are you trying to skirt around it?
[/quote]

#5 was about to the whole.. trying to act all diplomatic AFTER the facts... after an act of war was committed, to not get stomped.

Heft acted like the representative of NSO and he failed, did he force his alliance into a war? probably, there wouldnt have been a war had he not aided the rogue... but he did... after Hoo repeatedly let him know of what would happen... NSO just needs to stand up to the consequences of its failure... had they been real siths anyway, failure would mean death, they're lucky in a way...

[Bob Janova]

[quote]You know, I keep seeing variations of this, and I keep thinking that you guys seriously need better propagandists, because you're taking the fun out of it.

Having an ultimatum disobeyed does not act as "justification" for an attack. It is a trigger, certainly, but it would be an equal "trigger" if someone gave an ultimatum of "your continued existence is an act of war". [/quote]
The difference, though, is that aiding a nation at war with someone is generally considered to be an act of war, and also a very easy thing to not do. RoK were not issuing an ultimatum, they were reminding NSO of that particular convention and that aiding a nation already at war with their protectorate would be an act of war – something which is normally the case, unlike your hypothetical case.

[GoddessOfLinn]

ROK say that Sedrick of the New Sith Order is a rogue!

NSO say that TENE spied and maked threads!

They cant both be right! Can ROK or NSO backup there claim?

[agafaba]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1281378436' post='2407954']
The difference, though, is that aiding a nation at war with someone is generally considered to be an act of war, and also a very easy thing to not do. RoK were not issuing an ultimatum, they were reminding NSO of that particular convention and that aiding a nation already at war with their protectorate would be an act of war – something which is normally the case, unlike your hypothetical case.
[/quote]

But then again declaring war on a alliance member is a declaration of war.

[Keres]

[quote name='GoddessOfLinn' timestamp='1281378872' post='2407970']
ROK say that Sedrick of the New Sith Order is a rogue!

NSO say that TENE spied and maked threads!

They cant both be right! Can ROK or NSO backup there claim?
[/quote]

for RoK the wars are there, and thats all the needed proof

[quote name='agafaba' timestamp='1281378988' post='2407974']
But then again declaring war on a alliance member is a declaration of war.
[/quote]

Which is what the rogue did...

Edited August 9, 2010 by Deathistan

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Phetion' timestamp='1281378127' post='2407942']
Objectively, the facts are correct though worded in a manner to make Rok look bad. For example, 'trivial'. Looking at it in this manner would cause people to sympathise with NSO.

However, subjectively, and when you add into the context and the shared deixis that we pretty much all have, people can understand the situation and why these 'facts' came into play. Thus, causing people to support Rok.

So, to clarify the facts are true. They're just displayed in a manner that suits your propaganda.
[/quote]
You dispute the word trivial. Would you consider $6 million in aid as a significant, trivial, or moderate sum of aid? What would be the status you consider of a 4k NS nation? I consider both to be trivial. And if referring to them for what I believe them to be puts RoK in a bad light, is it me putting them in a bad light, or is it the facts of the situation putting them in a bad light?

I am not denying that Heft of the NSO screwed up, and I won't even dispute that RoK, technically, was violated here. But Heft's superiors reached out in diplomacy, to try and correct the issue, and RoK rejected this diplomacy. That, and that alone, puts RoK in the wrong. Had NSO not offered a diplomatic solution, a solution that would have been simple and I doubt would have taken over five minutes to arrive at, then, and only then, would RoK be totally justified in declaring war.

Instead, and we agree on this fact, instead, RoK rushed to attack before NSO could hit peace mode, and in the process blatantly ignored NSO's attempts at a diplomatic resolution.

These are the facts. The next is the interpretation of what they mean. To me, it is clear that RoK wanted this war. Once Heft gave them the opportunity, they just couldn't resist, and weren't about to let a day of diplomacy get in their way.

Another fact is that a multitude of people, from various ranks, right up to Van Hoo III himself, the de-facto leader of the SuperFriends bloc, have attempted goad NPO and their allies into war. I interpret that fact, and the context of multiple other attempts to get NPO involved in war over the past few weeks, to indicate that this war is about much more than the rather petty violation Heft committed on RoK. The party line response at this point is for you to call me a "conspiracy theorist" and to tell me to "take off the tin foil hat." But I'm hoping maybe we might spark a serious discussion on the matter.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Deathistan' timestamp='1281378257' post='2407950']
#5 was about to the whole.. trying to act all diplomatic AFTER the facts... after an act of war was committed, to not get stomped.
[/quote]Right, after Heft screwed up, his superiors swiftly attempted to correct the problem. Shame on them!

Please, come up with something better.

[Letum]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1281378436' post='2407954']
The difference, though, is that aiding a nation at war with someone is generally considered to be an act of war, and also a very easy thing to not do. RoK were not issuing an ultimatum, they were reminding NSO of that particular convention and that aiding a nation already at war with their protectorate would be an act of war – something which is normally the case, unlike your hypothetical case.
[/quote]

What I am commenting on is the logical inconsistency of referencing the "do this and it is an act of war" when trying to justify this. Whether that statement had been made or not would have made zero difference to the cause of the war (which was the aid itself) and therefore talking about it makes no sense.

I have not expressed any view on the validity of aiding as an act of war. I generally avoid expressing views on the moral validity of anything, because I view morality as nothing more than a malleable hotpot of conflicting opinions, and care little for it. Consequently, I am merely focusing on the need to divorce the "warning" (if you refuse to call it an ultimatum) from the CB itself. They are two separate things, and the former has no bearing on the latter.

[Sargun II]

$%&@ this war, it's making me like HeroofTime for his consistent and rational arguments.

[Keres]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281379773' post='2408012']
Right, after Heft screwed up, his superiors swiftly attempted to correct the problem. Shame on them!

Please, come up with something better.
[/quote]

because you say that trying to have a serious discussion about some idiotic, made up conspiracy of yours (and im including others screaming that this war had other motives)is any better? why? its completely made up... NSO screwed up, NSO pays for it... the end... screw NPO and whatever else, they have absolutely nothing to do with any of this...

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Deathistan' timestamp='1281380115' post='2408031']
because you say that trying to have a serious discussion about some idiotic, made up conspiracy of yours (and im including others screaming that this war had other motives)is any better? why? its completely made up... NSO screwed up, NSO pays for it... the end... screw NPO and whatever else, they have absolutely nothing to do with any of this...
[/quote]

"NANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"

Excellent strategy.

[potato]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281379773' post='2408012']
Right, after Heft screwed up, his superiors swiftly attempted to correct the problem. Shame on them!

Please, come up with something better.
[/quote]

Something better? Like some inane drivel about this being a theorical trap to get to NPO/IRON/TOP/whoever?

Edited August 9, 2010 by potato

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281379638' post='2408006']Another fact is that a multitude of people, from various ranks, right up to Van Hoo III himself, the de-facto leader of the SuperFriends bloc, have attempted goad NPO and their allies into war. I interpret that fact, and the context of multiple other attempts to get NPO involved in war over the past few weeks ...
[/quote]


I usually ignore you due to you being a horrid forum poster. However, you said a couple of things stand out here that need to be addressed (for a change):

1. The SF bloc has no de facto leader. It isn't me, it isn't Xiph, it isn't Delta or Goose ...

2. Can you point me to the posts where I have "attempted to goad the NPO and allies into war"? I have repeatedly stated that I don't care either way if NSO's allies jump in or not, our issue is not with them. Furthermore, I have also stated that we did not [b]expect[/b] their allies to jump in, based on past experiences. Please note that SF alliances are indeed separate and we do not all share the exact same views and opinions. Also note, that if you point out a member of Ragnarok, that still does not prove your assertion that "right up to Van Hoo III himself" ...

This might shock you, but I don't care about the NPO in the slightest and have nothing against them. Egads! Fact and truth! How will you react?!? ... I am confident that I already know. lol

[Matthew Conrad]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1281373164' post='2407780']
Acting "diplomatically" would also entail not attacking a member of a sovereign alliance until that alliance has withdrawn protection. That is how it has been done in the past, even when the withdrawal of protection takes several days.

When an alliance's commitment to protect its members is tested, there will usually be a response.
[/quote]

Really, they flat out refused and sent 6 mil aid thereafter, confirming it was gov approved. I'm sure RoK would have been willing to wait for the protection dump if NSO hadn't thrown that aid in their face in whatever gesture they were attempting to make.

[Keres]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1281379851' post='2408016']
What I am commenting on is the logical inconsistency of referencing the "do this and it is an act of war" when trying to justify this. Whether that statement had been made or not would have made zero difference to the cause of the war (which was the aid itself) and therefore talking about it makes no sense.

I have not expressed any view on the validity of aiding as an act of war. I generally avoid expressing views on the moral validity of anything, because I view morality as nothing more than a malleable hotpot of conflicting opinions, and care little for it. Consequently, I am merely focusing on the need to divorce the "warning" (if you refuse to call it an ultimatum) from the CB itself. They are two separate things, and the former has no bearing on the latter.
[/quote]

The "do this and its an act of war" thing, was a fair warning, one that Hoo didnt even have to give since NSO should of known they messed up accepting the Rogue... Hoo warned NSO, NSO went ahead and didnt care... the end, good night fail sith...

[Bob Janova]

[quote]I have not expressed any view on the validity of aiding as an act of war. [...] I am merely focusing on the need to divorce the "warning" (if you refuse to call it an ultimatum) from the CB itself. They are two separate things, and the former has no bearing on the latter.[/quote]
Ah, my mistake, I took your post to mean you didn't agree that the CB was valid. I think there is a bearing on the CB from the warning, though, because NSO can't claim that they didn't know that it would be a problem, and doing it immediately after they'd been told they shouldn't was basically a direct challenge to RoK to 'do something about it'. So yes, there would have been a valid CB in there either way, but the 'They should have tried diplomacy first' people would actually be correct if it had been a genuine mistake by NSO. The fact that it came after the logs in the OP show that it was a deliberate incitement.

[quote]I am not denying that Heft of the NSO screwed up, and I won't even dispute that RoK, technically, was violated here.[/quote]
Good stuff. Please stop with the conspiracy nonsense now, then.

[Aurion]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1281379851' post='2408016']
What I am commenting on is the logical inconsistency of referencing the "do this and it is an act of war" when trying to justify this. Whether that statement had been made or not would have made zero difference to the cause of the war (which was the aid itself) and therefore talking about it makes no sense.

I have not expressed any view on the validity of aiding as an act of war. I generally avoid expressing views on the moral validity of anything, because I view morality as nothing more than a malleable hotpot of conflicting opinions, and care little for it. Consequently, I am merely focusing on the need to divorce the "warning" (if you refuse to call it an ultimatum) from the CB itself. They are two separate things, and the former has no bearing on the latter.
[/quote]

The warning, ultimatum, whatever you want to call it mainly is used to establish that Hoo did indeed say precisely what was going to happen if whatshisface got aided- since he considers doing that an act of war.

It helps to point it out since people have been yelling about how Rok tried to "trap" NSO.

[Phetion]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281379638' post='2408006']
You dispute the word trivial. Would you consider $6 million in aid as a significant, trivial, or moderate sum of aid? What would be the status you consider of a 4k NS nation? I consider both to be trivial. And if referring to them for what I believe them to be puts RoK in a bad light, is it me putting them in a bad light, or is it the facts of the situation putting them in a bad light?

I am not denying that Heft of the NSO screwed up, and I won't even dispute that RoK, technically, was violated here. But Heft's superiors reached out in diplomacy, to try and correct the issue, and RoK rejected this diplomacy. That, and that alone, puts RoK in the wrong. Had NSO not offered a diplomatic solution, a solution that would have been simple and I doubt would have taken over five minutes to arrive at, then, and only then, would RoK be totally justified in declaring war.

Instead, and we agree on this fact, instead, RoK rushed to attack before NSO could hit peace mode, and in the process blatantly ignored NSO's attempts at a diplomatic resolution.

These are the facts. The next is the interpretation of what they mean. To me, it is clear that RoK wanted this war. Once Heft gave them the opportunity, they just couldn't resist, and weren't about to let a day of diplomacy get in their way.

Another fact is that a multitude of people, from various ranks, right up to Van Hoo III himself, the de-facto leader of the SuperFriends bloc, have attempted goad NPO and their allies into war. I interpret that fact, and the context of multiple other attempts to get NPO involved in war over the past few weeks, to indicate that this war is about much more than the rather petty violation Heft committed on RoK. The party line response at this point is for you to call me a "conspiracy theorist" and to tell me to "take off the tin foil hat." But I'm hoping maybe we might spark a serious discussion on the matter.
[/quote]


Frankly, it would be a huge bonus in my opinion if this war escalated, even without NPO's participation. Unless you're heavily involved in the politics, the waiting before wars is little fun. In the four years I've been here, I've been on either side of a war, winning or losing. It kick starts activity and you generally gain more active members, who weren't otherwise very active within the alliance. So yes, personally I would love to see it escalate, just for the few weeks of debate it will spark.

Van Hoo is the de facto leader of SuperFriends? I thought it was Penkala, or something

We took our pound of flesh from Pacifica, and within GOD that part ended for us when Karma/reps finished. Perhaps NPO will want to come for their tech one day, and so I say bring it. Regardless of our political standing at that point in time. I'm more inclined to believe that many would rather see other alliances from that 'side' drawn out. I know exactly who GOD would like to see join the fray.

You make a point of stating Rok rushed into this attack, seizing the opportunity. The simple fact of this matter however is that Hoo [i]explicitly[/i] told NSO exactly what would happen. So it happened. It's as simple as that. If NSO didn't want it to happen, it was an extremely easy out for them. It's as easy to argue NSO wanted this war, as it is Rok did. They knew precisely what they were doing, and they've baited other SuperFriend alliances several times over the past year (though I can forgive you for not knowing that, since you weren't around -thankfully- we had enough posters like yourself just with AUT). Therefore I can easily conclude that NSO were in fact the ones seeking the war - though this isn't my personal opinion, I just think they bit off more than they could chew, and picked the wrong SF alliance to piss off.

Regarding 'trivial': In this instance the connotations of it supports your argument, which is trying to being completely objective/factual with no bias. 'trivial' skews this to support you, therefore in this case I think you shouldn't have used it.

It's not the amount of money that matters, it's the fact that money was sent. Likewise, the size of the nation doesn't matter either, it's the principle.

I think that covers every point you've made, please don't retaliate with a "BUT YOU SKIRTED AROUND MY QUESTION HURRR". If I did, let me know and I'll fix it.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Phetion