Decree of the Sith

[Ashoka the Great]

Given what started this war, it might be a good idea for the NSO to inform its members not to accept aid packages from allied alliances or those who might be allies-of-allies, even if they are "[url="http://www.cybernations.net/search_aid.asp?searchstring=Declaring_Alliance%2CReceiving_Alliance&search=New%20Sith%20Order&anyallexact=exact"]tech deals[/url]".

Just a friendly suggestion. And in keeping with the spirit of the OP, too.

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='Viking' timestamp='1281459801' post='2409831']
Again, the only thing that involves NSO in this is what happened [i][b]AFTER[/b][/i] he joined NSO. You all should have done the legwork to find the truth [i][b]BEFORE[/b][/i] you admitted him, like every other alliance does.

What happened was a failure of your admittance policy. You're a soveriegn alliance, you can do what you wish, but don't cry when your dumb policy gets you smacked around.
[/quote]

You fail to understand our admittance policy. We have accepted rogues and ZI-listers for over a year. We agree to protect them from attacks or coercion beyond their current condition. When RoK staked claim, this falls under the "further" category. I have had no problem releasing such members in the past, and other alliances have had no problems providing simple proof for their claims.

[BamaBuc]

Just like old times.

-Bama

[thisperson]

[quote name='m3g4tr0n' timestamp='1281454440' post='2409704']
I would like to see them stop hiding behind their CB, man up, and admit that they're only doing this to destroy NSO.
[/quote]

You have faulty logic and I don't believe you understand what a Causus Belli is for. Let me help you. A CB = You done goof'd and we're going to smash you for it, because there is a conflict of interests between the two of us (tl;dr: an event used to justify starting a war). Now, if you don't know what war leads to (Pro-tip: Destruction) I weep for our collective intelligence.

[quote name='Viking' timestamp='1281459227' post='2409813']
Hoo didn't say "aid, and we'll negotiate more" he said "aid and we'll smash you". Why are people still arguing that Hoo didn't negotiate further?
[/quote]

This.

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281460156' post='2409839']
So are we changing the CB now? I thought we were at war because we aided the guy. Not because of our policy. If this is the case, I suggest you reword your CB a little bit.
[/quote]

Faulty logic seems to be a running theme amongst you blokes. /Dig. Again, I hate to point out the obvious, but your policies dictate your actions. Your actions dictate global reception. Now, if you don't see how this can lead to war, then you're just stupid. (Actions provide CBs)

So your policy enabled you to accept an unaligned who was at war with an alliance, otherwise known as a rogue under other alliance's policy. Do you see what I did there?

All I see here is a conflict where NSO and Rok tried to enact their own policy. NSO should have had enough sense of self preservation to not provoke Rok after Hoo explicitly stated his future actions, should the conditions be met. And before you start again with the whole, 'We will do as we wish, and pull out all our guns to protect every-individual member!' Understand that Rok is protecting TENE, and doing the same thing you are, only with less stupidity and belligerence. Hint, he didn't provoke your .gov, your .gov provoked him.

And arguing otherwise (that .gov actions are not the et al qualifier for warfare) is just dumb. Yes, yes they are. Government members are the heads of alliances, look towards the men (or women) that you trust with your pixels before they're called into action, lest you prove them lacking once events have transpired.

-This has been a public service announcement by thisperson.

tl;dr: Enjoy your grave.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='thisperson' timestamp='1281462031' post='2409896']
Faulty logic seems to be a running theme amongst you blokes. /Dig. Again, I hate to point out the obvious, but your policies dictate your actions. Your actions dictate global reception. Now, if you don't see how this can lead to war, then you're just stupid. (Actions provide CBs)

So your policy enabled you to accept an unaligned who was at war with an alliance, otherwise known as a rogue under other alliance's policy. Do you see what I did there?

All I see here is a conflict where NSO and Rok tried to enact their own policy. NSO should have had enough sense of self preservation to not provoke Rok after Hoo explicitly stated his future actions, should the conditions be met. And before you start again with the whole, 'We will do as we wish, and pull out all our guns to protect every-individual member!' Understand that Rok is protecting TENE, and doing the same thing you are, only with less stupidity and belligerence. Hint, he didn't provoke your .gov, your .gov provoked him.

And arguing otherwise (that .gov actions are not the et al qualifier for warfare) is just dumb. Yes, yes they are. Government members are the heads of alliances, look towards the men (or women) that you trust with your pixels before they're called into action, lest you prove them lacking once events have transpired.

-This has been a public service announcement by thisperson.

tl;dr: Enjoy your grave.
[/quote]

Oh really? You realize I can say the exact same thing to you guys. Attacking a member of an alliance regardless if he's a rogue or not is bad policy on your part. What exactly makes it that your policy is right? Because everyone else does it? Because there's a large amount of precedent? Or maybe because you have the bigger boot?

Regardless, that's not what I'm saying and I'm pretty sure you misread it. Your little friend that I quoted seems to think that we are at war because of our "dumb policy". I say no. That is not the [b]reason[/b] we are at war. That might be an underlying cause that snowballed into the reason, but it certainly isn't the current justification for war. It seems that people like you want us to change our policy through this war. If you want to make demands as such, you would have to change your CB. We've been told very clearly by RoK that we are being DoW'd because of Heft's actions. Which is fine. We can apologize for that. You can declare war on us for that. But if you want us to apologize for accepting him in the first place, you would have to change your CB. Do you see the logic there? I don't think you do. Because if you wanted to declare war on us because of our policy, why didn't you do so at the moment we accepted him? You see? You can't make that argument here.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Jrenster

[R&R-Viking]

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281462595' post='2409915']
Your little friend that I quoted seems to think that we are at war because of our "dumb policy". I say no. That is not the [b]reason[/b] we are at war.
[/quote]

Did you read the DoW Hoo posted?

You might want to.

[Feuersturm]

[quote name='BlkAK47002' timestamp='1281457148' post='2409767']
Actually those 4 alliances were needed. And they admit to it earlier in the thread.

I know, what a shame.
[/quote]

Agreed. Good luck NSO!

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Viking' timestamp='1281462812' post='2409922']
Did you read the DoW Hoo posted?

You might want to.
[/quote]

Yes. I did.

[quote]I made it very clear that sending aid to the rogue would be considered an act of war. Moments later, aid was sent from the NSO to the rogue nation.[/quote]

I think he made it "very clear" that we are at war because we sent aid to the rogue.

[R&R-Viking]

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281462977' post='2409928']
Yes. I did.



I think he made it "very clear" that we are at war because we sent aid to the rogue.
[/quote]

Which is your policy, which is what you say isn't the reason for the war.

I'll be here all week, folks.

[Letum]

[quote name='thisperson' timestamp='1281462031' post='2409896']
All I see here is a conflict where NSO and Rok tried to enact their own policy. NSO should have had enough sense of self preservation to not provoke Rok after Hoo explicitly stated his future actions, should the conditions be met. And before you start again with the whole, 'We will do as we wish, and pull out all our guns to protect every-individual member!' Understand that Rok is protecting TENE, and doing the same thing you are, only with less stupidity and belligerence. Hint, he didn't provoke your .gov, your .gov provoked him.
[/quote]

Conflicts of interest can be easily solved if the two parties simply do not want war. Did you see NSO declaring war when RoK attacked their member without clearance? Of course not, but that can "technically" be an act of war as much as aiding can. Likewise, if RoK had not wanted war, they could have easily continued negotiations beyond the mere pittance of a single day, and demanded restitution for the aid. Or provided what NSO asked for. Or accepted the offers of mediation. Or just plain waited. But they didn't, because wars in our world evolve primarily not because of their triggers, but because you just don't like the other guy. Events like these are excuses and pretexts - 6m is not a threat to RoK, NSO merely happens to be an alliance on the "outside" of the power structure that won't bow down when faced with gun-ho politics.

And yes, I am fully aware of the irony.

[Lord Boris]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1281460569' post='2409849']
Given what started this war, it might be a good idea for the NSO to inform its members not to accept aid packages from allied alliances or those who might be allies-of-allies, even if they are "[url="http://www.cybernations.net/search_aid.asp?searchstring=Declaring_Alliance%2CReceiving_Alliance&search=New%20Sith%20Order&anyallexact=exact"]tech deals[/url]".

Just a friendly suggestion. And in keeping with the spirit of the OP, too.
[/quote]

My favorite is the CSN member who sent an NSO guy 3m for tech while the NSO member in question is fighting 2 TENE members and 1 RoK member

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Viking' timestamp='1281463083' post='2409932']
Which is your policy, which is what you say isn't the reason for the war.

I'll be here all week, folks.
[/quote]

No. Our policy is accepting rogues and ZI listers. Our policy is not to send aid to them. That is where Heft misjudged. Unfortunately, I can't be here all week, nor all day. At least not to deal with people who don't read.

[R&R-Viking]

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281463199' post='2409935']
No. Our policy is accepting rogues and ZI listers. Our policy is not to send aid to them. That is where Heft misjudged. Unfortunately, I can't be here all week, nor all day. At least not to deal with people who don't read.
[/quote]

If you didn't admit him, you wouldn't be here!

Dumb policy started this, I stand behind my words.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Viking' timestamp='1281463272' post='2409936']
If you didn't admit him, you wouldn't be here!

Dumb policy started this, I stand behind my words.
[/quote]

Listen. I know what you're saying, but you're wrong. If we hadn't had aided him, and we waited for your evidence to come down, we would've kicked him out already. Do you see where I'm going with this? There was a choice to be made, and we made the wrong one.

[Letum]

[quote name='Lord Boris' timestamp='1281463196' post='2409934']
My favorite is the CSN member who sent an NSO guy 3m for tech while the NSO member in question is fighting 2 TENE members and 1 RoK member
[/quote]

That aid was actually before the DoW I believe.

[Lord Boris]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1281463411' post='2409942']
That aid was actually before the DoW I believe.
[/quote]

It was, yes, but it still bears the mark of humorous irony.

[thisperson]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1281463176' post='2409933']
Conflicts of interest can be easily solved if the two parties simply do not want war. Did you see NSO declaring war when RoK attacked their member without clearance? Of course not, but that can "technically" be an act of war as much as aiding can. Likewise, if RoK had not wanted war, they could have easily continued negotiations beyond the mere pittance of a single day, and demanded restitution for the aid. Or provided what NSO asked for. Or accepted the offers of mediation. Or just plain waited. But they didn't, because wars in our world evolve primarily not because of their triggers, but because you just don't like the other guy. Events like these are excuses and pretexts - 6m is not a threat to RoK, NSO merely happens to be an alliance on the "outside" of the power structure that won't bow down when faced with gun-ho politics.

And yes, I am fully aware of the irony.
[/quote]

Rok, as a sovereign alliance, is fully capable of deciding what constitutes war. Did they want war? Well actions speak for themselves, so yes, yes they did. Did NSO want war under these same standards? Yes, it appears so as well. I don't see a problem here. Two alliances played chicken. Neither blinked and it just so happens that one was in a tank, and the other was dropping explosives from a B-52.

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281463342' post='2409940']
Listen. I know what you're saying, but you're wrong. If we hadn't had aided him, and we waited for your evidence to come down, we would've kicked him out already. Do you see where I'm going with this? There was a choice to be made, and we made the wrong one.
[/quote]

And it led to war...deal with it. What part of actions have repercussions is difficult to understand?

[Jrenster]

[quote name='thisperson' timestamp='1281463902' post='2409946']
And it led to war...deal with it. What part of actions have repercussions is difficult to understand?
[/quote]

What the hell is this deal with it crap? Aren't we dealing with it? Aren't you posting in a thread where we imply that we are dealing with it?

Also, this "led to war" argument is getting a little redundant. I don't think you are understanding my line of logic. There were choices to be made. For example, when we accepted sedrick, RoK could have declared on us right there for accepting a rogue nation. But they didn't. When RoK attacked sedrick while he was under our protection, even after we told them that he was under our protection, we could have declared that as an act of war. But we didn't because that would be a dumb thing to go to war over. When we were told not to send aid because that would be act of war, we did it anyways. That's what caused the war. Do you see the choices being made and the ones that weren't made? Here you are talking about how logical you are, and yet there's not a shred of it in you.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Jrenster

[Rayvon]

[quote name='thisperson' timestamp='1281463902' post='2409946']
And it led to war...deal with it. What part of actions have repercussions is difficult to understand?
[/quote]

We're dealing with it just fine ... It's the masses that are bawwing because our treaty partners aren't coming in, and because our policies vary from the rest of you and because - hell, I don't even know half the crap everyone really has a problem with. While some members may not be 'happy' internally, we're all in this together. And we're all behind Heft.

What part of all this is so difficult to understand?

[the masheen]

[quote name='Rayvon' timestamp='1281465344' post='2409964']
We're dealing with it just fine ... It's the masses that are bawwing because our treaty partners aren't coming in, and because our policies vary from the rest of you and because - hell, I don't even know half the crap everyone really has a problem with. While some members may not be 'happy' internally, we're all in this together. And we're all behind Heft.

What part of all this is so difficult to understand?
[/quote]

Honestly, the only thing I don't understand is your reasoning. What are you trying to accomplish RIGHT NOW, by this rolling of your alliance?

[Jrenster]

[quote name='the masheen' timestamp='1281465807' post='2409974']
Honestly, the only thing I don't understand is your reasoning. What are you trying to accomplish RIGHT NOW, by this rolling of your alliance?
[/quote]

Um. Nothing. We're getting rolled. I think we're all content with fighting. Peace would be cool too, but it is a lie.

Regardless, this all lies on LintWad and Hoo. LintWad is the ultimate authority figure here that can decide on our course of action. Hoo knows what he wants, and he will convey it to LintWad appropriately.

[thisperson]

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281464108' post='2409951']
What the hell is this deal with it crap? Aren't we dealing with it? Aren't you posting in a thread where we imply that we are dealing with it?

Also, this "led to war" argument is getting a little redundant. I don't think you are understanding my line of logic. There were choices to be made. For example, when [b]1.[/b] we accepted sedrick, [b]2.[/b] RoK could have declared on us right there for accepting a rogue nation. But they didn't. [b]3.[/b] When RoK attacked sedrick while he was under our protection, even after we told them that he was under our protection, we could have declared that as an act of war. But we didn't because that would be a dumb thing to go to war over. When we were told not to send aid because that would be act of war, we did it anyways. That's what caused the war. Do you see the choices being made and the ones that weren't made? Here you are talking about how logical you are, and yet there's not a shred of it in you.
[/quote]

I'm no leader, so I do not know what your leadership is doing right now. But by deal with it I meant:

Stop attacking the damn CB through the spreading of misinformation and griping, and just take your lumps with the understanding that you were in the wrong. To rectify the situation one must first admit that a mistake was made. Should Rok admit that it was eager for war? I do not know, history is written by the victors, meaning they have you by the balls right now (meaning you don't have much say in the matter since it boils down to a point of who has more combined resolve and NS). Should NSO? Up to you. RV mentioned that you did, somewhere earlier in the thread, so I'm assuming that all that's left is peace talks. That's up to your leaders and ours.

I agree, I am not following your line of logic, but will "it doesn't make any damn sense" change your mind? No. So let's go to the elementary, in order to build an accurate understanding of how things work, you need a set of factual laws to apply to all else. That's how my understanding works. And when your premise is wrong, you then continue to build under the misconceptions. Meaning the rest of your argument is wrong. Who was in the right and who was in the wrong will boil down to whether Sedrick did spy on TENE and TENE then retaliated (keeping in mind that an exposed operation is only there because one has a superior spy force...) Or whether TENE decided to just randomly spy on an unaligned. And even then, that's a huge stretch because Sedrick wasn't in your AA at the time.

So going off of your post, your first mistake is that you believe accepting Sedrick was the correct course of action. Arguable? Yes. It was wrong because he had aggressive wars going on. It was right because he was an unaligned and seeking protection from a stomping. Depends on whose side you're on in all this.

Your next point. Yes, Rok could have declared war then and there for your acceptance of Sedrick but they didn't. This doesn't exactly scream blood thirsty alliance to me, they respected you up to that point (one could argue) but w/e your idea of reality, your universe.

You then skip ahead to Rok attacking Sedrick, and miss the logs from Rok's DoW. In which your .gov member gave Rok all the reason to DoW by being antagonistic (in that he aided Sedrick after being warned off by Hoo). Again, up to interpretation. To you it was correct because he was a member, and members get aided, although your clause of "not until all wars are resolved" is a good one). To Rok, they tolerated you and then you kicked them in the balls. Again, interpretation. (And yes, you mention them later, but an argument should be linear, just my nitpicking here, and I won't hold it against you since I'm not perfect) So your reasoning for you having a reason to DoW is moot, since it comes after Rok's, and at that point you're already in war.

All this shows me is that this is true.

[quote name='Midkn1ght' timestamp='1281419756' post='2409237']
Thats so cute to try to hang that ragtag bunch of folks who called themselves non-alliances around us. But then again, reality tends to warp itself to what you want to see anyway.
[/quote]

And yes, of course sir, I'm the illogical one.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Rayvon' timestamp='1281457326' post='2409772']
That's what happens when you bulk your alliance with inactives just to fluff your numbers and feel good about yourself.
[/quote]

From what I can tell from the NSO nations I've been fighting that's all you guys do.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Mr Damsky

[Steve Buscemi]

[quote name='BlkAK47002' timestamp='1281457148' post='2409767']
Actually those 4 alliances were needed. And they admit to it earlier in the thread.

I know, what a shame.
[/quote]
[quote name='Feuersturm' timestamp='1281462938' post='2409927']
Agreed. Good luck NSO!
[/quote]

Says the alliance that did the exact same thing countless times. The only thing different is NPO did it in a time when attacking NS ranges were much wider and when your allies had more members. You asked for Q to jump in when you wanted the #1 spot again and attacked GPA and you asked for all of 1V to join your revenge war against GATO.

The amount of hypocrisy NPO still displays is hilarious. Now, the only question is if your grand displays of cowardice when your ally is attacked are greater than your hypocrisy.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Lord Boris' timestamp='1281463196' post='2409934']
My favorite is the CSN member who sent an NSO guy 3m for tech while the NSO member in question is fighting 2 TENE members and 1 RoK member
[/quote]
Yeah, that one hurt my brain a little bit.