Ragnarok Declaration of War

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281818151' post='2415965']
Sure. If you're trying to prevent an all-out war, then posting a DoW probably isn't the best way to go about doing that imo.
[/quote]
The problem with the assertion that one wasn't trying to prevent all-out war is it can apply to the other party just the same and while it may well be true it doesn't take into account the considerations made. Taking half-measures in a compromise to how you really feel but in order to show some restraint, some willingness to work it out so it doesn't go to the next level is certainly a method of trying to avert war. So is using ones soft and hard strength to try and intimidate another. What's often forgotten in these debates is that not only does everyone have a point of no return where enough is enough but they also have specific things that they see as a most grievous offense.

The New Sith Order here clearly failed to realize this was one of those areas with Ragnarok. Ragnarok also failed to see that the New Sith Order was taking a half-measure in aiding this new member instead of launching counter attacks themselves in order to help the targetted nation survive while not expanding the conflict thus giving an opportunity for talks to continue. Neither really was able to see beyond their own perspectives and philosophies. They just didn't seem to understand how the other thinks or operates and may not have even really cared to.

This kind of thing does happen and will continue to happen for so long as we can't read each other's minds. There is nothing to really be ashamed of here for either party. There will always be that inner division for most between what's pragmatic and their own principles but it's still possible one can learn something from this and use that lesson to help defuse future situations even if one isn't always successful.

Edited August 14, 2010 by Hyperbad

[PotFace]

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1281819084' post='2415984']
The problem with the assertion that one wasn't trying to prevent all-out war is it can apply to the other party just the same and while it may well be true it doesn't take into account the considerations made. Taking half-measures in a compromise to how you really feel but in order to show some restraint, some willingness to work it out so it doesn't go to the next level is certainly a method of trying to avert war. So is using ones soft and hard strength to try and intimidate another. What's often forgotten in these debates is that not only does everyone have a point of no return where enough is enough but they also have specific things that they see as a most grievous offense.

The New Sith Order here clearly failed to realize this was one of those areas with Ragnarok. Ragnarok also failed to see that the New Sith Order was taking a half-measure in aiding this new member instead of launching counter attacks themselves in order to help the targetted nation survive while not expanding the conflict thus giving an opportunity for talks to continue. Neither really was able to see beyond their own perspectives and philosophies. They just didn't seem to understand how the other thinks or operates and may not have even really cared to.

This kind of thing does happen and will continue to happen for so long as we can't read each other's minds. There is nothing to really be ashamed of here for either party. There will always be that inner division for most between what's pragmatic and their own principles but it's still possible one can learn something from this and use that lesson to help defuse future situations even if one isn't always successful.
[/quote]


Well. That was very well thought-out and eloquently stated sir. And posts such as these always bring a glitter to my eye. However, if you're trying to say that RoK is too "soft" to handle what one leader from NSO did, well, you're just elaborating on my point. Emo central. Of course, we all know that RoK is stronger than that - this couldn't [i]possibly[/i] be what's going on here.

Communications failure? Nope. Can't be that either. Hoo clearly stated his intentions to Heft. No need to read minds here.

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281819495' post='2415993']
Well. That was very well thought-out and eloquently stated sir. And posts such as these always bring a glitter to my eye. However, if you're trying to say that RoK is too "soft" to handle what one leader from NSO did, well, you're just elaborating on my point. Emo central. Of course, we all know that RoK is stronger than that - this couldn't [i]possibly[/i] be what's going on here.

Communications failure? Nope. Can't be that either. Hoo clearly stated his intentions to Heft. No need to read minds here.[/quote]
What I was trying to say is how the evistance of a declaration of war only gives us the sentiments of an alliance at the point it has been posted and tells us little if anything about how they felt or thought prior to it.

[PotFace]

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1281822383' post='2416024']
What I was trying to say is how the evistance of a declaration of war only gives us the sentiments of an alliance at the point it has been posted and tells us little if anything about how they felt or thought prior to it.
[/quote]

Yep. You nailed it right on the head. Why would that be, you think?

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281822466' post='2416026']
Yep. You nailed it right on the head. Why would that be, you think?
[/quote]
Each new action, event or piece of information causes a re-evaluation of the situation, ones position and as a consequence their actions.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281810178' post='2415869']
Not exactly sure if you're agreeing with me or not here. Please elaborate.
[/quote]

you are bemoaning the fact that there are no terms offered, leaving aside the entire debate about who should approach who, you seem to have missed how wars work this year.

Its the age of the warchest, wars are not over in one week anymore, one good opening blitz no longer decides the outcome, this has just started and you are already !@#$%*ing its been going on too long.


[quote]Well, it appears I can't get you guys to take your attention off of the CB. And in failing to do so, you guys continue to confirm that the objective was war itself. Thank you for clearing that up. I'll be sure to strike that off my list as an answered question now. I've heard this from enough people to be satisfied with that answer. Can you answer any of these questions for me:
[/quote]

We are discussing a war, why wouldn't we be concerned about the reason it came to be? I realize you want to try and play a game of bait and switch to move to conversation away from a point you can't win, but try a little harder please.

[quote]
Now that war has been declared, and is in full effect, would you say that [i]now, at this time,[/i] RoK and friends have accomplished what they set out to do? If the objective here was to defend TENE, and we can clearly see that is now done with, what's next? What keeps this war going? Why haven't terms been issued yet?
[/quote]

Your questions are all based on false assumptions, get your premise right before asking and you might get some answers.



[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1281812457' post='2415896']
The conversations prior to the attacks ended with us asking that we be contacted with further evidence or claims prior to the attacks being launched, and rampage not disagreeing or giving any sign that this was an issue. The claim that you believed sedrick spied first wasn't even [i]mentioned[/i] until I went and asked why you were attacking him, and still remained little more than a presumption.
[/quote]

I'm sorry this makes little sence to me, would the conversation you reference be the same one where you were warned not to send aid?

[quote]You do understand that labeling an action as an act of war does not constitute trying to avoid war, correct?
[/quote]

When you suggest you are going to do it first? Yea getting reminded that that leads to war is an attempt to avoid it. Hoo could have as easily responded with something non-committal instead of explicitly telling you that would lead to war.

Besides label is the wrong word, you try to make it sound like Rok invented the idea that sending aid to someone at war is an act of war. They didn't, its been that way, and undisputed, for as long as I can remember. And I can remember pretty damn far back.

You seem to be attempting to join the "because hoo said so" crowd, so I'll tell you the same thing I tell them. Its not an act of war because Hoo said it was, its an act of war because if it isn't it opens the doors to war by proxy.

[quote]From the way the conversation was going, and the way things have gone since, I would certainly have to disagree with the idea that more talks would have been had if I had not authorized the aid. It was pretty clear, both from their actions and their words, that they had no interest in resolving the issue with us.
[/quote]

I seriously doubt it, since until then you hadn't actually done anything to provoke a war yet.

[quote]
Also, the aid was an alternative to a [i]retaliatory[/i] strike, not a pre-emptive strike.
[/quote]

See statements like that demonstrate how you got yourself into this position in the first place. It takes willfully ignoring reality on a grand scale like that to mess up as bad as you did.

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1281816317' post='2415939']
So basically what we have here is both alliances conducting what's considered by the other as an act of war. Both likely knew it would force the other's hand in some way but I would wager they were also both hopeful they could prevent escalation into all-out war however things snowballed regardless of their desire.
[/quote]

No we have one side trying to spin it that they had an act of war committed against them and another side who actually did. There is a difference here. NSO's argument consists of fairy dust and farts, while Rok actually has legitimate grievances.

If you want to go the route that Rok committed an act of war by attacking Sedrick after he was accepted into the NSO them you must also allow that NSO supported his attacks against TENE when they let him in and offered protection without first clearing him from his pre-existing wars. So which act of war do you want to go with? the aid to a nation at war? or taking in and supporting a nation at war there by joining him? Either way NSO messed up on a grand scale, and do so first.

People keep trying to spin the conflict from one ignition point to another, trying to find a place where they can make it look like NSO was somehow wronged, but no matter what the conflict always starts with NSO interjecting it self into a pre-exiting conflict and choosing a side. When you join a pre-existing conflict on one side, the other side tends to attack you for it.

Edited August 14, 2010 by TypoNinja

[PotFace]

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1281823341' post='2416038']
Each new action, event or piece of information causes a re-evaluation of the situation, ones position and as a consequence their actions.
[/quote]


And so therefore, we learn that before posting a DoW, make sure that you have all of your ducks in a row? You see, nearly the entirety of the cyberverse already knows this. You have nations that have been built up to support a DoW. These people spent months building up their nations so that when their leader calls them to war, they'll be ready. Don't you think that leaders in general, sorta owe enough care and consideration to their supporters to at least take some time to make sure their ducks are in a row prior to calling them to war?

I do.


[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281823910' post='2416046']
We are discussing a war, why wouldn't we be concerned about the reason it came to be? I realize you want to try and play a game of bait and switch to move to conversation away from a point you can't win, but try a little harder please.
[/quote]

You must have forgotten how DoWs work. You see, when you announce something to the masses, they come back with questions. As much as you'd like to control which questions they ask, you simply cannot. It's the public that shows up with questions. Your job is to answer them. You can label it however you wish.

Edited August 14, 2010 by PotFace

[Tiberius]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1281812457' post='2415896']
You do understand that labeling an action as an act of war does not constitute trying to avoid war, correct? From the way the conversation was going, and the way things have gone since, I would certainly have to disagree with the idea that more talks would have been had if I had not authorized the aid. It was pretty clear, both from their actions and their words, that they had no interest in resolving the issue with us.

Also, the aid was an alternative to a [i]retaliatory[/i] strike, not a pre-emptive strike.
[/quote]
It is pretty obvious that if someone says, that if you do x they will see it as an Act of War, that they mean if you do it you clearly want to have a war, they are in other words giving you the option of being attacked or not so we come to the conclusion they are trying to avoid war but ultimately it is up to you to choose wether or not to avoid war. You $%&@ed up just deal with it, your time in nappies was along time ago.

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281823910' post='2416046']
No we have one side trying to spin it that they had an act of war committed against them and another side who actually did. There is a difference here. NSO's argument consists of fairy dust and farts, while Rok actually has legitimate grievances.[/quote]
People seem to believe that what's an act of war is an objective truth when really it's a matter of perspective all rooted in the philosophy one adheres to and what their experiences have been like. The problem comes in where these same people assert their view is the only valid one. When two sides of an issue feel wronged then whether you believe the reason for them to feel that way is valid or not is only relevant so far as you're willing to entertain it. The spin is all in either side saying they were wronged but the other wasn't. In doing so they're giving an entirely biased picture as to the inherent differences responsible for the split.

[quote]If you want to go the route that Rok committed an act of war by attacking Sedrick after he was accepted into the NSO them you must also allow that NSO supported his attacks against TENE when they let him in and offered protection without first clearing him from his pre-existing wars. So which act of war do you want to go with? the aid to a nation at war? or taking in and supporting a nation at war there by joining him? Either way NSO messed up on a grand scale, and do so first.

People keep trying to spin the conflict from one ignition point to another, trying to find a place where they can make it look like NSO was somehow wronged, but no matter what the conflict always starts with NSO interjecting it self into a pre-exiting conflict and choosing a side. When you join a pre-existing conflict on one side, the other side tends to attack you for it.[/quote]
I have not claimed that either party did actually commit an act of war against the other. What I have stated is both sides feel as if one was committed against them and this developed until one alliance saw no turning back. I do not plan to become involved in debate over their merits. It's quite clear that both sides took their position from very different perspectives. Both acts which have been interpreted as acts of war were equally avoidable.


[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281823961' post='2416051']
And so therefore, we learn that before posting a DoW, make sure that you have all of your ducks in a row? You see, nearly the entirety of the cyberverse already knows this. You have nations that have been built up to support a DoW. These people spent months building up their nations so that when their leader calls them to war, they'll be ready. Don't you think that leaders in general, sorta owe enough care and consideration to their supporters to at least take some time to make sure their ducks are in a row prior to calling them to war?

I do.[/quote]
The cultural of an alliance dictates what these ducks are symbolic of but in short, yes.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281823961' post='2416051']
And so therefore, we learn that before posting a DoW, make sure that you have all of your ducks in a row? You see, nearly the entirety of the cyberverse already knows this. You have nations that have been built up to support a DoW. These people spent months building up their nations so that when their leader calls them to war, they'll be ready. Don't you think that leaders in general, sorta owe enough care and consideration to their supporters to at least take some time to make sure their ducks are in a row prior to calling them to war?

I do.
[/quote]

And this is relevant how? I mean its all pretty words, but I'm pretty sure its nothing ground breaking here.

[quote]
You must have forgotten how DoWs work. You see, when you announce something to the masses, they come back with questions. As much as you'd like to control which questions they ask, you simply cannot. It's the public that shows up with questions. Your job is to answer them. You can label it however you wish.
[/quote]

More pretty words, without getting back to the original point. You attempted to paint my discussion of the act of war as proof that we wanted war. I wanted to know why you thought it'd be bad to talk about why the war came about. Now you reverse yourself and say its my job to answer questions.

Which is it? Am I a bad person for talking about the CB, or am I bad person for not talking about it?

You are not very good at this are you? You write pretty words by seem to lack skill at the actual execution for a goal part.

[PotFace]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281826491' post='2416105']
And this is relevant how? I mean its all pretty words, but I'm pretty sure its nothing ground breaking here.
[/quote]

Thank you for asking. By refusing to argue that posting reckless DoWs shows a severe lack of consideration for your supporters, and noting that this isn't a ground-breaking find, we can therefore demonstrate that only is this true, but this mentality was also present in everything that had anything to do with this DoW. Furthermore, we can also demonstrate that if you're looking to avoid war, a lack of care and consideration isn't the way to go about it. This is relevant in that RoK (Hoo) was indeed looking for a war, and as soon as the opportunity presented itself, took it and exploited it as quickly as possible.


[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281826491' post='2416105']
Which is it? Am I a bad person for talking about the CB, or am I bad person for not talking about it?
[/quote]

It's bad to talk about how the war came about, because this issue has already been settled. It's very clear that Hoo told Heft that he would consider aiding the "rogue" to be an act of war. Most of us understand that to be an undebatable fact. Therefore, there's no point in discussing it further - especially with hopes of avoiding other questions about this DoW. Which is why none of my questions today have had anything to do with the CB itself. What you wish to discuss.... has already been cleared up. There's other questions to tend to now, if you don't mind...

[Tautology]

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281828397' post='2416138']
It's bad to talk about how the war came about, because this issue has already been settled.[/quote]
I tried not to smile and I tried not to post but I couldn't stop myself.

[PotFace]

[quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1281828800' post='2416145']
I tried not to smile and I tried not to post but I couldn't stop myself.
[/quote]


Well, if there's something new about the CB that hasn't been discussed yet, please, help yourself.

[TypoNinja]

You [i]really[/i] aren't very good at this.


[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281828397' post='2416138']
Thank you for asking. By refusing to argue that posting reckless DoWs shows a severe lack of consideration for your supporters,
[/quote]

False premise. The DoW wasn't reckless, and trust me, I'm quite happy to answer the call of my allies. As I'm sure they would answer mine should the situation arise.

[quote]and noting that this isn't a ground-breaking find, we can therefore demonstrate that only is this true, but this mentality was also present in everything that had anything to do with this DoW.[/quote]

More false premise, that wasn't was I noted was not ground breaking. I agreed it was blindingly obvious that people spend months (or years, in my case) building their nations. And alliance leaders are responsible for making sure they don't bleed for no good reason. Rookies know this.

You are attempting to take me agreeing to something very narrow that you said to me agreeing with you in its entirety, you are either an armature or just silly for thinking that would fly by without me calling you on it.


[quote]Furthermore, we can also demonstrate that if you're looking to avoid war, a lack of care and consideration isn't the way to go about it. [/quote]

I agree with this statement, the part where you trip up is when you imply that Rok didn't. News flash. When somebody is materiality harming my alliance you get one warning to stop before I make you stop. NSO got one warning. I would say NSO showed a lack of care and consideration when they proceeded with an act of war they were specifically warned against instead of any of number of other options open to them.

[quote]This is relevant in that RoK (Hoo) was indeed looking for a war, and as soon as the opportunity presented itself, took it and exploited it as quickly as possible. [/quote]

If Hoo wanted a war all he had to do was confirm that NSO was letting in Sedrick and offering him protect and then DOW on them for taking in a rogue he was at war with, instead he actually bothered to talk, and warn heft when heft was suggesting doing something stupid.


[quote]
It's bad to talk about how the war came about, because this issue has already been settled.[/quote]

If its been settled why do so many, including you, keep harping on the circumstances surrounding the beginning of the war?


[quote]It's very clear that Hoo told Heft that he would consider aiding the "rogue" to be an act of war. Most of us understand that to be an undebatable fact. Therefore, there's no point in discussing it further - especially with hopes of avoiding other questions about this DoW. [/quote]

It keeps getting talked about because foolish people keep trying to paint it as something other than it is, so people like me come in and correct them. These people ascribe to the argument ad nausem method of debate, and the only real counter is to simply keep detailing why they are wrong, so here I am.

Which bring us to the second part of your statement there, more false premise. You are attempting to ascribe a motive that does not exist to the benefit of your own position. Its a common tactic, you slide little bits of premise in long walls of text hoping nobody calls you on them because they look minor, then you construct an entire position around your "facts" simply because nobody bothered to tell you how wrong you were.

[quote]
Which is why none of my questions today have had anything to do with the CB itself. What you wish to discuss.... has already been cleared up. There's other questions to tend to now, if you don't mind...
[/quote]

Then you are in the wrong thread, this is a DoW, we are discussing a DoW here. That typically includes the reasons for the DoW. If you wish to discuss something more abstract might I suggest the World Affairs communication channels? Or at the very lease posting a question of your own that isn't riddled with false premise like a piece of Swiss Cheese.

[Heft]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281823910' post='2416046']
I'm sorry this makes little sence to me, would the conversation you reference be the same one where you were warned not to send aid?[/quote]
I referenced two conversations, one before attacks were launched and one after. That should be pretty clear.

[quote]When you suggest you are going to do it first? Yea getting reminded that that leads to war is an attempt to avoid it. Hoo could have as easily responded with something non-committal instead of explicitly telling you that would lead to war.

Besides label is the wrong word, you try to make it sound like Rok invented the idea that sending aid to someone at war is an act of war. They didn't, its been that way, and undisputed, for as long as I can remember. And I can remember pretty damn far back.[/quote]
And I've made it quite clear that I saw RoK's actions as blatantly disregarding a minor and regular request ("let us know what's going on before you jump") that they had indicated they would honor.

Everything is contextual, and you continually strip away the reality of the situation and just parrot "you sent aid to someone they were attacking" over and over again. It's been stated over and over by myself, my peers,and my superiors that the aid should not have been authorized. No one disputes that. All that is being pointed out is that the aid was not, in this instance, an act of naked aggression or provocation as you claim in almost every single post (again regardless of what is being said).

No one really disputes that a war [i]could[/i] have come of this, but that doesn't mean it should have, and certainly not in the manner it did. My mistake does not make RoK automatically correct or faultless in how they handled the situation, both before and after the aid was sent. We have admitted our mistake repeatedly and constantly. What you are doing is trying to pretend that the only errors or disrespectful actions came from us, even as people repeatedly point out to you how that does not seem to be the case even now, and certainly did not seem to be the case a week ago.

[quote]If you want to go the route that Rok committed an act of war by attacking Sedrick after he was accepted into the NSO them you must also allow that NSO supported his attacks against TENE when they let him in and offered protection without first clearing him from his pre-existing wars. So which act of war do you want to go with? the aid to a nation at war? or taking in and supporting a nation at war there by joining him? Either way NSO messed up on a grand scale, and do so first.
[/quote]
At no point did we ever act or intend to act in any material way to the detriment of TENE or RoK [i]prior to[/i] RoK aggressively attacking a nation they knew we considered as a member without taking the small amount of effort needed for us to clear him for further attacks.

And no, I'm not saying the aid was the correct response, before you just parrot the aid back at me. I am stating the situation which led to the aid being sent. You can continue to ignore this and pretend that we're arguing something other than what we're actually arguing, in which case I will simply ignore you.

[PotFace]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281832505' post='2416184']
(... a whole bunch of not addressing any questions that have been asked still) +

Then you are in the wrong thread, this is a DoW, we are discussing a DoW here. That typically includes the reasons for the DoW. If you wish to discuss something more abstract might I suggest the World Affairs communication channels? Or at the very lease posting a question of your own that isn't riddled with false premise like a piece of Swiss Cheese.
[/quote]

[i]We[/i] aren't discussing a DoW. [i]I'm[/i] discussing a DoW. [i]You[/i] are discussing little more than the CB. They're not the same thing. There's more to a DoW than just the CB. For example, there are many occasions in which an alliance obtains a CB, but decides not to DoW. This wasn't the case with this war, and I feel that some of us deserve to know why. I understand your infatuation with the CB, but this, as you pointed out, is a DoW topic. Welcome to it.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for the reasoning behind the questions that I ask, but, they're very simple questions. I can certainly understand why you wouldn't want to answer them - particularly if you don't have any good answer. In case you haven't noticed, I've been asking questions that I know that you guys don't have any good answers for. There's a few reasons why there aren't any good answers (at this time); 1) because they involve foresight and other aspects of the DoW that you guys never even considered enough to be prepared to address in the first place, and 2) to show everyone that if you [i]had[/i] taken the time to consider these aspects, then the idea of being war-mongers would have dissolved away long ago.

Since you feel that my premises are false, let's back up and get to the very meat of the very simple questions that I have repeatedly asked, yet have not received any answer to:

- Why couldn't RoK handle this situation without posting a DoW?
- Why weren't surrender terms issued along with the DoW?
- Why is it that surrender terms still haven't been issued, several days into the war?
- Why did the OP consist of just the CB, and not any additional information about the DoW?
- Why weren't additional diplomatic efforts made, considering that the DoW was posted less than 24 hours after the logs happened?
- Why didn't RoK allow TENE to post the DoW when it was their problem to begin with?

I apologize if there was any confusion in relaying these questions to you. And.... go.

[Toshiro Hitsugaya]

Rather petty... and un-classy.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Hitsugaya

[KingEd]

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281834135' post='2416201']
- Why couldn't RoK handle this situation without posting a DoW?[/quote]

They tried diplomacy, but it failed. Hoo went to NSO and he clearly stated that aiding of the nation[rogue] in question would be a direct act of War on Ragnarok. When NSO aided said nation, they forced Rok's hand.

[Hyperion321]

Good luck RoK! I envy you

[Leigon]

- Why couldn't RoK handle this situation without posting a DoW?

Because the Sith would have been harping on about the cowardly Superfriends then.

- Why weren't surrender terms issued along with the DoW?

Since when are Surrnder Terms automatically issued from day one of any conflict?

- Why is it that surrender terms still haven't been issued, several days into the war?

Because not even the first war has expired.

- Why did the OP consist of just the CB, and not any additional information about the DoW?

Because that's all that's needed to show that Rok got a CB.

- Why weren't additional diplomatic efforts made, considering that the DoW was posted less than 24 hours after the logs happened?

That's really the only interesting question and it got answered a few pages back by Hyperbad. From NSOs point of view there might have been a reason for more diplomacy. From Roks point of view though as soon as that aid was sent the war started. They had clearly announced their intentions to NSO and declaring it on OWF was more or less a formality. Therefore further talks would only mean lost manpower that could be better used for war preparations.

- Why didn't RoK allow TENE to post the DoW when it was their problem to begin with?

The people repsonsible for posting the DoW probably weren't online when the need to strike quickly became evident. So I'm guessing that mostly practical reasons dictated the DoWs.

edit: I hope this helps.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Leigon

[renrohns]

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1281841736' post='2416262']
They tried diplomacy, but it failed. Hoo went to NSO and he clearly stated that aiding of the nation[rogue] in question would be a direct act of War on Ragnarok. When NSO aided said nation, they forced Rok's hand.
[/quote]

You would bring that up. Next you're going to mention how we put a gun to RoK's head and made them attack one of our members and that we hid VE's car keys until they agreed to come to RoK's aid.

[Sir Keshav IV]

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281834135' post='2416201']
[i]
[/i]- Why couldn't RoK handle this situation without posting a DoW?
- Why weren't surrender terms issued along with the DoW?
- Why is it that surrender terms still haven't been issued, several days into the war?
- Why did the OP consist of just the CB, and not any additional information about the DoW?
- Why weren't additional diplomatic efforts made, considering that the DoW was posted less than 24 hours after the logs happened?
- Why didn't RoK allow TENE to post the DoW when it was their problem to begin with?


[/quote]

Let me see if I can answer them out of complete boredom

1) They tried, to them it seemed it failed and therefore this DoW was needed.
2) Why should they give surrender terms the moment they put up a DoW? I don't see any reason to do so
3) The first round of wars aren't even over, I don't think they need issue surrender terms until one complete round of war is over
4) The OP has enough information for the DoW. It shows where diplomacy has failed ( in Hoo's point of view ) and the Casus Belli and why RoK feel they have been attacked by NSO ( by aiding a rogue in their mind ) and I think that is all that is needed for a DoW.
5) You got me there, I can't answer that because I'm not in RoK/VE/RnR/GOD government to answer that.
6) TENE did post a DoW well after RoK but it's still there, so I don't see a problem there at all.

[KingEd]

[quote name='renrohns' timestamp='1281848059' post='2416371']
You would bring that up. Next you're going to mention how we put a gun to RoK's head and made them attack one of our members and that we hid VE's car keys until they agreed to come to RoK's aid.
[/quote]

Your words not mine. For the record; stop playing "Victim", that boat sailed 32 pages ago.

[Louisa]

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281796806' post='2415692']
Explain how it is that a DoW was necessary to remedy this situation.
[/quote]

It was necessary in order to halt the peacewise movement of the Sithian hordes, obviously. I thought that we already established this like days ago? [img]http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r7/Louisa00/emot-awesomedowns.gif[/img]

[Sir Keshav IV]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1281834065' post='2416200']

At no point did we ever act or intend to act in any material way to the detriment of TENE or RoK [i]prior to[/i] RoK aggressively attacking a nation they knew we considered as a member without taking the small amount of effort needed for us to clear him for further attacks.

And no, I'm not saying the aid was the correct response, before you just parrot the aid back at me. I am stating the situation which led to the aid being sent. You can continue to ignore this and pretend that we're arguing something other than what we're actually arguing, in which case I will simply ignore you.
[/quote]

I have only one question to this: Did NSO know of Sedrick and RoK's issues before you accepted him?

* Sorry if this question was asked earlier but I'm interested in seeing what your reply is.