Ragnarok Declaration of War

[Keres]

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1281712907' post='2414349']
I believe she is pointing out that this nation attacked RoK and then changed their AA so they could not be found. I will agree though and state that I am not sure what it has to do with the topic though.
[/quote]

I should of been clearer, basically yeah, and has to do with all the posts attempting to spin NSO as being innocent, and going into this as martyrs that dont want this to end up being a bigger war. And then by hiding in other alliances and im thinking dragging them in to attack their ghost, which will turn this thing into a cluster@!%&... and make them look even more like the poor innocent helpless sithies

also proves how full of B/S they are with the whole "NSO will not be puppets blah blah blah" from their DoW thing or whatever... as they seem to be using other AAs as their own...

Edited August 13, 2010 by Deathistan

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1281705625' post='2414266']
If you really think this, maybe you should start spying on my alliance and see if there are no consequences.
[/quote]


Oh, if I could only.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Deathistan' timestamp='1281714288' post='2414383']
I should of been clearer, basically yeah, and has to do with all the posts attempting to spin NSO as being innocent, and going into this as martyrs that dont want this to end up being a bigger war. And then by hiding in other alliances and im thinking dragging them in to attack their ghost, which will turn this thing into a cluster@!%&... and make them look even more like the poor innocent helpless sithies
[/quote]

Yeah, you're making a big stretch here. One that isn't really supported by logic. Therefore, you will not get brownie points.

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='Deathistan' timestamp='1281714288' post='2414383']
I should of been clearer, basically yeah, and has to do with all the posts attempting to spin NSO as being innocent, and going into this as martyrs that dont want this to end up being a bigger war. And then by hiding in other alliances and im thinking dragging them in to attack their ghost, which will turn this thing into a cluster@!%&... and make them look even more like the poor innocent helpless sithies

also proves how full of B/S they are with the whole "NSO will not be puppets blah blah blah" from their DoW thing or whatever... as they seem to be using other AAs as their own...
[/quote]

Except that plot wouldn't work because MK happens to be a RoK ally.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1281714589' post='2414390']
Except that plot wouldn't work because MK happens to be a RoK ally.
[/quote]
Although if it happens enough times, I suppose MK might consider it to be an 'invitation to the party', so to speak. Just not in the manner suggested earlier. (If some folks think it's a 'pile-on' [i]now[/i]....)

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Qazzian' timestamp='1281712752' post='2414345']
Unless someone has finally come up with some sort of proof that Sedrick spied first, no. Looking at the exposed spy ops, TENE spied on Sedrick, Sedrick retaliated. My point is an aggressive spy attack is an aggressive action, and by looking at the spy attacks, TENE commited an aggressive act prior to being declared on.

Bob Janova's statement that taking an aggressive action isn't aggressive makes no sense, which is what I was directly addressing.
[/quote]

I think we are getting a bit bent out of shape over the spying thing. Yes, I know this is late but there are really only three ways a Change Defcon spy attack could ever harm a nation, all of which - from what I gather - have no relevance to Sedrick's case:
1) If that nation is at its final day of collection (20-25)
2) If that nation is involved in a war where defcon needs to be changed.
3) If that nation is stupid enough to collect soon after getting spied on.

Unless Sedrick was dumb enough to collect immediately after being spied on, involved in a war, or on his final day of collection his losses are effectively $0 as all he had to do was change his defcon after update. This is far different from the $150,000+5*Sedrick's NS the nation who spied on him (to change his defcon) had to pay. So the only person who truly suffered from this event (had it been let be) was the person who did the spy attack. This leads me to the conclusion that Sedrick is an idiot for attacking a protected alliance as a single nation over something that (unless he absolutely had to collect or made the stupid mistake of collecting) caused him absolutely no strife but the inconvenience of having to change his defcon. The argument that a spy defcon spy mission is an aggressive action really stretches reasonable interpretation of aggression to its extreme.

Edited August 13, 2010 by tamerlane

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1281715343' post='2414407']
I think we are getting a bit bent out of shape over the spying thing. Yes, I know this is late but there are really only three ways a Change Defcon spy attack could ever harm a nation, all of which - from what I gather - have no relevance to Sedrick's case:
1) If that nation is at its final day of collection (20-25)
2) If that nation is involved in a war where defcon needs to be changed.
3) If that nation is stupid enough to collect soon after getting spied on.

Unless Sedrick was dumb enough to collect immediately after being spied on, involved in a war, or on his final day of collection his losses are effectively $0 as all he had to do was change his defcon after update. This is far different from the $150,000+5*Sedrick's NS the nation who spied on him (to change his defcon) had to pay. So the only person who truly suffered from this event (had it been let be) was the person who did the spy attack. This leads me to the conclusion that Sedrick is an idiot for attacking a protected alliance as a single nation over something that (unless he absolutely had to collect or made the stupid mistake of collecting) caused him absolutely no strife but the inconvenience of having to change his defcon.
[/quote]
Sedrick's mental capacity is not the issue however. The issue is whether or not spying constitutes an aggressive act and is a legitimate CB, in which case TENE is the aggressor, which would make every subsequent act by Sedrick defensive in nature, and therefore not a rogue but a sovereign nation defending itself.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1281715701' post='2414416']
Sedrick's mental capacity is not the issue however. The issue is whether or not spying constitutes an aggressive act and is a legitimate CB, in which case TENE is the aggressor, which would make every subsequent act by Sedrick defensive in nature, and therefore not a rogue but a sovereign nation defending itself.
[/quote]

Im saying that you are stretching the definition of aggressor to its extreme by claiming that he was "defending" himself from something that did not cause him any harm. INconvenience? yes. Harm? No. IN essence, this entire debate is hyperbole in motion.

Edited August 13, 2010 by tamerlane

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1281715897' post='2414422']
Im saying that you are stretching the definition of aggressor to its extreme by claiming that he was "defending" himself from something that did not cause him any harm. INconvenience? yes. Harm? No. IN essence, this entire debate is hyperbole in motion.
[/quote]
I'm saying no such thing. I am pointing out the definition of an aggressive action. Spying on another nation has been defined as such since the very earliest days of its implementation as a tactic. I didn't create that definition. The result of the aggression doesn't matter, it's the act that counts.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1281715897' post='2414422']
Im saying that you are stretching the definition of aggressor to its extreme by claiming that he was "defending" himself from something that did not cause him any harm. [/quote]
Hold on.

So if someone attacks my nation, launching two ground attacks, both of which fail, causing no damage, then I counterattack, I'm now the aggressor?

The results of the attack are not relevant to whether it's defensive or not.

[Keres]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1281714974' post='2414398']
Although if it happens enough times, I suppose MK might consider it to be an 'invitation to the party', so to speak. Just not in the manner suggested earlier. (If some folks think it's a 'pile-on' [i]now[/i]....)
[/quote]

Yep, I hear its fun to make conspiracy theories... exept that this one has some kind of proof to it... especially since the NSO nation has it in their description that they are NSO "forever"

Edited August 13, 2010 by Deathistan

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1281716487' post='2414428']
I'm saying no such thing. I am pointing out the definition of an aggressive action. Spying on another nation has been defined as such since the very earliest days of its implementation as a tactic. I didn't create that definition. The result of the aggression doesn't matter, it's the act that counts.
[/quote]


Then your bare bones assessment is flawed. Failing to recognize that certain acts of spying, particularly change defcon, only cause damage in certain situations (or no damage in this case) and magnifying that as being CB for an escalated conflict is a bit melodramatic on both Sedrick's and your part. Sedrick, unless he was at a final day of collection, stood to lose no money and lost no infra, land, nukes, soldiers, planes, ships, tanks, cms or tech because of the operation. His response, on the other hand, was over the top and set the ensuing conflict up purposefully. Calling foul, white knighting for the "rights" of individual nations, and exaggerating the conflict as NSO has done is proof that this entire conflict is based on surprisingly daring acts of stubbornness both on the part of Sedrick and the NSO. I feel no pity for your alliance or Sedrick.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1281716877' post='2414433']
Hold on.

So if someone attacks my nation, launching two ground attacks, both of which fail, causing no damage, then I counterattack, I'm now the aggressor?

The results of the attack are not relevant to whether it's defensive or not.
[/quote]

No. I believe I made particular effort to illustrate that the TYPE of spy attack that was committed stood to cause no damage except in given situations (which I also illustrated). I also made consideration as to whether or not Sedrick fit any of those situations which I am assuming, barring any evidence to the contrary, he is in the 3rd category (otherwise known as the "idiot category").

I am not about to go into the difference between what has to occur in order to launch two ground attacks and what has to occur to launch a spy mission, unless Invicta truly is lacking those instructions in their guides.

Edited August 13, 2010 by tamerlane

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1281717238' post='2414443']
Then your bare bones assessment is flawed. Failing to recognize that certain acts of spying, particularly change defcon, only cause damage in certain situations (or no damage in this case) and magnifying that as being CB for an escalated conflict is a bit melodramatic on both Sedrick's and your part. Sedrick, unless he was at a final day of collection, stood to lose no money and lost no infra, land, nukes, soldiers, planes, ships, tanks, cms or tech because of the operation. His response, on the other hand, was over the top and set the ensuing conflict up purposefully. Calling foul, white knighting for the "rights" of individual nations, and exaggerating the conflict as NSO has done is proof that this entire conflict is based on surprisingly daring acts of stubbornness both on the part of Sedrick and the NSO. I feel no pity for your alliance or Sedrick.
[/quote]
I guess it is a good thing I have never concerned myself with gaining your pity then, right? *rollseyes*

Your argument is flawed. Period. Spying is considered an aggressive act. Just because you wish this one instance to be labelled separately doesn't make it so, sorry. That isn't how it works. Spying has consistently been considered an aggressive act. Changing the definition to suit your arguments only highlights your failure in the attempt.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1281717639' post='2414452']
I guess it is a good thing I have never concerned myself with gaining your pity then, right? *rollseyes*

Your argument is flawed. Period. Spying is considered an aggressive act. Just because you wish this one instance to be labelled separately doesn't make it so, sorry. That isn't how it works. Spying has consistently been considered an aggressive act. Changing the definition to suit your arguments only highlights your failure in the attempt.
[/quote]

It appears as though we are at an impasse, the Hyperbole vs. Reason. Good thing the firepower is on my (Reason) side of the argument.

As for my pity, I know you didn't care. I just thought Id take a go at being dramatic, see what it felt like to be NSO for a second.

Edited August 13, 2010 by tamerlane

[Jrenster]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1281718026' post='2414458']
It appears as though we are at an impasse, the Hyperbole vs. Reason. Good thing the firepower is on my (Reason) side of the argument.

As for my pity, I know you didn't care. I just thought Id take a go at being dramatic, see what it felt like to be NSO for a second.
[/quote]

Um, I'm pretty sure you're the one that is not supporting your side with reasoning, but alright.

[Keres]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1281717639' post='2414452']
I guess it is a good thing I have never concerned myself with gaining your pity then, right? *rollseyes*

Your argument is flawed. Period. Spying is considered an aggressive act. Just because you wish this one instance to be labelled separately doesn't make it so, sorry. That isn't how it works. Spying has consistently been considered an aggressive act. Changing the definition to suit your arguments only highlights your failure in the attempt.
[/quote]

So is aiding and protecting a rogue and this after being kindly reminded NOT to do so

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1281718026' post='2414458']
It appears as though we are at an impasse, the Hyperbole vs. Reason. Good thing the firepower is on my (Reason) side of the argument.

As for my pity, I know you didn't care. I just thought Id take a go at being dramatic. Seems like you're having all the fun.
[/quote]
I always have fun. Otherwise I wouldn't be here.

Might makes right was coined long before this attempt to equate it with some fanciful notion of "reason". Reason would imply that you not launch a full scale war over $6mil or that you wouldn't declare upon another alliance's member without at least the courtesy of a commonplace heads-up. Where was your "reason" when those actions took place?

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1281717639' post='2414452']
I guess it is a good thing I have never concerned myself with gaining your pity then, right? *rollseyes*

Your argument is flawed. Period. Spying is considered an aggressive act. Just because you wish this one instance to be labelled separately doesn't make it so, sorry. That isn't how it works. Spying has consistently been considered an aggressive act. Changing the definition to suit your arguments only highlights your failure in the attempt.
[/quote]


I would like to add... Sedricks case would be much stronger if he had attacked, and ONLY attacked the nation that spied on him. Alliances have single members who make spy attacks against other alliances every day. To be honest, alliances by and large are incapable of stopping members from being stupid. But, Nation A, being a member of alliance X, and spying on Nation B, is NOT a valid CB for nations B to attack alliance X in his defense. It is a CB for him to attack nation A in his defense.

[USOFAA]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1281715897' post='2414422']
Im saying that you are stretching the definition of aggressor to its extreme by claiming that he was "defending" himself from something that did not cause him any harm. INconvenience? yes. Harm? No. IN essence, this entire debate is hyperbole in motion.
[/quote]
And NSO's aid to him in its self did harm? Your reaching spy attacks are not OK someone spy's on me i would be more then happy to make them glow green. The point is ROK don't care none of this matters at this point. It happened there is no turning back all we can hope for is peace in the end. And that we don't see a new Karma.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1281718261' post='2414463']
I would like to add... Sedricks case would be much stronger if he had attacked, and ONLY attacked the nation that spied on him. Alliances have single members who make spy attacks against other alliances every day. To be honest, alliances by and large are incapable of stopping members from being stupid. But, Nation A, being a member of alliance X, and spying on Nation B, is NOT a valid CB for nations B to attack alliance X in his defense. It is a CB for him to attack nation A in his defense.
[/quote]
I like you.

Indeed, you are correct. I have never stated that I agreed with Sedrick's (or indeed anyone's) actions in this conflict, I have just been offering a viewpoint that has for some reason been overlooked.

Sedrick may have overreached in his response but it was still a response just the same. There is no evidence that supports the claims that he was the initial aggressor except some circumstantial issues, but no facts.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1281718175' post='2414462']
I always have fun. Otherwise I wouldn't be here.
[/quote]

Fair enough.
[quote]
Might makes right was coined long before this attempt to equate it with some fanciful notion of "reason". Reason would imply that you not launch a full scale war over $6mil or that you wouldn't declare upon another alliance's member without at least the courtesy of a commonplace heads-up. Where was your "reason" when those actions took place?
[/quote]



My reason, it was somewhere between me assuming most alliances checked the backround of their applicants and $6mil being sent to a nation after Hoo said "Don't do that or we'll go to a full scale conflict". The instructions were clear.

Edited August 13, 2010 by tamerlane

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1281718587' post='2414469']
My reason, it was somewhere between me assuming most alliances checked the backround of their applicants and $6mil being sent to a nation after Hoo said "Don't do that or we'll go to a full scale conflict". The instructions were clear.
[/quote]
Actually from what I can tell, the NSO was aware of Sedrick's wars with TENE and Sedrick informed them that it was a defensive action, which the evidence supports, and that he had offered peace, which has also been collaborated. Therefore, since it was a defensive action and it seemed to have a readily available solution he was admitted. After that RoK decided to declare on him without so much as a word. That is on RoK. The NSO can not be held responsible for RoK's carelessness in regards to diplomacy.

So now your "reason" is that RoK can declare upon any alliance's members and then bully them into not sending them aid with the threat of war in which the whole of the Cyberverse will come out with laurels and praise about how the horrible X alliance screwed up, even though no such events took place and no evidence to support the RoK claims exist?

EDIT: I am off to lunch, carry on.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Ivan Moldavi

[USOFAA]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1281714974' post='2414398']
Although if it happens enough times, I suppose MK might consider it to be an 'invitation to the party', so to speak. Just not in the manner suggested earlier. (If some folks think it's a 'pile-on' [i]now[/i]....)
[/quote]
Not going to happen MK would already be in this if it was not for STA, Jumping on NSO even more so at this point in time my bet is they would lose that allie

[Haflinger]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1281718587' post='2414469']
The instructions were clear.
[/quote]
The problem is that they were instructions.

You shouldn't be able to give instructions to the leadership of another sovereign alliance. Alliance leadership has to be able to think for itself, and not simply obey instructions given by any other alliance that happens to be better-connected than they are.