Decree of the Sith

[Jrenster]

[quote name='thisperson' timestamp='1281466565' post='2409991']
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]

Holy cripes you are stubborn. I don't see how my premise was wrong. I don't think you even know what the hell you're talking about. And I don't care about how TENE spied that or sedrick attacked that, or whatever !@#$%^&* you pull out of your $@! because that has nothing to do with anything about what we're talking about. We are talking about how your friend says that we are at war because of our policy of accepting rogues. We are not. It's very clear that we are not.

Here are the facts:

Sedrick applied to NSO. We accept him into our protection. You are saying that this war is about our policy of accepting rogues. Under this logic, that would mean RoK would have to declare war on us for accepting him. But they did not. [i]Had[/i] they done this, the CB would be that we accept rogues to our alliance.

RoK initiated attacks against Sedrick. We could have considered that an act of war right there. But we didn't.

Hoo tells us not to aid Sedrick, otherwise it's an act of war. We aid Sedrick. Act of war. We are at war.

Do you see the line of progression? Because I don't think you do. We could have easily made different choices at each of those steps, which would lead to an entirely different war with a different CB.

Jeez man, it's not that hard. Hoo has stated countless times that we are at war because we aided Sedrick. $%&@. It even says so in his DoW. I don't see why you have to get off track and argue each point as if I was making an opinion.

And we're not attacking the CB. We're attacking at how people are misconstruing the CB for something else.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Jrenster

[bkuz712]

"you better have a good reason and be willing to back up your claims"

I think these are rather apparent.
o/ROK, GOD, VE

[Sulmar]

[quote name='thisperson' timestamp='1281466565' post='2409991']
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.
[/quote]
I think you have the timeline wrong here, the reason that Heft was even talking to Hoo was because Rok had attacked Sedrick without giving NSO any of the evidence that Sedrick had spied or whatever.

[System Lord Remus]

o/ to the glorious NSO

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Sulmar' timestamp='1281468359' post='2410026']
I think you have the timeline wrong here, the reason that Heft was even talking to Hoo was because Rok had attacked Sedrick without giving NSO any of the evidence that Sedrick had spied or whatever.
[/quote]

Not that that had mattered to NSO in any way.

[Sulmar]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1281468565' post='2410032']
Not that that had mattered to NSO in any way.
[/quote]
I'm fairly sure that if NSO had been given conclusive evidence that Sedrick had done something wrong we wouldn't have tried to aid him at all, so no it did matter.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1281468565' post='2410032']
Not that that had mattered to NSO in any way.
[/quote]

No. You're wrong.

[thisperson]

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281467584' post='2410011']
[b]Holy cripes you are stubborn. I don't see how my premise was wrong. I don't think you even know what the hell you're talking about. And I don't care about how TENE spied that or sedrick attacked that, or whatever !@#$%^&* you pull out of your $@! because that has nothing to do with anything about what we're talking about. We are talking about how your friend says that we are at war because of our policy of accepting rogues. We are not. It's very clear that we are not. [/b]

[b]Here are the facts:[/b]

[b]Sedrick applied to NSO. We accept him into our protection. You are saying that this war is about our policy of accepting rogues. Under this logic, that would mean RoK would have to declare war on us for accepting him. But they did not. [i]Had[/i] they done this, the CB would be that we accept rogues to our alliance.[/b]

You fail to understand that things are interconnected. Your policy is what led to war, but having a DoW because of your policy reeks of arrogance, and no alliance would commit that mistake. Besides, who really gives a crap about said policy? I don't care if you change it, I'm letting you know it's not practical. And if you keep it and it leads to more problems later on, well all the more fun to watch. But harboring someone who was at war, is considered an act of war, we both agree on this. You are arguing semantics regarding warfare, and you want Rok to acknowledge some superiority in you by saying that they're going to destroy XX-thing (kind of like saying it's a war against terror, and the audacity required for such a move speaks volumes). Stop it, you're making a fool of yourself. It has nothing to do with your policy regarding the DoW but everything to do with it in leading up to war. This is what I think you don't get.

[b]RoK initiated attacks against Sedrick. We could have considered that an act of war right there. But we didn't. [/b] No, no you couldn't. The first act of war was already committed when you accepted the nation that was at war. For all intents you are at war, and your leaders should do damage control before that translates to in-game action.

[b]Hoo tells us not to aid Sedrick, otherwise it's an act of war. We aid Sedrick. Act of war. We are at war.[/b] Yes.

[b]Do you see the line of progression? Because I don't think you do. We could have easily made different choices at each of those steps, which would lead to an entirely different war with a different CB. [/b]

[b]Jeez man, it's not that hard. Hoo has stated countless times that we are at war because we aided Sedrick. $%&@. It even says so in his DoW. I don't see why you have to get off track and argue each point as if I was making an opinion.[/b] You're right, I don't see why I'm arguing this now either. I'm done. Talk about caring too damn much and wanting things set straight.

[b]And we're not attacking the CB. We're attacking at how people are misconstruing the CB for something else.[/b] Semantics.
[/quote]

Edit: Bold is you. I'm just text.

Edited August 10, 2010 by thisperson

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Sulmar' timestamp='1281468705' post='2410036']
I'm fairly sure that if NSO had been given conclusive evidence that Sedrick had done something wrong we wouldn't have tried to aid him at all, so no it did matter.
[/quote]

Judging by NSOs actions of aiding the rogue after being warned not to and their piss poor attempt to retrieve what evidence they desired, Id say that would have hardly beeen the case.

Keep trying to claw your way out of this one, Im enjoying this.

Edited August 10, 2010 by tamerlane

[Jrenster]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1281469280' post='2410045']
Judging by NSOs actions of aiding the rogue after being warned not to and their piss poor attempt to retrieve what evidence they desired, Id say that would have hardly beeen the case.

Keep trying to claw your way out of this one, Im enjoying this.
[/quote]

Yes. You are us. You know everything we are thinking. I'm sorry massa.

And thisperson. Dude. You're wrong. Shut up.

[Xiphosis]

[quote]And thisperson. Dude. You're wrong. Shut up. [/quote]

A stunning riposte.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1281469785' post='2410057']
A stunning riposte.
[/quote]

It still lacks the quality of language of some of your works though.

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281469923' post='2410059']
It still lacks the quality of language of some of your works though.
[/quote]

Keep on like this and someone might not notice you're utterly ignoring TP trying to argue this out with you. What's the matter, faith wavering?

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1281470044' post='2410061']
Keep on like this and someone might not notice you're utterly ignoring TP trying to argue this out with you. What's the matter, faith wavering?
[/quote]

I don't have faith. Never have. No need for it.

And TP isn't arguing with me. He's ignoring my main argument. I'm not going to say the same thing over and over again.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281469547' post='2410049']
Yes. You are us. You know everything we are thinking. I'm sorry massa.

And thisperson. Dude. You're wrong. Shut up.
[/quote]

You are irrelevant to this conversation. Quiet down while the big boys talk.

Edited August 10, 2010 by tamerlane

[Sulmar]

Do I need to put you children into time out?

[Thunder Strike]

[quote name='LucasSnow' timestamp='1281459376' post='2409817']
Didn't RoK hit a NSO memeber first though? Before any Aid was sent or any talks were had? Seems the fault lies with RoK then, for not contacting NSO before launching said attacks. Oh logic, how you fail to be recognized by most.

By this line of thought RoK had already started an aggressive war against NSO before any of these talks or Aid even occurred.
[/quote]

By that same logic NSO committed an act of war by accepting a rogue.

Either way, the fault lies with NSO.

[Xiphosis]

[quote]Didn't RoK hit a NSO memeber first though? [/quote]

Who was actively attacking a protectorate, yes.

[R&R-Viking]

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281470120' post='2410064']
I don't have faith. Never have. No need for it.

And TP isn't arguing with me. He's ignoring my main argument. I'm not going to say the same thing over and over again.
[/quote]

Your main argument has been torn to shreds repeatedly by multiple people. Your main argument fails.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Viking' timestamp='1281472020' post='2410108']
Your main argument has been torn to shreds repeatedly by multiple people. Your main argument fails.
[/quote]

Oh really. I would like you to point out where it has been torn apart. Please, tell me.

[R&R-Viking]

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281472060' post='2410109']
Oh really. I would like you to point out where it has been torn apart. Please, tell me.
[/quote]

The part where you implied accepting people with wars didn't cause this war.

[Rayvon]

[quote name='Viking' timestamp='1281472206' post='2410111']
The part where you implied accepting people with wars didn't cause this war.
[/quote]

It didn't. Failed diplomacy did.

Whether or not we choose to accept vagabonds, thieves, your mom, rogues, or whomever - is our choice. Not yours. Not Hoos. Not Admins.

The reason we're at war is because of a bad decision over sending aid without getting proper information (which they were not willing to share anyways).

Edited August 10, 2010 by Rayvon

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Viking' timestamp='1281472206' post='2410111']
The part where you implied accepting people with wars didn't cause this war.
[/quote]

I don't think I implied that. I believe I explicitly stated that. And where are the multiple people you referenced? And where are your arguments?

I'm pretty sure Hoo has explicitly stated to us, in this thread, and in private channels, that we are at war because we aided a rogue. This has been a very important point to him. I'm not sure if anything else matters to him, but it appears that it will become the driving force of our peace process.

Now, yes, the event of accepting him cause another event which caused another event to bring about this war. But they are all wholly irrelevant to this issue at hand. Let's take a hypothetical. Had we not accepted the rogue into our alliance and sent him aid, we would still be at war, wouldn't we? Do you know why? Because that is not why Hoo declared war on us. If you want to demand us to change our policy, you must change your CB. Otherwise, you're fighting for the wrong reasons.

[R&R-Viking]

[quote name='Rayvon' timestamp='1281472511' post='2410117']
It didn't. Failed diplomacy did.

Whether or not we choose to accept vagabonds, thieves, your mom, rogues, or whomever - is our choice. Not yours. Not Hoos. Not Admins.

The reason we're at war is because of a bad decision over sending aid without getting proper information (which they were not willing to share anyways).
[/quote]

You people keep thinking I'm saying you shouldn't have that policy. I don't care what you do. Dig up Moldavi's corpse and have relations with it for all I care. Your policy doesn't jive with the rest of the world, it directly led to NSO admitting a nation before the NSO had all the facts (whatever they may be) and that's why the war started.

Besides, if you let trash in the alliance, sooner or later one will get to be gov and make a rash decision that gets you attacked. That may or may not be the case here.

[Letum]

[quote name='Viking' timestamp='1281472784' post='2410123']
Besides, if you let trash in the alliance, sooner or later one will get to be gov and make a rash decision that gets you attacked.
[/quote]

A significant number of the "downtrodden" in the world are far from trash, merely out of favour with the status quo. While I am not insinuating that random rogues are somehow gems, being able to welcome talented people who nobody else would take because of their history does tend to give your alliance significant talent.