Ragnarok Declaration of War

[Hakim]

everyone should be seeking a way to end this war rather than continuing the same old rhetoric.

The cause is now not as important as the end.

[AnCapistan]

Letum, you're not Vladimir. Stop trying.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Mr Damsky

[Charles the Great]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1282425067' post='2425969']
Letum, you're not Vladimir. Stop trying.
[/quote]

seems to have muddied the waters quite nicely ...... lol

personally I only see this as a baiting move with the added benifit of being able to pulverize someone you dont like.

dont get me wrong the cb was more valid than most but a little excessive.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Charles the Great

[ShadowDragon]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1282411859' post='2425790']
Makes you wonder if the tinfoil-hat-wearers early on were right about attacking NSO merely being a prelude to something bigger.

[/quote]



Well it would make you wonder if you want to take random members not even in leadership or involved in the war and plaster their opinion onto the people involved. Though that seems stupid to me. I mean I could take things random members of NSO and NPO say and apply them as theories that Valhalla wanted something and is involved in some vast conspiricy but to me that just doesn't really make much sense. Though it is essentially what you and others seem to be doing. From what I've seen Hoo and others (like Tautology) have said numerous times they don't care or blame NSO's allies for staying out of the war and it is their right to do so. Just because others say otherwise doesn't automatically mean some giant conspiracy. Not everyone in the world or on the "same side" has the same opinion. I'm sure there are those who would love for NSO's allies to join but that doesn't mean those actually involved in the war had some other magical target or plans.

[Antonio Salovega VI]

[quote name='Hakim' timestamp='1282411976' post='2425792']In order for a contract to be valid it has to meet certain arguments and tests. In this case the contract between NSO and NPO have met all of the requirements to be a legal and binding contract:
1. an offer and an acceptance
2. "capacity," or being of legal age and sound competence
3. "mutual assent," or agreement on the terms of a contract
4. "consideration," or compensation for goods or services rendered

Thus this contract and most all contracts signed and posted in this forum meet those tests and are readily recognized as legal and binding. [/quote]

Who decided that those four "arguments and tests" are sufficient? Other than NSO or NPO, which potentate, court or legislature has decreed that "the contract between NSO and NPO have met [b]all[/b] of the requirements to be a legal and binding contract"? Does that descision making entity have jurisdiction and enforecment capability over NSO, NPO or any other the alliance or grouping of alliances on Planet Bob?

(OOC)You are very entertaining quoting from your li'l ol' U.S. Business Law 101 text book. You made me laugh once again. There are other countries and other localities which apply different criteria. Some only have three such requirements and others as many as nine. I acknowledge that it is a given that someone is going to point out that there are probably some places with fewer criteria or even more criteria but that will not help your case though. The entities which actually do have four, some will have a differing set of requirements from those which you listed.(/OOC)

FYI: On planet Bob the only ones who can decide sufficiency and validity of treaties are 1.) those parties actually involved in the agreement and 2.) those entities willing through force of arms to interfere. Everything else is commentary.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='ShadowDragon' timestamp='1282437971' post='2426116']


Well it would make you wonder if you want to take random members not even in leadership or involved in the war and plaster their opinion onto the people involved. Though that seems stupid to me. I mean I could take things random members of NSO and NPO say and apply them as theories that Valhalla wanted something and is involved in some vast conspiricy but to me that just doesn't really make much sense. Though it is essentially what you and others seem to be doing. From what I've seen Hoo and others (like Tautology) have said numerous times they don't care or blame NSO's allies for staying out of the war and it is their right to do so. Just because others say otherwise doesn't automatically mean some giant conspiracy. Not everyone in the world or on the "same side" has the same opinion. I'm sure there are those who would love for NSO's allies to join but that doesn't mean those actually involved in the war had some other magical target or plans.
[/quote]

When you see members of various alliances using the same buzzwords over and over in making a point, you either chalk it up to mere coincidence or you begin to see a pattern.

I don't know if there was a larger conspiracy in play or not. My sense is that no, there was not, but that gut feeling isn't based upon any more hard evidence than the conspiracy theory. It certainly bears a lot of the hallmarks of the attack on TPF around Christmas time. A CB that could/should have been negotiated, an attack of opportunity against a single alliance made by an overwhelming force, that included Rok and GOD. Of course TPF wanted help and was getting it as white peace was declared while NSO seems content to ride out the war and take aid after it is over.

Now with NSO at less than half its pre-war NS, the next logical question is, "how much punishment is sufficient for the crime?"

[Ashoka the Great]

The best part of this is that I can post three or four lines and generate more than a page of responses that I won't read.

One might almost think I was doing it....on purpose.

Dance, monkeys! Dance!

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Corinan' timestamp='1282422335' post='2425929']
Of course they were.Why else would RoK have gone to war over $6 million in aid with no negotiations whatsoever?
[/quote]
Dopp, they hate you guys really this much.

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1282447139' post='2426254']
The best part of this is that I can post three or four lines and generate more than a page of responses that I won't read.

One might almost think I was doing it....on purpose.

Dance, monkeys! Dance!
[/quote]
Welcome to the club.

[Corinan]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1282447139' post='2426254']
The best part of this is that I can post three or four lines and generate more than a page of responses that I won't read.

One might almost think I was doing it....on purpose.

Dance, monkeys! Dance!
[/quote]

All my arguments have been thoroughly refuted, so I'll just fall back on the ol' "I was only ever doing it for a reaction" bit. A timeless classic.......

[Daeryon]

The argument that alliances must follow written treaties to the letter, like robots, regardless of the wishes of the parties involved is just...




stupid.


There's no other word for it.

[Hakim]

[quote name='Antonio Salovega VI' timestamp='1282441387' post='2426161']
FYI: On planet Bob the only ones who can decide sufficiency and validity of treaties are 1.) those parties actually involved in the agreement and 2.) those entities willing through force of arms to interfere. Everything else is commentary.
[/quote]

You sir have won the argument for why in this case NPO are not cowards and are not in violation of their treaty.

Anarchical society

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1282401766' post='2425661']
I understand that logic is not your strong suit, so I'm going to type this very slowly. I know it won't actually help your reading comprehension, but it will at least give me the sense that I tried....



I have always maintained that treaties should be honored for what they say, not for some mystical 'hidden meaning' in them. The same is true of documents such as Alliance Charters and, indeed, anything that has government signatures on it.

If you can find me the spot in the NPO-NSO treaty that gives them an 'out' I shall be happy to apologize, both to you and to Pacifica. Otherwise they are ignoring the treaty. (And please don't go on about the 'NSO request'....there's no relevant clause in the treaty that requires the NSO to even [i]ask[/i] for help. The NPO is supposed to provide it automatically.)



That is one of the most unambiguous phrases I have ever encountered in a treaty. Please explain to me how it is possible to interpret it any other way than the way I have.

Actually....don't. Surely you can continue to build your reputation as a loudmouthed shill and lackey in some other discussion.
[/quote]As I have repeatedly stated to you, the key point is understanding what the word "defend" means; The treaty requires, in this case, that "NPO defend NSO"

I will first point out, again, for the thousandth time, that the word 'defense' does not make the treaty a suicide pact, like you desperately want to believe.

The first step in defense is [i]always[/i] to go to the person you are defending, and discuss with them what you both believe is the best course to defend your mutual interests.

NPO went to the NSO to discuss these matters, and as an ally of TPF, I know for a fact that all of NSO's treaty partners, bar the cowards at GATO, are keeping constant communication with the NSO. I state that because it should be obvious to anyone with a pair of neurons to rub together, that this is what responsible allies do.

NSO came to the conclusion that it is not in their best interests to have all of their allies run into the slaughter, just to have another year of massive reps extorted from them after their nations are dismantled by vastly superior forces in an unwinnable war. Peace for NSO will also be achieved quicker in the absence of a convoluted global war, and they no doubt will have their rebuilding efforts funded by their close allies; Again, these facts should be obvious to anyone with an intelligence quotient above that of mayonnaise.

As we see, NPO is, in fact, defending the NSO; Not only in the above mentioned ways, by defending the common interests of everyone including the NSO themselves, but also in the efforts of individuals to point out the flawed mentality of those in opposition to the Sith, in a very direct form of defense on the PR front.

I see by now you've fallen back onto the weak defense of "trying to get reactions from people." Good old backpedaling, seems to be a common friend of the people generally associated with the so-called 'Super Grievances' group. I don't know how necessary this response may be, but I do endeavor to answer responses to my posts. Even the rude ones, so long as it appears you're attempting to make some sort of crude, primitive argument.


[quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1282415968' post='2425841']
I don't understand why this has become a pseudo-legal discussion. If NPO wanted to enter this war, they would. They don't want to at the moment, and I don't blame them. The same is true of NSO's other allies.
[/quote]I just want to state here that you are incorrect - It is not NPO's choice whether or not they want to enter the war; The desires of Pacifica play no factor in the fact that they are not involved. The decision rested, and continues to rest, exclusively with the NSO.

This statement was just a very clever and rather subtle attempt to imply the NPO are 'cowards' per the line being argued by others. Clever and subtle enough that members of Pacifica itself fell for it.

Edited August 22, 2010 by HeroofTime55

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Corinan' timestamp='1282457768' post='2426431']
All my arguments have been thoroughly refuted, so I'll just fall back on the ol' "I was only ever doing it for a reaction" bit. A timeless classic.......
[/quote]
I type one line and get two pages of responses. I've been laughing for days.

Also, your allies are cowards.

[Captain Enema]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1282484243' post='2426591'].


I just want to state here that you are incorrect - It is not NPO's choice whether or not they want to enter the war; The desires of Pacifica play no factor in the fact that they are not involved. The decision rested, and continues to rest, exclusively with the NSO.

This statement was just a very clever and rather subtle attempt to imply the NPO are 'cowards' per the line being argued by others. Clever and subtle enough that members of Pacifica itself fell for it.
[/quote]

Oh, the way I see it, the NPO and friends will get their pay back for this. Strategically speaking not getting involved makes alot of sense. Emotionally speaking not getting involved makes the NPO and friends seem like complete pantywaists. However, this is a matter of waiting. The NSO will be rebuilt and the NSO will be the instrument of retribution, or part of it.

[KingAlphonseVII]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1282447139' post='2426254']
The best part of this is that I can post three or four lines and generate more than a page of responses that I won't read.

One might almost think I was doing it....on purpose.

Dance, monkeys! Dance!
[/quote]

You know, if treaties did amount to anything in this war, your alliance wouldn't be in a favorable position. Five minutes of sifting through the treaty web shows Nordreich allied to both sides.

If we should be following treaties to the letter, then why is Nordreich not attacking Nordreich?

[Letum]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1282447139' post='2426254']
The best part of this is that I can post three or four lines and generate more than a page of responses that I won't read.
[/quote]

Do you not read them so as to eliminate the chance you will have to concede the argument and live up to your promise of apologising?

[Antonio Salovega VI]

[quote name='Hakim' timestamp='1282480914' post='2426570']
You sir have won the argument for why in this case NPO are not cowards and are not in violation of their treaty.

Anarchical society
[/quote]

You do amuse me. You make me belly laugh and I have the stomach to do it right.

Those who contend that GATO or NPO are cowards or that their decisions were in violation of a treaty can only make arguments that are as basically flawed as your [OOC]US Business Law 101[/OOC] arguments. The same applies to those who maintain that GATO’s realistic decision to stay out of the war is fundamentally different from NPO’s practical decision to do the same. Unlike your [OOC]US Business Law 101[/OOC] arguments, both alliances made well reasoned, well formulated and pragmatic decisions. The difference I see is that GATO made their announcement on center stage in Act I and then exited stage right while NPO simply exited stage left in Act II. Whichever egress they took, both, for reasons of their own, made a pragmatic decision to stay out of the fight. Those who contend otherwise are only deluding themselves. Pragmatism is a good thing. Alliances unwilling to make pragmatic decisions do not last long on Planet Bob. My hat is off to both GATO and NPO.

o/ GATO
o/ NPO

Once again, Hakim, I thank you for the laughs.

[Bob Janova]

Oh, you e-lawyers bringing in 'legalities' from a jurisdiction which does not apply to alliances in the international sphere. ([i]OOC: Or a large number of players, as AS6 points out. If you must resort to RL justifications, at least make sure they aren't US only. That just makes you look ignorant.[/i]) It's very simple, a contract or treaty is made by mutual agreement between two or more parties, and if both or all of the parties agree to treat the document in a certain way, it doesn't matter what it actually says (for the purposes of the interactions between those two alliances). In this case NSO and NPO agree that it does not require NPO to suicide-charge Superfriends, and so it doesn't. If that makes you angry for some reason then they could simply mutually agree to amend the treaty and add the clause that would make it 'legal', but they don't need to, because it's nonsense to claim you're breaking a treaty 'obligation' if the group to whom you are obliged waives the obligation.

If NSO asks for military assistance and they don't get it, that's a whole different kettle of fish and you can wheel out the 'cowards' lines. But so far they are happy to take their beating and get rebuilding aid later on.

And Zog, if you're really just doing it to get a rise, it's a sad fall from grace for you and a sad inditement of the irrelevance of Nordreich that you must resort to such things.

As for how long it will go on for, hopefully it will not be much longer.

[Heft]

[quote name='Antonio Salovega VI' timestamp='1282490432' post='2426627']
You do amuse me. You make me belly laugh and I have the stomach to do it right.

Those who contend that GATO or NPO are cowards or that their decisions were in violation of a treaty can only make arguments that are as basically flawed as your [OOC]US Business Law 101[/OOC] arguments. The same applies to those who maintain that GATO’s realistic decision to stay out of the war is fundamentally different from NPO’s practical decision to do the same. Unlike your [OOC]US Business Law 101[/OOC] arguments, both alliances made well reasoned, well formulated and pragmatic decisions. The difference I see is that GATO made their announcement on center stage in Act I and then exited stage right while NPO simply exited stage left in Act II. Whichever egress they took, both, for reasons of their own, made a pragmatic decision to stay out of the fight. Those who contend otherwise are only deluding themselves. Pragmatism is a good thing. Alliances unwilling to make pragmatic decisions do not last long on Planet Bob. My hat is off to both GATO and NPO.

o/ GATO
o/ NPO

Once again, Hakim, I thank you for the laughs.
[/quote]
Wait when did we start talking about GATO?

We released both alliances from their military obligations and then told them to stay out, so there isn't much of a difference at that point. They didn't make the decision to stay out, we did. That's the important bit. Granted, it's an open question whether or not GATO would have actually defended us if we had asked (evidence seems to point to "no" but that's been discussed elsewhere).

From there, NPO continued to communicate with us and work with us, while GATO rushed to cancel our treaty. So, there's a difference there. Doesn't have anything to do with the discussion here, though, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

[Antonio Salovega VI]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1282493303' post='2426652']
Wait when did we start talking about GATO?

We released both alliances from their military obligations and then told them to stay out, so there isn't much of a difference at that point. They didn't make the decision to stay out, we did. That's the important bit. Granted, it's an open question whether or not GATO would have actually defended us if we had asked (evidence seems to point to "no" but that's been discussed elsewhere).

From there, NPO continued to communicate with us and work with us, while GATO rushed to cancel our treaty. So, there's a difference there. Doesn't have anything to do with the discussion here, though, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.
[/quote]


It is OK. Don't worry about it. Not everyone reads every post. To get a glimps of what I was referencing flip back and read page 87 and understanding will follow.

[Heft]

[quote name='Antonio Salovega VI' timestamp='1282494089' post='2426662']
It is OK. Don't worry about it. Not everyone reads every post. To get a glimps of what I was referencing flip back and read page 87 and understanding will follow.
[/quote]
Oh, I see. Well, my post seems to address that adequately anyway so I'll leave it.

[Andre27]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1282444489' post='2426215']
When you see members of various alliances using the same buzzwords over and over in making a point, you either chalk it up to mere coincidence or you begin to see a pattern.

I don't know if there was a larger conspiracy in play or not. My sense is that no, there was not, but that gut feeling isn't based upon any more hard evidence than the conspiracy theory. It certainly bears a lot of the hallmarks of the attack on TPF around Christmas time. A CB that could/should have been negotiated, an attack of opportunity against a single alliance made by an overwhelming force, that included Rok and GOD. Of course TPF wanted help and was getting it as white peace was declared while NSO seems content to ride out the war and take aid after it is over.

Now with NSO at less than half its pre-war NS, the next logical question is, "how much punishment is sufficient for the crime?"
[/quote]

I have to agree. The big question is: When is it enough?

[Hakim]

[quote name='Andre27' timestamp='1282496151' post='2426684']
I have to agree. The big question is: When is it enough?
[/quote]

Agreed, points have been made, others have taken note. Hopefully an end is in sight.

[shilo]

I think even without trying to make a war out of this, a point could have been made.
Now it's been made, reinforced and then strongly emphasized over and over again.
We get it: if Hoo says "this starts a war" don't do it even if it means you accepting the sovereignty of your alliance being violated - then surrender and beg for mercy.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1282447139' post='2426254']
The best part of this is that I can post three or four lines and generate more than a page of responses that I won't read.

One might almost think I was doing it....on purpose.

Dance, monkeys! Dance!
[/quote]
I certainly hope that isn't the case.

You don't seem to be very good at it apparently.

Of course, that is just my assessment, but who am I to judge?