Decree of the Sith

[NoFish]

[quote name='Geoffron X' timestamp='1281903838' post='2416917']
Heyyyyyy you guys are attacking people other than those who sent/authorized the aid. What's up wit dat?
[/quote]
As the song goes, "When you don't control your own government, people want to kill you."

[Haflinger]

[quote name='LokiLockpicker' timestamp='1281932167' post='2417484']
That is a rather good question. If Sedrick was 'attacked' by spies, why did he wait that long to respond to it? Though the better question would be, why did he respond at all, since at worst that would be considered a prelude to a tech raid on him, with tech raiding still being accepted in the world.
[/quote]
Sedrick's spy attack is documented as taking place while he was an applicant to MHA.

MHA's role in this whole affair is murky at best.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1281941426' post='2417678']
Sedrick's spy attack is documented as taking place while he was an applicant to MHA.

MHA's role in this whole affair is murky at best.
[/quote]

I beleive they turned him down when they found out he had baggage. Like most alliances do.

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281953383' post='2417779']
I beleive they turned him down when they found out he had baggage. Like most alliances do.
[/quote]

VE just doesn't have the balls to accept that type of members and give them a second chance, you know, sometimes it actually works out nicely. Not surprising, since VE doesn't even have the balls to stick around with allies when it looks like the tables are turning.

Edited August 16, 2010 by memoryproblems

[Goldie]

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1281954154' post='2417782']
VE just doesn't have the balls to accept that type of members and give them a second chance, you know, sometimes it actually works out nicely. Not surprising, since VE doesn't even have the balls to stick around with allies when it looks like the tables are turning.
[/quote]

Hah, your statement would be true if it wasn't so fantastically incorrect.

VE actually has a long history of taking in and protecting members that need it. When we do it, we talk to the alliance first hand, and see if we can sort out the issue. If we can't, and we really wish to protect the member and think he is being unjustly gunned for, we will take him in. The clear difference in between how VE does it and how NSO did it here is that when we piss people off by accepting members and get ourselves ready to be attacked. We ring the bells of our allies, get ourselves prepared, and dig in. VE was pretty certain what ended up being the Karma War would be fought with NPO and GGA attacking VE over protecting shaneprice. If anyone has someone on an EZI list we'd be happy to ignore that and accept the member, and face the consequences.

That is the issue though, we will face the consequences. We will do what we think is right, but not be surprised when war comes at our doorstep. Perhaps that is why we are in the position we are in, because we have our ideology but also have the pragmatism to understand when it will get us in trouble, as opposed to the people we end up fighting, who do not share that same preparedness and pragmatism toward consequences, which leads them into unfortunate positions.

[o-dog]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281904785' post='2416934']
When alliance government $%&@s up, they buy trouble not just for themselves but their entire alliance.
[/quote]

I hope this comes back to haunt you.

[Baden-Württemberg]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281899334' post='2416854']
I donnuo I'm gov in an alliance that actually gets incoming members peace before picking them up and getting into wars, I think that alone puts me above your current home. So no, not a self evident statement.

My alliance solves problems before they blow up into something to get us attacked, your alliance provokes run of the mill FA disputes into issues that get them rolled, who's the bloody moron in this case?

I know you might be a wee bit bitter, but the bias is showing.
[/quote]

For escalating a conflict you always need two.

Because if the fellow were accepted by a "untouchable" alliance, ROK would have tried harder.

[Hob Dobson]

[quote name='O-Dog' timestamp='1281961165' post='2417830']
I hope this comes back to haunt you.
[/quote]

The Viridian Entente has screwed up more than once in the past and paid for the blunder, directly or not. There's no reason to doubt that it will happen again in the future. Perhaps it will be the Sith prosecuting that mistake, perhaps it won't.

[Jimbei]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281904785' post='2416934']
When alliance government $%&@s up, they buy trouble not just for themselves but their entire alliance.
[/quote]
That's why the people put gov in power in NSO.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1281954154' post='2417782']
VE just doesn't have the balls to accept that type of members and give them a second chance, you know, sometimes it actually works out nicely. Not surprising, since VE doesn't even have the balls to stick around with allies when it looks like the tables are turning.
[/quote]

You are so wrong its hilarous. VE extended its diplomatic and in some cases military influence so often to get people cleared off hitlists that we have a policy governing how someone can be admitted to the alliance under those conditions. We call it the Cost of Mercy Act. It governs conditions of membership if VE diplomats or leaders had to work(or pay) to get you off a hitlist.

[quote name='O-Dog' timestamp='1281961165' post='2417830']
I hope this comes back to haunt you.
[/quote]

This would be why the phrase "I must consult with the rest of my government and get back to you" should be in everyone's diplomatic lexicon. This way one person doesn't do something stupid on the spur of the moment.

[Valtamdraugr]

[quote name='Baden-Württemberg' timestamp='1281963487' post='2417848']
Because if the fellow were accepted by a "untouchable" alliance, ROK would have tried harder.
[/quote]
No one is untouchable.

If we fail to act, out of fear, we have lost ourselves.

[Dubsy]

[quote name='Valtamdraugr' timestamp='1281993810' post='2418259']
No one is untouchable.

If we fail to act, out of fear, we have lost ourselves.
[/quote]

All alliances aren't untouchable, but some alliances are more untouchable than others.

[Baden-Württemberg]

[quote name='Valtamdraugr' timestamp='1281993810' post='2418259']
No one is untouchable.

If we fail to act, out of fear, we have lost ourselves.
[/quote]

That's what you [i]want[/i] to believe. And at the same time far from the truth.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1281882668' post='2416653']
Are you saying we should have declared war on him earlier?
[/quote]
Yes.

You should have declared on him when the dispute began. Instead, you waited several days. If you'd had a nation on him within 24 hours of the beginning of the dispute, none of this would have happened.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1281957685' post='2417806']
VE actually has a long history of taking in and protecting members that need it.
[/quote]
You actually have a long history of ejecting and not protecting members that Ephriam Grey didn't like. Sorry, but some of us have a memory.

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1282001227' post='2418369']
You should have declared on him when the dispute began. Instead, you waited several days. If you'd had a nation on him within 24 hours of the beginning of the dispute, none of this would have happened.
[/quote]

Thats an absolute statement that you cant possibly back with any measure of proof, you simply cannot say absolutely what would or would not happen if other criteria were present. Now if you had said "Its likely that" or "I am will to bet that" those types of additions to your posts would go along way to decreasing your bias (you can still have them of course) and help with your credability.

As it stands now Haf you are becoming the resident windbag, which is fine the world needs a jester but if you want to garnish some measure of objectivity going forward I highly reccomend you adopt more carefully worded prose. Unless of course you are content with pontificating to the same audience over and over.... I dont know, I would think it gets lonely after awhile.

[Rayvon]

[quote name='Thorgrum' timestamp='1282002331' post='2418385']
Thats an absolute statement that you cant possibly back with any measure of proof, you simply cannot say absolutely what would or would not happen if other criteria were present. Now if you had said "Its likely that" or "I am will to bet that" those types of additions to your posts would go along way to decreasing your bias (you can still have them of course) and help with your credability.

As it stands now Haf you are becoming the resident windbag, which is fine the world needs a jester but if you want to garnish some measure of objectivity going forward I highly reccomend you adopt more carefully worded prose. Unless of course you are content with pontificating to the same audience over and over.... I dont know, I would think it gets lonely after awhile.
[/quote]

Considering the aid was sent because they waited till he was on our AA till they made those attacks (3 days later), he's actually pretty damn accurate.

Bottom line, regardless of the error of sending aid - he was attacked on our AA without proper attempts at discussion. For the 100000000th time.

[LokiLockpicker]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1282001227' post='2418369']
Yes.

You should have declared on him when the dispute began. Instead, you waited several days. If you'd had a nation on him within 24 hours of the beginning of the dispute, none of this would have happened.
[/quote]

My *sources say they had nations on him within 21 hours of him declaring an offensive war on their protectorate. Before that point, they really had no reason to attack him, even though his supposed reasons for attacking were from several days prior according to my *sources.

*said sources including screenshots posted in this thread and a quick search for Sedrick's wars

[Heft]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1281957685' post='2417806']
Hah, your statement would be true if it wasn't so fantastically incorrect.

VE actually has a long history of taking in and protecting members that need it. When we do it, we talk to the alliance first hand, and see if we can sort out the issue. If we can't, and we really wish to protect the member and think he is being unjustly gunned for, we will take him in. The clear difference in between how VE does it and how NSO did it here is that when we piss people off by accepting members and get ourselves ready to be attacked. We ring the bells of our allies, get ourselves prepared, and dig in. VE was pretty certain what ended up being the Karma War would be fought with NPO and GGA attacking VE over protecting shaneprice. If anyone has someone on an EZI list we'd be happy to ignore that and accept the member, and face the consequences.

That is the issue though, we will face the consequences. We will do what we think is right, but not be surprised when war comes at our doorstep. Perhaps that is why we are in the position we are in, because we have our ideology but also have the pragmatism to understand when it will get us in trouble, as opposed to the people we end up fighting, who do not share that same preparedness and pragmatism toward consequences, which leads them into unfortunate positions.
[/quote]
Your post kind of devolved into a lot of "Rah Rah YAY VE!" fluff but it sounds like you think we were correct in accepting and aiding sedrick?

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='LokiLockpicker' timestamp='1282005713' post='2418434']
My *sources say they had nations on him within 21 hours of him declaring an offensive war on their protectorate. Before that point, they really had no reason to attack him, even though his supposed reasons for attacking were from several days prior according to my *sources.

*said sources including screenshots posted in this thread and a quick search for Sedrick's wars
[/quote]
Shhhhh....this was all a plot to embroil NSO's allies in a war.

Stick with the script.

Sheesh.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Rayvon' timestamp='1282003321' post='2418396']
Considering the aid was sent because they waited till he was on our AA till they made those attacks (3 days later), he's actually pretty damn accurate.

Bottom line, regardless of the error of sending aid - he was attacked on our AA [b]without proper attempts at discussion[/b]. For the 100000000th time.
[/quote]

A subjective statement, and kind of hypocritical since your own polices mandate that rogues joining your ranks solve their own issues before getting alliance aid.

You were informed he was wanted and instead of doing anything sane aid was sent to him instead. That bought you a war.

[Rayvon]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282007760' post='2418472']
A subjective statement, and kind of hypocritical since your own polices mandate that rogues joining your ranks solve their own issues before getting alliance aid.

You were informed he was wanted and instead of doing anything sane aid was sent to him instead. That bought you a war.
[/quote]

lol - well .... Ok then ... I'll concede ... Boredom of this circle-jerk .. The broken record did it's last run around.

Deaf ears breed weak minds.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Rayvon' timestamp='1282009973' post='2418527']
Deaf ears breed weak minds.
[/quote]

Indeed they do, if only you'd listened to Hoo's warning.

[TehChron]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1282014746' post='2418585']
Indeed they do, if only you'd listened to Hoo's warning.
[/quote]
Well, being drunk/halfasleep can make even the most obvious warnings fall on deaf ears, Im afraid.

Oh well, mishaps do happen, so we'll take our lumps with the best of them. You know, as far as we deserve them.

[Geoffron X]

[quote name='Valtamdraugr' timestamp='1281993810' post='2418259']
No one is untouchable.

If we fail to act, out of fear, we have lost ourselves.
[/quote]
There are reasons other than fear that one would not attack. There are reasons other than bravery that one would.