The Evidence Is Clear, At Least To Me

[Bob Janova]

Once again you're conflating two things, spying and attacking. Spying on someone is not a 'sucker punch to the face', that's more analogous to an attack before a nation militarises, and that would start a war.

You can't claim 'self-defence' against spying because [i]the spy attack has already happened, you aren't defending yourself from anything[/i]. It may be [i]justification[/i] to start a war – just like aiding an enemy – but if you choose to start a war over it, you are still the aggressor. The only thing in CN that you can legitimately claim self-defence over is a war declaration.

[OldSelf]

[quote]No, spying does not start the war. If I go and spy on some random nation, it doesn't create a state of war between us, and if that nation decides to take it as justification to attack me, I'd expect to get alliance support for my defensive war (as the TENE nations attacked here did).[/quote]

Spying is an act of war, as is aiding. State of war is a possible or instant corollary given the afflicteds definition of the offence.

What you are describing is the process by which tech raiders pile a guy for fighting back; Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Edited August 10, 2010 by The Iggy

[steodonn]

[quote name='Viluin' timestamp='1281440676' post='2409511']
A war of aggression is a war that is waged without the justification of self-defense. A spy attack against your nation is that justification. Especially when you consider the nature of the spy attack, "Infiltrate DEFCON systems", which implies the intention to strike. If I sucker punch you in the face and walk away it does not initiate a fight between us, but I bet you'd start one shortly after that.
[/quote]

Well it started earlier than that but its largely irrelevant. NSO still aided a nation at war with another alliance. When an alliance leader tells you not to aid the nation at war with there protectorate or we will attack you there is no cause for complain when you get attacked for doing exactly what you were told would result in war

Edited August 10, 2010 by steodonn

[Viluin]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1281441928' post='2409526']
Once again you're conflating two things, spying and attacking. Spying on someone is not a 'sucker punch to the face', that's more analogous to an attack before a nation militarises, and that would start a war.

You can't claim 'self-defence' against spying because [i]the spy attack has already happened, you aren't defending yourself from anything[/i]. It may be [i]justification[/i] to start a war – just like aiding an enemy – but if you choose to start a war over it, you are still the aggressor. The only thing in CN that you can legitimately claim self-defence over is a war declaration.
[/quote]

Just like convicting a criminal is really just an act of revenge, right? After all, the deed has already been done. They spied on him, which is an attack. The aggressor is usually the instigator, in this case the people who provoked an attack by performing a spy operation. By not acting, you're just inviting them to do it again.

[quote name='steodonn' timestamp='1281442138' post='2409528']
Well it started earlier than that but its largely irrelevant. NSO still aided a nation at war with another alliance. When an alliance leader tells you not to aid the nation at war with there protectorate or we will attack you there is no cause for complain when you get attacked for doing exactly what you were told would result in war
[/quote]

RoK unjustly attacked a member of the NSO and we aided him. If not bowing down to thuggery is an act of war then I will personally accept this war as being our fault.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Viluin

[Amossio]

[quote name='Viluin' timestamp='1281442936' post='2409536']
Just like convicting a criminal is really just an act of revenge, right? After all, the deed has already been done. They spied on him, which is an attack. The aggressor is usually the instigator, in this case the people who provoked an attack by performing a spy operation. By not acting, you're just inviting them to do it again.

RoK unjustly attacked a member of the NSO and we aided him. If not bowing down to thuggery is an act of war then I will personally accept this war as being our fault.
[/quote]

Viluin, who ever loses this will be the one at fault and will be apologising, paying reps and meeting any demands, unless this escalates RoK and co won't be the one doing the apologising, NSO will be, hence you will have to accept fault anyways.

[Viluin]

[quote name='Amossio' timestamp='1281444749' post='2409552']
Viluin, who ever loses this will be the one at fault and will be apologising, paying reps and meeting any demands, unless this escalates RoK and co won't be the one doing the apologising, NSO will be, hence you will have to accept fault anyways.
[/quote]

We don't *have* to do anything.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Viluin

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1281398770' post='2408662']
It really doesn't matter at all what prior actions may or may not have justified it, Sendrick [i]still launched aggressive wars against TENE[/i]. Since he was either unaligned or ghosting MHA at the time, that makes him a rogue nation by the standard definition. Whether or not you think he has justification for his actions doesn't change that, and doesn't change the subsequent events or the fact that NSO deliberately chose to provoke RoK by aiding him.
[/quote]
He was neither unaligned nor ghosting MHA. He was an MHA applicant when TENE launched spy attacks on his nation.

Oh well. This is as good a thread as any to use this image in.

[img]http://web.me.com/danflemming/cn/sedrick_chronology.png[/img]

That's in chronological order.

[kevin32891]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1281445281' post='2409558']
He was neither unaligned nor ghosting MHA. He was an MHA applicant when TENE launched spy attacks on his nation.

Oh well. This is as good a thread as any to use this image in.

[img]http://web.me.com/danflemming/cn/sedrick_chronology.png[/img]

That's in chronological order.
[/quote]

To bad it will fall on def ears Haflinger.

[Bob Janova]

That doesn't actually make any difference ... a rejected applicant is basically the same thing as unaligned. MHA would have a legitimate grievance against TENE for spying on him while he was flying the MHA AA (and for all we know they might be resolving, or have resolved, that in private channels already), but it doesn't change the core fact that Sedrick went rogue and started two wars. Actually, if he was still in the application process at that point it would be even more 'rogue' (I'm sure applicants aren't allowed to start aggressive wars).

[quote]Just like convicting a criminal is really just an act of revenge, right?[/quote]
Hey look it's another non-sensical 'analogy' that has nothing to do with starting a war! And an appeal to 'law' to boot. Convicting a criminal is working within a legal framework and really has nothing to do with starting aggressive wars in an international sphere.

[Rush Sykes]

ITT Fernando tries to be relevant.

2 Points...

1) one exposed spy attack on Sedrick by any single nation in TENE =/= TENE starting a war with him. Alliances have members DAILY who make stupid attacks against other alliances, 99.9999999% end in a peaceful, Im sorry it wont happen again.

2) If Sedrick were interested in DEFENDING himself, he would have declared war on the nation who spied him, not on 2 innocent bystander nations. The entire thought process that arrives at the conclusion that Sedrick was in a defensive war is quite simply ludicrous, and I believe Heft and Heggo to both be more intelligent than that.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Rush Sykes

[Baldr]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1281439321' post='2409500']
Nice try at conflating two completely different things there. National wars undertaken because of an ongoing alliance war are not the same thing as wars undertaken as an unaligned nation, [b]when you effectively are your own alliance[/b]. NSO is in a defensive war so assuming you come out of PM and hit one of the alliances at war with you, that would not be aggressive, it would be part of the ongoing alliance war. But that has nothing to do with Sedrick starting aggressive wars,[b]because those wars were not part of an ongoing alliance war.[/b]
[/quote]

As an unaligned, he's essentially his own alliance. An act of war (spying defcon) took place, which he responded to.

Launching attacks probably isn't very bright, but I can't see calling him a rogue. TENE had apparently told him they were going to attack, and they were spying defcon. The only reason to do a defcon spy attack is to make actual attacks easier.

If you're going to say that an unaligned nation is essentially his own alliance, which makes sense to me, then claiming that he isn't allowed to respond to spy attacks just doesn't add up.

Certainly if you claim that spying isn't justification for war, you can't claim that sending aid *is* a justification.

I don't like the tech raiders "Your unaligned so you have no rights" idea.

[Rongue]

Correct me if I am wrong but at the time NSO did not know this so they still made an act of war.
Don't say it wont matter because it dose.
Basicaly NSO started the war by aiding him. Even if he was at fault then NSO would have still aided him.
NSO did not know if he was guilty or not but NSO aided him anyways.
All they had to do was prove he was not a rouge but they did not do that, they just thought they could do what they wanted and have no backlash.
Also Heft was an idoit. I honestly feel sorry for a few NSO members.

Yes if Tene would not have screwed up this war might not have happened, but NSO share's blame too, more infact.
If it did not happen now I am sure with NSO acting the way they did they would have started a war soon enough anyways.

Bye bye NSO.

[Viluin]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1281451156' post='2409633']

Hey look it's another non-sensical 'analogy' that has nothing to do with starting a war! And an appeal to 'law' to boot. Convicting a criminal is working within a legal framework and really has nothing to do with starting aggressive wars in an international sphere.
[/quote]

I'm having a hard time deciding which would be more non-sensical, my analogy or your claim that responding to a spy attack is not an act of self defense because it happened in the past and is not an ongoing thing. I was sarcastically hinting at the ridiculousness of your statement. The aid was also sent in the past, it did not immediately create a state of war of any kind, so if Sedrick was the aggressor here then you would also have to agree with me that RoK is waging a war of aggression on NSO.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Viluin

[Williambonney]

[quote name='Rongue' timestamp='1281452489' post='2409662']
Correct me if I am wrong but at the time NSO did not know this so they still made an act of war.
Don't say it wont matter because it dose.
Basicaly NSO started the war by aiding him. Even if he was at fault then NSO would have still aided him.
NSO did not know if he was guilty or not but NSO aided him anyways.
All they had to do was prove he was not a rouge but they did not do that, they just thought they could do what they wanted and have no backlash.
Also Heft was an idoit. I honestly feel sorry for a few NSO members.

Yes if Tene would not have screwed up this war might not have happened, but NSO share's blame too, more infact.
If it did not happen now I am sure with NSO acting the way they did they would have started a war soon enough anyways.

Bye bye NSO.
[/quote]

One should not have to prove that someone isn't a rogue, it should be proven that they are rogues. The fact that RoK's evidence on this is skeptical and full of holes is still under debate.

[FreddieMercury]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1281441928' post='2409526']
Once again you're conflating two things, spying and attacking. Spying on someone is not a 'sucker punch to the face', that's more analogous to an attack before a nation militarises, and that would start a war.

You can't claim 'self-defence' against spying because [b][i]the spy attack has already happened, you aren't defending yourself from anything[/i]. [/b]It may be [i]justification[/i] to start a war – just like aiding an enemy – but if you choose to start a war over it, you are still the aggressor. The only thing in CN that you can legitimately claim self-defence over is a war declaration.
[/quote]

lolwut, seriously? Spying that targets their military preparedness is an obvious prelude to actual fighting. Don't play the stupid semantics game, you're better than that Bob.

A true war of aggression is a military campaign undertaken without the justification of self-defense. It's not some arbitrary definition, it makes logical sense that if someone is obviously preparing to attack you, throwing the first quick blow does not make you the guy who started it all (aggressor).

[Baldr]

[quote name='Rongue' timestamp='1281452489' post='2409662']
Basicaly NSO started the war by aiding him. [/quote]

No. Sending aid and having 5 alliances declare on another alliance are not the same thing.

The aid was the CB, but the start of the war came when Ragnarok and friends declared.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]throwing the first quick blow does not make you the guy who started it all (aggressor). [/quote]
Wait, what? Throwing the first punch [i]is[/i] starting it.

[quote]The aid was also sent in the past, it did not immediately create a state of war of any kind, so if Sedrick was the aggressor here then you would also have to agree with me that RoK is waging a war of aggression on NSO. [/quote]
Yes, of course. A justified war of aggression, but an aggressive war nonetheless. What's your point?

[quote]If you're going to say that an unaligned nation is essentially his own alliance, which makes sense to me, then claiming that he isn't allowed to respond to spy attacks just doesn't add up.[/quote]
I think that he was perhaps ethically justified in starting an aggressive war (though I don't care enough to investigate in detail, to be honest), but that doesn't change the fact that he did so. And unaligned nations that start aggressive wars are generally included in the term 'rogue'. If you don't like that angle, you can see it as NSO taking in an alliance which was in an aggressive war with TENE ... it doesn't really change the argument whether you use the term 'rogue' or not.

[Horatio Longworth]

I'm going to try and diagram Fernando's argument. Tell me if I'm doing this wrong.

1. Spying is an act of aggression.
2. Sedrick was spied upon by TENE.
3. Whereas 1+2: TENE initiated an aggression on Sedrick.
4. A rogue is an individual nation that initiates aggression against an alliance.
5. Whereas 3: Sedrick did not initiate agression:
6. Whereas 4+5: Sedrick is not a rogue.
7. Aiding a rogue is an act of aggression.
8. Sedrick was aided by NSO.
9. Whereas 6+8: NSO did not aid a rogue
10. Whereas 7+9: NSO did not initiate aggression against TENE.
11. Rok(and company) cited aggression against TENE as C.B. Indeed, the C.B. hinges around "aiding a rogue."
12. Whereas 10+11: The C.B. used by Rok(and company) is invalid.

[FreddieMercury]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1281454021' post='2409691']
Wait, what? Throwing the first punch [i]is[/i] starting it.[/quote]

No, spying [i]is[/i] starting it.

If someone threw the punch without provocation, [u]then[/u] he'd be starting it.
[quote]

Yes, of course. A justified war of aggression, but an aggressive war nonetheless. What's your point?[/quote]

You're looking at it the wrong way, it's a defensive war.

[Sande]

First of all, I do not approve this behaviour because it's e-lawyering and it will not take us anywhere. Everyone has his own opinion on things and considering that this is internet, people will most likely ignore all reasonable posts if they contradict their own views.

[quote name='Horatio Longworth' timestamp='1281455496' post='2409729']
I'm going to try and diagram Fernando's argument. Tell me if I'm doing this wrong.

1. Spying is an act of aggression.
2. Sedrick was spied upon by TENE.
3. Whereas 1+2: TENE initiated an aggression on Sedrick.
4. A rogue is an individual nation that initiates aggression against an alliance.
5. Whereas 3: Sedrick did not initiate agression:
6. Whereas 4+5: Sedrick is not a rogue.[/quote]

OK. Let's assume these events occurred like that. But a nation that is already in a war should not seek for an alliance until it has finished it's wars and other suspicious activities. Most alliances don't let people in when they have unfinished wars etc. Therefore Sedrick should not have been allowed to join NSO unless NSO wanted to provoke Ragnarok & Co.

[quote name='Horatio Longworth' timestamp='1281455496' post='2409729']
7. Aiding a rogue is an act of aggression.[/quote]

Also, aiding ANY nation who is fighting a war against another alliance is considered an act of war as far as I know. Otherwise if Alliance A is fighting Alliance B and alliance C aids Alliance A, Alliance B would not have a reason to attack Alliance B. Does not work this way.

[quote name='Horatio Longworth' timestamp='1281455496' post='2409729']
8. Sedrick was aided by NSO.
9. Whereas 6+8: NSO did not aid a rogue[/quote]

True. You should also mention that NSO accepted a nation that was already fighting another alliance. Although Sedrick was technically not a rogue, he did have unsolved problems with another alliance.

[quote name='Horatio Longworth' timestamp='1281455496' post='2409729']
10. Whereas 7+9: NSO did not initiate aggression against TENE.[/quote]

Wrong. Look what I said after pt 7. It was an aggression initiated by NSO.

[quote name='Horatio Longworth' timestamp='1281455496' post='2409729']
11. Rok(and company) cited aggression against TENE as C.B. Indeed, the C.B. hinges around "aiding a rogue."
12. Whereas 10+11: The C.B. used by Rok(and company) is invalid.
[/quote]

He might be considered a rogue or not a rogue but he was fighting another alliance and NSO did offer him protection and now they have to either give up or fight for what they think is right.

[Horatio Longworth]

[quote name='Sande' timestamp='1281457014' post='2409762']
He might be considered a rogue or not a rogue but he was fighting another alliance and NSO did offer him protection and now they have to either give up or fight for what they think is right.
[/quote]
First of all I want to say that I made the diagram to make this issue clearer for people. You have some valid points there.

[Sande]

Yeah. I didn't mean to criticize you but the situation as a whole.

[Generalissimo]

See with eyes unclouded by alliance affiliation.
I can see the truth because I’m unaligned.

Fernando12’s evidence is compelling, especially when most counter-arguments concern motivations over content.

[AnCapistan]

The "attacking back" argument would be valid if he actually attacked the nation that spied on him and not two uninvolved nations.

If you're unaligned and are tech raided you fight back against the nation who attacked you not the entire alliance, doing so is roguery. Same goes with spying.

[Groucho Marx]

I'm so glad we have this thread to further discuss what is already under debate in Ragnarok's Declaration of War.