In Response to Recent Drama

[Letum]

[quote name='delendum' timestamp='1281348008' post='2407255'] 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.[/quote]

That would depend on your perspective. There are parties who view some actions taken over the past year - from the heavy reps in the last two global wars, to the curbstomps of TPF and NSO, to various "raids" - as unjust. Others view them as justified. From my experience, as people's interests change, so do the "justifications" they use to judge past events.


[quote]
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.
[/quote]

"Gunning for someone" can be a bit of a complicated concept. It does not always correspond to the populist concept of an evil overlord hatching detailed and long-term plans to destroy an opponent - certainly, the current ruling powers are nowhere near unanimous enough to even hold the ability to do that, much less the will. However, it would be an illusion to claim that the NPO is not vehemently disliked by [i]some parties[/i]. Now, said parties might not have the influence to manufacture a conflict situation, they certainly have the motive and determination to pursue any minor "incident" (and incidents can be numerous in CN) that could lead to conflict - and their being tied into the greater web allows people to just "go along with it". Being more inclined to choose conflict over diplomacy might not fit the exact definition of "gunning", but it has much of the same implications.

[bartimaeus46]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1281346206' post='2407231']
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.
[/quote]

Exactly what i was thinking, and alluded to in my earlier post. Well said, good sir.

Edited August 9, 2010 by bartimaeus46

[Londo Mollari]

I'm surprised that this got as much coverage as it did, but I don't really understand the controversy here. I don't understand why people are espousing the idea that GATO should defend NSO out of friendship despite technicalities when NSO's aggressive and deliberately provocative actions would have thrown GATO under the bus at worst and at best forced GATO into an undesired and destructive war with friendly alliances. Friendship is a two way street, and NSO has shown GATO none here. I do not see why GATO owes NSO any more than the letter of the treaty under such circumstances. Indeed, I would be sad if GATO [b]HAD[/b] allowed themselves to be walked on this way.

Then again, NSO doesn't keep or sign treaties out of friendship, but only for strategic reasons. Their FA staff has admitted as much to us on our forums. And that, is an excellent, excellent reason to never sign anything with NSO. Because they will not look out for you or your interests. They will throw you under the bus the instant they think it suits their strategic plan. It's been that way from day 1, I am sure that many of you will recall the leaked logs when they were talking about how long it would be until they could leave Frostbite. The only tragedy here in my view is that GATO allied such a pack of snakes in the first place. But we have all made mistakes, and none of us are done doing so.

There should be no controversy here and there should be no babbling about GATO's supposed dishonor. It is surely a trying situation when an ally proves to be manipulative and backstabbing and puts you in a no win situation by deliberate and aggressive action with full knowledge of the consequences. But not allowing themselves to be walked on and made pawns of, used and thrown away, does NOT make GATO dishonorable. Friendship is a two way street.

[nutkase]

The whole point is to stick to you're ally through thick and thin. To be there by their side when needed most as to some point in the future you may need it in return.

It is very obvious GATO never had any intention in fulfilling their end of this treaty going by how quick this announcement came after the DoW and the reasoning posted by some GATO members.

Edited August 9, 2010 by nutkase

[Consul of Monkeys]

I can understand the avenue of why you want to cancel a treaty with NSO, however the manner in which you did it was very disrespectful and cowardly.

Poor show.

[nutkase]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1281349556' post='2407269']
I'm surprised that this got as much coverage as it did, but I don't really understand the controversy here. I don't understand why people are espousing the idea that GATO should defend NSO out of friendship despite technicalities when NSO's aggressive and deliberately provocative actions would have thrown GATO under the bus at worst and at best forced GATO into an undesired and destructive war with friendly alliances. Friendship is a two way street, and NSO has shown GATO none here. I do not see why GATO owes NSO any more than the letter of the treaty under such circumstances. Indeed, I would be sad if GATO [b]HAD[/b] allowed themselves to be walked on this way.

Then again, NSO doesn't keep or sign treaties out of friendship, but only for strategic reasons. Their FA staff has admitted as much to us on our forums. And that, is an excellent, excellent reason to never sign anything with NSO. Because they will not look out for you or your interests. They will throw you under the bus the instant they think it suits their strategic plan. It's been that way from day 1, I am sure that many of you will recall the leaked logs when they were talking about how long it would be until they could leave Frostbite. The only tragedy here in my view is that GATO allied such a pack of snakes in the first place. But we have all made mistakes, and none of us are done doing so.

There should be no controversy here and there should be no babbling about GATO's supposed dishonor. It is surely a trying situation when an ally proves to be manipulative and backstabbing and puts you in a no win situation by deliberate and aggressive action with full knowledge of the consequences. But not allowing themselves to be walked on and made pawns of, used and thrown away, does NOT make GATO dishonorable. Friendship is a two way street.
[/quote]

Friendship is also sometime knowing they did something stupid but standing with them anyway. Yes a friendship is a two way street but sometimes helping each other in such a scenario increases that friendship to anything it was before. UCN and FEAR during Karma to me was a perfect example.

[Letum]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1281349556' post='2407269']
I don't understand why people are espousing the idea that GATO should defend NSO out of friendship despite technicalities when NSO's aggressive and deliberately provocative actions would have thrown GATO under the bus at worst and at best forced GATO into an undesired and destructive war with friendly alliances.
[/quote]

This sounds like you are saying that the prospect of being curb-stomped is valid justification for bailing, and I know that isn't what you want to say. (Or at least I hope so).

[quote]
Because they will not look out for you or your interests. They will throw you under the bus the instant they think it suits their strategic plan
[/quote]

I do not recall NSO ever showing hesitation at defending their friends at the expense of their strategic interests.

[delendum]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1281348818' post='2407264']
That would depend on your perspective. There are parties who view some actions taken over the past year - from the heavy reps in the last two global wars, to the curbstomps of TPF and NSO, to various "raids" - as unjust. Others view them as justified. From my experience, as people's interests change, so do the "justifications" they use to judge past events.


"Gunning for someone" can be a bit of a complicated concept. It does not always correspond to the populist concept of an evil overlord hatching detailed and long-term plans to destroy an opponent - certainly, the current ruling powers are nowhere near unanimous enough to even hold the ability to do that, much less the will. However, it would be an illusion to claim that the NPO is not vehemently disliked by [i]some parties[/i]. Now, said parties might not have the influence to manufacture a conflict situation, they certainly have the motive and determination to pursue any minor "incident" (and incidents can be numerous in CN) that could lead to conflict - and their being tied into the greater web allows people to just "go along with it". Being more inclined to choose conflict over diplomacy might not fit the exact definition of "gunning", but it has much of the same implications.
[/quote]

Well if there's one thing we can be certain of, it's that politics inside our little world keep changing, even if they do so over long spans of time. I'm sure things won't remain the way they are forever, and to be fair there wouldn't be much point to that either. People's interests will change, and so will their interpretations of the past, I agree with that. At the end of the day though, what will make the difference between finding yourself completely in the gutter or not, will be how much concrete hatred you've amounted against you, and most importantly, who is willing to abandon you over it. To use a concrete example, the odds were against you during Karma, but it was only when even your close allies outright threw you under the bus that it became apparent you're going to burn as hard as you did. You got there by virtue of actions that were outright "as bad as they say". (I'm not trying to use this as an IN YOUR FACE kind of thing, really just using it for the sake of example).

As for your second point, I completely agree with you there, but to be fair, that's how our world works, at any level, with regards to almost any alliance, on any side. There are people that would use any pretense to see MK burn, just as there are some that would if it meant seeing RoK burn, or anybody else. It's really more to do with boredom than anything though.

[memoryproblems]

GATO, why don't you just admit already that you were plain giddy to cancel this treaty. It wasn't a hard decision or you wouldn't have used such a trivial reason. For some reason, honorable or not (cancelling at this particular time doesn't reflect positively upon you in that sense), you wanted to get rid of this treaty, and you found the most minute of reasons to wave your arms and say "its void". It has become obvious that NSO has lost nothing of value with the loss of GATO as their ally.

Out with the lolGGA, in with the lolGATO. Two of the letters even stand for the same words.

Edited August 9, 2010 by memoryproblems

[Londo Mollari]

[quote name='nutkase' timestamp='1281349977' post='2407274']
Friendship is also sometime knowing they did something stupid but standing with them anyway. Yes a friendship is a two way street but sometimes helping each other in such a scenario increases that friendship to anything it was before. UCN and FEAR during Karma to me was a perfect example.
[/quote]

Athens and FoB raiding Knights of Ni! because I was bored would be a good example of someone doing something stupid and having their allies stand by them. This is not the same thing. This is a case of NSO being clearly told the consequences of aiding a rogue and DOING IT ANYWAY. There is a HUGE difference between deliberate acts of war against an alliance, and simple stupidity. I should know, as I have been involved in plenty of both.


[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1281349979' post='2407275']
This sounds like you are saying that the prospect of being curb-stomped is valid justification for bailing, and I know that isn't what you want to say. (Or at least I hope so).[/quote]

No not at all. If NSO was really being attacked for no reason, or a flimsy reason, and their allies bailed on them that would be disgraceful. But NSO is being attacked because of their own deliberate and aggressive actions. They were the ones to push this war, in my view. Deliberately starting a war with a certain group and then expecting allies to defend you is not at all the same as an innocent alliance being targeted for a stomping and then being abandoned by allies.


[quote]I do not recall NSO ever showing hesitation at defending their friends at the expense of their strategic interests.[/quote]

What friends?

[SpoiL]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1281332777' post='2406715']
This was considered, but when I have three allies and people just hearing through the rumor mill what's going on telling me that NSO and RoK are going at it, before I heard anything from NSO it ticks me off.



No cancellation clause needed NSO broke the treaty so it became void.
[/quote]

You are a disgrace.

[quote name='Sir Sci' timestamp='1281333944' post='2406780']
The fact is that NSO violated a very basic and easily accomplished part of the treaty. The treaty requires that "The signatories agree to communicate with each other regarding any possible outside threats which may cause harm to one or both parties." The NSO violated this part of the treaty. The issue is not who the NSO is going to war with, why they are going to war, or even that they ARE at war. The issue is that they did not inform us of this at all. Instead, we were informed by multiple third parties who are our allies. For some reason the NSO did not feel like carrying out part of our treaty, despite the fact that all they would have to do would be to PM or query Omni, myself, or really any GATO government member. Therefore, they violated the treaty.

In short, we don't appreciate our allies not informing us that they're going to get attacked when it is clear that they knew long before we were told third hand. Ya, e-lawyering for the lose, but they DID break the treaty.
[/quote]

I was attacked one hour after being ordered into peace mode. I didn't manage to make it into peace mode, in case you were wondering.

[Letum]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1281350592' post='2407282']
No not at all. If NSO was really being attacked for no reason, or a flimsy reason, and their allies bailed on them that would be disgraceful. But NSO is being attacked because of their own deliberate and aggressive actions. They were the ones to push this war, in my view. Deliberately starting a war with a certain group and then expecting allies to defend you is not at all the same as an innocent alliance being targeted for a stomping and then being abandoned by allies.
[/quote]

Deliberate and aggressive may be nice keywords, but they tend to misconstrue the point.

Everyone who is on the receiving end of a curbstomp has "done something" that resulted in it, be it raiding, aiding, spying or whatever. Disagreements tend to focus on the justification or interpretation of such actions, not the existence of the actions themselves. Now, does anyone getting curbstomped actually want a war? Probably not, even if they refuse an ultimatum. To term any curbstomp deliberate on the part of the defender seems, from that perspective, as a bit too much propaganda.

If you cut through that, the argument boils down to: if you disagree with the action your ally did that sparked the war, it is okay to cut ties. This is pretty much the same argument that has come up in most of the "classic" cancellations in past curbstomps, and it is a massive slippery slope, because in any war there are two sides, and adopting the justification of the winning one is extremely easy.

[pezstar]

Wow, GATO. I wish I could say I was surprised, but I'm not. You suck.

[d3filed]

[IMG]http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/8792/lolgato.png[/IMG]


My thoughts on wat is going on here.

[Londo Mollari]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1281351371' post='2407287']
Deliberate and aggressive may be nice keywords, but they tend to misconstrue the point.

Everyone who is on the receiving end of a curbstomp has "done something" that resulted in it, be it raiding, aiding, spying or whatever. Disagreements tend to focus on the justification or interpretation of such actions, not the existence of the actions themselves. Now, does anyone getting curbstomped actually want a war? Probably not, even if they refuse an ultimatum. To term any curbstomp deliberate on the part of the defender seems, from that perspective, as a bit too much propaganda.

If you cut through that, the argument boils down to: if you disagree with the action your ally did that sparked the war, it is okay to cut ties. This is pretty much the same argument that has come up in most of the "classic" cancellations in past curbstomps, and it is a massive slippery slope, because in any war there are two sides, and adopting the justification of the winning one is extremely easy.
[/quote]

Yeah man. For example in the noCB war, Chickenzilla did a TECH DEAL with Hyperion, as an anonymous reroll. That was one heck of an offensive and aggressive action that Hyperion performed, let me tell you... they did a tech deal with an anonymous reroll that happened to be on someone's EZI list. Which never existed, amirite?

But you know what? There isn't a slippery slope here. There wasn't a slippery slope for GR when they decided to get rolled with Hyperion. There wasn't a slippery slope with MK when they decided to get rolled with GR. There wasn't a slippery slope with Athens when we decided to get rolled with MK. There is no slippery slope, not for alliances of high ideals and integrity.

It's not about disagreeing with an ally's action. It's about whether or not an "ally" is, in your judgement, deliberately trying to start a war. But even then, I do believe one should follow the letter of the treaty. However, I don't think you owe such an "ally" one jot or tittle more than the bare bones letter of the treaty obligations in such a case. Where there is friendship, the bond of friendship is owed, and it covers a multitude of sins. But when a war is deliberately provoked by an "ally" at your expense, then you regret you ever signed with such a snake, grit your teeth, and honor the letter of the treaty and not one bit beyond. GATO has done this. I see no reason to condemn then in any way.

[Hymenbreach]

[quote]3Strength in Unity, Honour in Justice [/quote]

From GATO's IRC channel. Just thought I'd leave it here without comment.

Anyway, seems all very odd, especially as Clumsy Diplomacy Week finished ages ago. Dropping out of a treaty at the start of a war looks like cowardice and arch-manoevering, even if it isnt (and in this case it looks like it is).

Poor show.

[alyster]

Sums up what I think
[img]http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/5687/gatoflag2.png[/img]

[Letum]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1281351997' post='2407292']
But you know what? There isn't a slippery slope here. There wasn't a slippery slope for GR when they decided to get rolled with Hyperion. There wasn't a slippery slope with MK when they decided to get rolled with GR. There wasn't a slippery slope with Athens when we decided to get rolled with MK. There is no slippery slope, not for alliances of high ideals and integrity.
[/quote]

You bring up parallels where the alliances in question did the opposite of what the criticism here is about. (i.e, not cancelling)

[LJ Scott]

I'd expect nothing less from GATO.

[Auctor]

This is pretty incredibly pathetic.

Kudos on clearing the web of a useless treaty, however.

[Zarfef]

I'm not in the mood for being mean tonight... so I will laugh at you instead GATO. I will laugh and I will laugh heartily... won't you join me in laughing at you too?

I mean... we needed to tell Omniscient1 about the surprise attack? Isn't that pointless? According to his name, that's like telling [B]God[/B] that you stole a cookie, he should already know! HE'S OMNISCIENT! He should have told US that WE were about to be blindsided... Frankly sir, no offense, but I must challenge your name... I declare your claim to omniscience to be a farce! Take that! Ha HA!

Now to begin the final theme song for this cognition! You deserve this GATO, you know you do. You may as well sing along... don't give me that look, you know you know the words! You don't? Let me remind you...

[url="http://www.vgmusic.com/music/console/nintendo/snes/ChronoTrigger-Gato_Song.mid"]GATO's THEME![/url]

Our name is G.A.T.O., our treaties disappoint,
Beat our allies up and earn FIFTEEN silver joints!

Smell ya later,
-Zarfef

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Hymenbreach' timestamp='1281352044' post='2407293']
From GATO's IRC channel. Just thought I'd leave it here without comment.

Anyway, seems all very odd, especially as Clumsy Diplomacy Week finished ages ago. Dropping out of a treaty at the start of a war looks like cowardice and arch-manoevering, even if it isnt (and in this case it looks like it is).

Poor show.
[/quote]
I thought you were going to leave that there without comment. :/

If I were GATO I'd be pretty cheesed off that an NSO official is willing to start a war so blatantly (or alternatively, not willing to start a war but just plain stupid). That said, since the NSO gave all their allies an out anyway this probably should've waited til the end of the war to cancel, if just to save a little PR.

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1281350592' post='2407282']
Athens and FoB raiding Knights of Ni! because I was bored would be a good example of someone doing something stupid and having their allies stand by them. This is not the same thing. This is a case of NSO being clearly told the consequences of aiding a rogue and DOING IT ANYWAY. There is a HUGE difference between deliberate acts of war against an alliance, and simple stupidity. I should know, as I have been involved in plenty of both.
[/quote]

Are you really trying to tell us you had no idea of the consequences of your raid on the Knights of Ni!? Please. There is little difference between what NSO did and what you did albeit NSO's was on a smaller scale and they didn't have the muscle behind them to get out of it. When told you were being stupid, did you stop or continue on? You continued on of course telling everyone it was none of their business, Yet, your allies stood by you and now you come here defending an alliance who bailed on an ally even when they were told they would not be dragged into the conflict.

Seriously, your posts here have the be the largest deposits of guano I have seen for some time.

[quote]
No not at all. If NSO was really being attacked for no reason, or a flimsy reason, and their allies bailed on them that would be disgraceful. But NSO is being attacked because of their own deliberate and aggressive actions. They were the ones to push this war, in my view. Deliberately starting a war with a certain group and then expecting allies to defend you is not at all the same as an innocent alliance being targeted for a stomping and then being abandoned by allies.
[/quote]

Like you did with your raid on Knights of Ni!, right? The double-standard being displayed here is simply breathtaking. "When my alliance raids another alliance and then act like arrogant arsehats when called on it I'm just being stupid and my allies have to defend me! But, if an alliance gets into trouble over some rogue issue and their beligerence gets them in trouble then their allies are justified in throwing them under the bus."

The only real difference is that you had a number of powerful, well-connected allies to ward off the vultures and drag you back into line. NSO doesn't have that luxury and they'll burn because of it. If anything the positive to come out of it is they finally saw what craven opportunists their GATO "allies" are so it won't be a total loss.

[monkeybum]

Can't believe I agree with Auctor.

just how you decide to cancel a treaty in a matter of hours is shocking.

[mythicknight]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1281337523' post='2406999']
If NSO is brown Legion, does this make GATO brown ODN?
[/quote]

We have a winner.

GATO snatches back their old title from the jaws of UPN's corpse. I believe I just won a bet