In Response to Recent Drama

[d3filed]

[quote name='Laslo Kenez' timestamp='1281343960' post='2407188']
We could have stayed out of it like all the other nso allies, but clearly we felt something more fundamental was wrong this time. One sentence summary? Yeah, one sentence summary.
[/quote]

ex·cuse (k-skyz)
tr.v. ex·cused, ex·cus·ing, ex·cus·es

To explain (a fault or an offense) in the hope of being forgiven or understood

[Dementual]

[quote name='Masterchief777' timestamp='1281344241' post='2407195']
I pay attention to everything going around me however I do tend to ignore the people who talk in this topic who have no right to since they clearly have no idea about whats going on
[/quote]
While the irony in you saying that would normally amuse me, it is in this instance boring me. Look, I know you don't want to admit you're wrong, but at least try harder to not come off as completely ignorant.

[iamthey]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1281332243' post='2406669']
No, we're considering the treaty void because someone decided to commit an act of war and not even think to inform their allies. Spin it how you want to though Baldr.
[/quote]

Well I don't think it would be called 'an act of war'. It is not uncommon to see people doing tech deals with alliances who are at war, which would be a direct form of aid be it in the case of a larger nation receiving tech, or a smaller nation receiving aid. Beyond that it is even more common for someone share trades with an alliance at war, which could provide more aid and relief to an alliance than one slot of aid ever could (particularly at the higher levels).

Which does raise the question, why is it okay to share a uranium trade with an alliance at war, something which enables the production and deployment of nuclear weapons, yet it is wrong to aid a nation 3m, or send them 5000 soldiers? Kind of a silly contradiction.

This war was either a devious trap, or a reckless and altogether impractical move on the part of Rok. Even if they crush NSO they and their allies will suffer far more damage than they would have just continuing to deal with the rogue on an individual level. And while it might be somewhat humiliating and degrading for hoo to have heft thumb his nose at him, Rok will certainly suffer more negative PR from this very public action as opposed to a few private snickers in the back rooms of NSO.

If I were a member of the SF/CnG leadership cadre I would be somewhat upset at Rok for frittering away the finite political capital they have and giving detractors yet another opportunity to sling mudd.

[Letum]

[quote]What concrete timeframe does GATO consider "reasonable" enough to be informed of a "potential threat"? [/quote]

I would still like an answer to this.

[TehChron]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1281344290' post='2407198']
It's fairly obvious if no one can take the time to let us know what's going on that we're only a treaty to look good or to run cover for you on the other side of the web.
[/quote]Man you are projecting [i]hard[/i].

You know, it's become quite clear at this point which alliance considered the other merely expendable. And it wasn't us, no matter how much you may claim otherwise. You dropped us over what was at most a small misunderstanding, blew it up, lied about it publicly, and are now trying to spin it every which way you can to try and get a way to obtain the moral high ground here.

We messed up and picked a fight we're obviously not going to win. But you washed your hands of us the moment it became clear you had a good excuse to do it, and you weren't even being asked to stick your neck out for us.

That's hilariously transparent and shameful behavior right there. So yeah, you get on that cross, it's GATO tradition, after all. And here we thought you were different. Shows what we know, huh?

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1281343373' post='2407177']
That's fine I expected no brownie points. It was a difficult decision that I knew wouldn't please anyone.
[/quote]
From what I heard it was nowhere near difficult.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Chron

[Earogema]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1281344643' post='2407203']
I would still like an answer to this.
[/quote]
If the old logs are an indication, 2 weeks.

[Laslo Kenez]

[quote name='d3filed' timestamp='1281344329' post='2407199']
ex·cuse (k-skyz)
tr.v. ex·cused, ex·cus·ing, ex·cus·es

To explain (a fault or an offense) in the hope of being forgiven or understood
[/quote]

welp, since I'm talking to an expert on GATO-NSO relations, their ups and downs, their diplomatic sojourns and the minutae of conversations involving them, I'll cede the point! Tell me, completely uninvolved \m/ember, where did you acquire your booksman like knowledge of NSO and GATO?

[Laslo Kenez]

[quote name='iamthey' timestamp='1281344561' post='2407202']


If I were a member of the SF/CnG leadership cadre I would be somewhat upset at Rok for frittering away the finite political capital they have and giving detractors yet another opportunity to sling mudd.
[/quote]

Of course if I were a member of the NPO leadership I'd be worried about my allies getting picked off individually at the whims of the NEW HEGEMONY.

[delendum]

[quote name='iamthey' timestamp='1281344561' post='2407202']
Well I don't think it would be called 'an act of war'. It is not uncommon to see people doing tech deals with alliances who are at war, which would be a direct form of aid be it in the case of a larger nation receiving tech, or a smaller nation receiving aid. Beyond that it is even more common for someone share trades with an alliance at war, which could provide more aid and relief to an alliance than one slot of aid ever could (particularly at the higher levels).

Which does raise the question, why is it okay to share a uranium trade with an alliance at war, something which enables the production and deployment of nuclear weapons, yet it is wrong to aid a nation 3m, or send them 5000 soldiers? Kind of a silly contradiction.

This war was either a devious trap, or a reckless and altogether impractical move on the part of Rok. Even if they crush NSO they and their allies will suffer far more damage than they would have just continuing to deal with the rogue on an individual level. And while it might be somewhat humiliating and degrading for hoo to have heft thumb his nose at him, Rok will certainly suffer more negative PR from this very public action as opposed to a few private snickers in the back rooms of NSO.

If I were a member of the SF/CnG leadership cadre I would be somewhat upset at Rok for frittering away the finite political capital they have and giving detractors yet another opportunity to sling mudd.
[/quote]

What you're saying would make sense if only most people (on our side of the fence at least) wouldn't see RoK as being entirely justified.

Detractors will sling mud with any opportunity, that doesn't mean they necessarily do it with too much success or style - and that depends a lot on the pretext they're using. RoK's actions in this case are pretty solid, so most mud slinging disco lovers out there are a tad out of their league and only manage to make fools of themselves, as they lack the skill to tackle anything that isn't already clearly labeled as a $%&@-up.

In the end, who are they losing PR towards? From my admittedly humble corner of the world, they're quite blingin'.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Laslo Kenez' timestamp='1281345100' post='2407211']
welp, since I'm talking to an expert on GATO-NSO relations, their ups and downs, their diplomatic sojourns and the minutae of conversations involving them, I'll cede the point! Tell me, completely uninvolved \m/ember, where did you acquire your booksman like knowledge of NSO and GATO?
[/quote]
He doesn't need such knowledge because it's obvious.

NSO says that it will not call for backup. So then it doesn't tell you about the war. Then you complain
[quote]"OMG YOU DIDN'T TELL US ABOUT THE WAR THAT YOU DON'T WANT US TO FIGHT IN!!!!1one!"[/quote]

It's pretty cut and dry. In fact, if I were NSO, I wouldn't tell my allies either because that means they cannot prepare and thus they cannot effectively enter the war we don't want them to fight in anyway.

[Laslo Kenez]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1281345306' post='2407214']
He doesn't need such knowledge because it's obvious.

NSO says that it will not call for backup. So then it doesn't tell you about the war. Then you complain


It's pretty cut and dry. In fact, if I were NSO, I wouldn't tell my allies either because that means they cannot prepare and thus they cannot effectively enter the war we don't want them to fight in anyway.
[/quote]

It's almost as if we didn't have to cancel, yet... we did anyway for the feeling of being let down in recent times.. How can this be?

[Earogema]

[quote name='Laslo Kenez' timestamp='1281345421' post='2407216']
It's almost as if we didn't have to cancel, yet... we did anyway for the feeling of being let down in recent times.. How can this be?
[/quote]
I agree with you that you can have many reasons to cancel, but you didn't cancel, you said the treaty was void on the grounds they didn't tell you about a war that they didn't want you to fight in.

Even if you wanted to cancel for completely different reasons, it should be obvious that this was a bad time to do it.

[shilo]

Lame move. First of all you weren't even asked to help, rather the opposite. And because NSO wasn't chatting to you guys parallel to being blackmailed by RoK, they violated the treaty?
Well, it's a cowardly move, I guess GATO thought they would be involved in the curbstomp and looked for a way out until they realized it wasn't even necessary but then went ahead anyways.
Obviously, the spirit of the treaty was gone before all of this happened - at least I hope so, so the current events only serve as a pretense to get rid of a in many ways inconvenient treaty. Still, I expected better from GATO here, and I have been disappointed...

[Laslo Kenez]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1281345711' post='2407223']
it should be obvious that this was a bad time to do it.
[/quote]

Omni has admitted as much, but I think it was also a process of "f this s". Which counts for a lot sometimes.

[delendum]

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1281345763' post='2407224']
Lame move. First of all you weren't even asked to help, rather the opposite. And because NSO wasn't chatting to you guys parallel to being blackmailed by RoK, they violated the treaty?
Well, it's a cowardly move, I guess GATO thought they would be involved in the curbstomp and looked for a way out until they realized it wasn't even necessary but then went ahead anyways.
Obviously, the spirit of the treaty was gone before all of this happened - at least I hope so, so the current events only serve as a pretense to get rid of a in many ways inconvenient treaty. Still, I expected better from GATO here, and I have been disappointed...
[/quote]

You got a bit ahead of yourself there. Whatever the NSO was busy doing, it didn't involve being blackmailed by anybody. You could say the NSO was busy refusing to find a solution, but I wouldn't think that's entirely time consuming. To be fair, I'd call !@#$%^&* on any sort of WE WERE OH SO BUSY excuse they can come up with, lets be realistic here for a second, it takes all of 2 minutes to relay this kind of information. That said, I don't agree with the way GATO reacted here, but that's not really my business.

[Rush Sykes]

To everyone hating on GATO:

Have you ever met Hoo? Seriously. Let me introduce you to Hoo. If Hoo TELLS you... To your face... that if you do this... I will consider it an act of war against my alliance. Then, the VERY person he says this to, orders the taboo action to be taken... At that moment, they have put their allies in peril. With no communication to them as the peril. Hoo is not the type to bluff, or to beat around the bush. If he says A will lead to B, B being war. And you then KNOWINGLY commit A without ONE WORD to your allies, you have thrown your allies under the bus. I am amazed that so many people want to make rocket science out of something so simple. The actions and consequence were CLEARLY defined by RoK, in no uncertain terms. If NSO gave a damn about their allies they would have settled the situation BEFORE they pushed RoK's buttons. I too, would think less of GATO for this move had it happened with NSO unwittingly and accidentally aiding a new nation without knowing the consequences. But the consequences were spelled out, in crystal clear black and white to NSO. That they committed what they were told would be an act of war, before telling any of their allies they were running down that path, IS in no uncertain terms, a violation of Article 2 of that treaty.

[Letum]

[quote name='delendum' timestamp='1281345252' post='2407213']
What you're saying would make sense if only most people (on our side of the fence at least) wouldn't see RoK as being entirely justified.
[/quote]

You will find the detractors who do speak up tend to merely be the tip of an iceburg, and several people self-limit their dissenting views out of political convenience or self-rationalization. But as temporal interests fade away, so do those limits, causing notable long-term PR shifts.

If I may offer a relevant example, see the Woodstock Massacre. One of the 9 parts of the CB for that war was aid being sent to an "enemy nation", and the person responsible for sending not being dealt with for 3 weeks. Now, that war enjoyed fairly broad "official" support at the time*, with the main detractors being those who were on the "outside" of the power-structure, much like the present scenario. However, in hindsight, the war is not very widely supported.

So, I would advise you not to get overly comfortable in the belief that an action is "Solid". Solidity is a very relative and changeable concept in this realm. Of course, everyone should feel free to ignore the implications of such shifts - it makes it less likely that someone have the required capital to come after us or the rest of our allies next.

[size="1"]*Ironically, part of that support included that of VE, whose announcement at the time was written by a person currently in NSO.[/size]

[Scorponok]

Very sad to see.

[ROMMELHSQ]

Pathetic...really..

[Wabooz]

Normally I could care less about the going ons around here.. but I find this very disappointing =\

Best of luck in the future GATO.

[Kevlar]

As someone who has worked long and hard to establish relations between NSO and GATO, this is one of the most disappointing things I have ever seen. It's even more disappointing to see it all thrown away for such a BS reason. If this is the heartless and cowardly route that GATO leadership wishes to pursue, then so be it. I hope the rest of your allies take this lesson to heart.

Think you guys need to change the motto to "Honor When Convenient".

-Kev

[delendum]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1281346538' post='2407235']
You will find the detractors who do speak up tend to merely be the tip of an iceburg, and several people self-limit their dissenting views out of political convenience or self-rationalization. But as temporal interests fade away, so do those limits, causing notable long-term PR shifts.

If I may offer a relevant example, see the Woodstock Massacre. One of the 9 parts of the CB for that war was aid being sent to an "enemy nation", and the person responsible for sending not being dealt with for 3 weeks. Now, that war enjoyed fairly broad "official" support at the time*, with the main detractors being those who were on the "outside" of the power-structure, much like the present scenario. However, in hindsight, the war is not very widely supported.

So, I would advise you not to get overly comfortable in the belief that an action is "Solid". Solidity is a very relative and changeable concept in this realm. Of course, everyone should feel free to ignore the implications of such shifts - it makes it less likely that someone have the required capital to come after us or the rest of our allies next.

[size="1"]*Ironically, part of that support included that of VE, whose announcement at the time was written by a person currently in NSO.[/size]
[/quote]

Again a valid point, but you are basing it on two assumptions, the first of which would be that there is widespread unspoken dissent amongst our ranks. I'm not going to go on a "there is no such thing lol" type argument here, but in your example, the dissent had its roots in a number of actions widely regarded as... hegemonic, lets call them. Generally you get that type of dissent when people end up strongly disagreeing with certain actions, as they consider them too unjust or morally wrong. For better or worse, this "side" has only really acted similarly in the deluded scenarios detractors like to spout whenever something happens. That is to say, if there is any dissent, it's based only on people believing the voices saying that the incredibly unjust actions CAN HAPPEN, and not on any actual actions. While I don't doubt some will fall for that, it will definitely not be comparable. Some fool screaming that RoK WANTS TO DISBAND THE NSO doesn't equal RoK actually wanting to disband the NSO, dissent wise.

You're right that "public support" isn't to be taken at face value all the time, but I'm speaking as a member of the unofficial crowd here, and I'm just basing my stuff on the mood of my fellow nobodies. Granted, I'm not aware of how the mood is everywhere, but I'd imagine it's not much different. Feel free to call me wrong should RoK's allies mass cancel on them in the middle of the next big war.

Your second assumption is that our evil little side here is trying to come after you, or anybody else for that matter. You're a smart individual, I'd hope you can see the NSO didn't end up where they are now because somebody was gunning for them. Unless you're fearing the NPO is capable of a similar $%&@-up, you realistically don't have anything to worry about. Unless you chose to believe the same voices that kept saying we'd FAN you during terms.

[BlackDragon]

[quote name='Kevlar' timestamp='1281347622' post='2407252']
As someone who has worked long and hard to establish relations between NSO and GATO, this is one of the most disappointing things I have ever seen. It's even more disappointing to see it all thrown away for such a BS reason. If this is the heartless and cowardly route that GATO leadership wishes to pursue, then so be it. I hope the rest of your allies take this lesson to heart.

Think you guys need to change the motto to "Honor When Convenient".

-Kev
[/quote]

For once, I agree with Kevlar. Bad show, GATO. And Omni, I expected more.

[Chris Kaos]

I remember a time when it was neither convenient nor popular, but GATO decided to honour its treaty with an ally who had been found guilty in the court of public opinion by such leaps and bounds that it earned the ire of admin himself. The declaration of war was short and to the point, but it began, "The Global Alliance and Treaty Organization honours its treaties."

I realize that that GATO is long since dead and turned to ashes, but I believed that the spirit of the once mighty Global Alliance survived. I fear I may have been wrong, for this action by GATO is such a great miscarriage of morality, and a perversion of everything the words "Strength in Unity, Honour in Justice" stand for that it may indeed be irreparable.

I realize that internally, not everyone agreed with this decision, and I'm sure many will be waking up today to this news and be greatly angered by it. That is where GATO's future hope lays--in its membership, and the democratic process. I have some measure of faith that the General Assembly of the Global Alliance will elect leaders with greater strength of character and moral fortitude in the future so that it may again regain some of its lost dignity and integrity.

Godspeed, GATO, for you will need it after this disaster.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Chris Kaos

[d3filed]

[quote name='Laslo Kenez' timestamp='1281345100' post='2407211']
welp, since I'm talking to an expert on GATO-NSO relations, their ups and downs, their diplomatic sojourns and the minutae of conversations involving them, I'll cede the point! Tell me, completely uninvolved \m/ember, where did you acquire your booksman like knowledge of NSO and GATO?
[/quote]

e·vade (-vd)
v. e·vad·ed, e·vad·ing, e·vades
v.tr.
To avoid fulfilling, answering, or performing: evade responsibility.

Edited August 9, 2010 by d3filed