GOON spy orders

[RePePe]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1285465919' post='2464764']
Keep towing the party line!
[/quote]

Your intel systems must've been broken the last couple of months.

[Biazt]

[quote name='RePePe' timestamp='1285466074' post='2464769']
The log you provide from Cortath seems like an attempt at some political gain with no real substantive effect on, or meaning regarding, the sanction.
[/quote]
So then we can't just call off the safari and have Methrage sanctioned, as that was Cortath lying for political gain?

Just trying to get clarification here.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Biazt

[Choson]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1285465697' post='2464759']
But you have been answered pages ago that red dawn view methrage and his members as an alliance, just because GOONS view any AA under 15 isnt an alliance doesnt mean everyone else has to follow your rules and charter, how hard is that to understand?

So if you carried on after being told, then it is crying and moaning.
[/quote]
Weren't you the one who cried and moaned when you got found out, kicked out of STA and called out by STA government? And you eventually acquiesed and are now paying reps. Therefore, you accepted the consequences of aiding Methrage. Your opinion is moot.

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1285465257' post='2464746']
Your charter allows for you guys to decide what to consider an alliance based on circumstances, so your charter has nothing to do with it since under the circumstances you treated it like an alliance war.
[/quote]

[quote]An "alliance" is defined as a group of 15 or more.[/quote]
That's as black and white a definition as anyone is ever going to get.

[Captain Enema]

[quote name='Biazt' timestamp='1285465337' post='2464748']
Who's crying? We're only setting the record straight for those who don't know what they're talking about.

People like you, for example.
[/quote]

I just like looking at your avatar, the content of this argument means absolutely nothing to me. I figure yall gonna do whatever and they all are gonna do whatever. No point in going back and forth over it. Just keep on giving Methie a jolly good drubbing. Besides, wait and see what happens when someone from one of our colors goes rogue on the Red Clown bunch and we tell them to take their sanction request and shove it.

The baaaawing.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Tidy Bowl Man

[RePePe]

[quote name='Biazt' timestamp='1285466192' post='2464771']
So then we can't just call off the safari and have Methrage sanctioned, as that was Cortath lying for political gain?

Just trying to get clarification here.
[/quote]

I honestly don't know. What I am saying, based on what has been provided in this thread, is that Red Dawn decided to not sanction based on declaring Methrage as a legit alliance leader, and not a rogue.

As for the later logs involving Cortath and the Red Raiding Safari, I'm not sure what he was getting at there. Perhaps it was an attempt to hit two birds with one stone, or else I really don't know.


[quote name='Choson' timestamp='1285466268' post='2464772']That's as black and white a definition as anyone is ever going to get.
[/quote]

Actually if you want to argue semantics...

[quote]In times of peace, GOONS recognize the sovereignty and security of other alliances. An "alliance" is defined as a group of 15 or more. Smaller groups are recognized by the presence of diplomatic ties. [b]Exceptions may be made both for smaller groups we wish to recognize and larger groups we do not, should the government so decide.[/b][/quote]

So basically, these are the guidelines, but the government can choose to ignore them and use their own standards. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that at all, just that it is not very black and white.

[the rebel]

[quote name='Choson' timestamp='1285466268' post='2464772']
Weren't you the one who cried and moaned when you got found out[/quote]

*claps* weldone i did cry and moan about not being asked, nothing more nothing less.

But like i said you are crying and moaning because Red Dawn have a different view on whats an alliance, the funny thing is that you arent man enough to admit what you're doing.

Im suprised there isnt any complaining that LSF/ICoN and wolfpack are supporting "rogues" since they havent sanctioned him either, but wait sorry this is just an excuse to try and demonise the ebil NPO even though its a Red Dawn decision...

[Biazt]

[quote name='RePePe' timestamp='1285466789' post='2464781']
I honestly don't know. What I am saying, based on what has been provided in this thread, is that Red Dawn decided to not sanction based on declaring Methrage as a legit alliance leader, and not a rogue.

As for the later logs involving Cortath and the Red Raiding Safari, I'm not sure what he was getting at there. Perhaps it was an attempt to hit two birds with one stone, or else I really don't know.
[/quote]
Alright then, to conclude: Cortath lied to us about the reason they refused to sanction Methrage for political gain (to pressure us into ending the safari)

And before someone quotes Schattenman:
[quote]Cortath voiced NPO's opinion which was in excess of the reason that the sanction was not going to happen.[/quote]
He did not. He explicitly stated that the reason he was not sanctioned was because of the safari.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Biazt

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1285465257' post='2464746']
Your charter allows for you guys to decide what to consider an alliance based on circumstances, so your charter has nothing to do with it since under the circumstances you treated it like an alliance war.
[/quote]
Yes it does say this, but we have literally never done this. We'd have to sell it to our allies, and we've never had to.

I posted a DoW to notify people that aiding you would be an act of war against GOONS. Maybe it should've been an RoH or a public service announcement, but you are not an alliance. You can keep bringing up the DoW thread all you want, but that is not an official notification that we consider KN an alliance. Here is our official stance, which it has always been: KN is not an alliance. Now stop pretending we said you were.

[RePePe]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285467376' post='2464796']Here is our official stance, which it has always been: KN is not an alliance.[/quote]

How do you define an alliance (without using the terms in your charter since these are not steadfast) and what makes Kerberos Nexus fall short of alliance status?

[Beefspari]

[quote name='RePePe' timestamp='1285468289' post='2464806']
How do you define an alliance (without using the terms in your charter since these are not steadfast) and what makes Kerberos Nexus fall short of alliance status?
[/quote]
An AA with less than 15 members that has no meaningful political connections is not an alliance. That is all.

I hate putting an arbitrary number on it though, since I wouldn't put it past certain people to just fill up their AA [i]just[/i] so they can argue you shouldn't sanction them.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Beefspari

[Bavaricar]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285467376' post='2464796']
Yes it does say this, but we have literally never done this.[/quote]

Another lie, spin, whatever you want to call it.

[quote]
We'd have to sell it to our allies, and we've never had to.
[/quote]

In fairness, you no longer have that ally.

[RePePe]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285468545' post='2464811']
An AA with less than 15 members that has no meaningful political connections is not an alliance. That is all.

I hate putting an arbitrary number on it though, since I wouldn't put it past certain people to just fill up their AA [i]just[/i] so they can argue you shouldn't sanction them.
[/quote]

While I consider this to be a silly definition (member count is not always relevant and outside connections should not define a sovereign entity), it is within your right to create such a definition, and is not all that insane.

However, I would find it an illogical progression to say that just because an "alliance" does not have certain numbers or connections, means that they are automatically rogues. Having said this, it is your prerogative to make these definitions for your own alliance, but they are just that: for your own alliance.

To assume that the definitions should extend out to other alliances and color spheres is a poor assumption.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Bavaricar' timestamp='1285468779' post='2464813']
Another lie, spin, whatever you want to call it.
[/quote]
If true this isn't a lie but me being misinformed. If you can explain who and when I'll agree with you. But we haven't done this in recent history, for as long as I've been around, which is at least six months.

[Bavaricar]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285469027' post='2464815']
If true this isn't a lie but me being misinformed. If you can explain who and when I'll agree with you. But we haven't done this in recent history, for as long as I've been around, which is at least six months.
[/quote]

I think the alliance was called FOA. I think it was kind of a big deal.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='RePePe' timestamp='1285468980' post='2464814']
While I consider this to be a silly definition (member count is not always relevant and outside connections should not define a sovereign entity), it is within your right to create such a definition, and is not all that insane.

However, I would find it an illogical progression to say that just because an "alliance" does not have certain numbers or connections, means that they are automatically rogues. Having said this, it is your prerogative to make these definitions for your own alliance, but they are just that: for your own alliance.[/quote]
Member count and treaties may be "silly" but they are at least [b]tangible requirements[/b]. If I had said "These guys aren't an alliance because... eh I just don't like them," or "They aren't an alliance because I don't think they contribute enough," or "because they aren't organized," we would never hear the end of it. There would always be someone to argue the technicality or legitimacy of those remarks.

You cannot however argue that a particular AA has a small number of members or is not connected to anyone.

[quote name='RePePe' timestamp='1285468980' post='2464814']
To assume that the definitions should extend out to other alliances and color spheres is a poor assumption.
[/quote]
Red has decided that single nations aiding enemies of alliances and then declaring war on that alliance aren't rogues. There's really nothing more rogue-like than that, so it doesn't matter what anyone's definition is. Red has decided not to sanction anyone attacking GOONS no matter what the circumstances.

[Bilrow]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285469299' post='2464820']
Red has decided that single nations aiding enemies of alliances and then declaring war on that alliance aren't rogues. There's really nothing more rogue-like than that, so it doesn't matter what anyone's definition is. Red has decided not to sanction anyone attacking GOONS no matter what the circumstances.
[/quote]


Wrong. Red has decided that it will not get involved between an alliance attacking another alliance. GOONS definition of an alliance is not the global law that guides our world.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Bilrow' timestamp='1285470093' post='2464830']
Wrong. Red has decided that it will not get involved between an alliance attacking another alliance. GOONS definition of an alliance is not the global law that guides our world.
[/quote]
If we're going to brading about concepts like 'global law' then the NPO can't exactly use this as a legitimate argument here. All other colour spheres aside from Pink have agreed that these nations are rogues. "Global law" seems to be agreeing with GOONS.

[Bilrow]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1285470280' post='2464834']
If we're going to brading about concepts like 'global law' then the NPO can't exactly use this as a legitimate argument here. All other colour spheres aside from Pink have agreed that these nations are rogues. "Global law" seems to be agreeing with GOONS.
[/quote]


Hmmm, unable to find NPO anywhere in my response, try again. So, what you are saying, is that as long as the majority of other people do it, it makes it acceptable?

[Bavaricar]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1285470280' post='2464834']
If we're going to brading about concepts like 'global law' then the NPO can't exactly use this as a legitimate argument here. All other colour spheres aside from Pink have agreed that these nations are rogues. "Global law" seems to be agreeing with GOONS.
[/quote]

The decisions of a majority of senators are now "legally" binding on the others?

That's some world court you've divined there. Once a majority of senators have spoken, all other views are unacceptable or...[i]illegal[/i]?

[Earogema]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1285470280' post='2464834']
If we're going to brading about concepts like 'global law' then the NPO can't exactly use this as a legitimate argument here. All other colour spheres aside from Pink have agreed that these nations are rogues. "Global law" seems to be agreeing with GOONS.
[/quote]
Eh? That doesn't make any sense.

Red decides that it wants nothing to do with a rogue. It isn't tied to GOONS/supportive of GOONS/or has anything to do with GOONS. It has no reason to sanction an individual who has declared war on GOONS. If GOONS can define an alliance as it sees fit, then Red can do the same and provide reasons for why that alliance isn't going to be sanctioned. Personally, I would never sanction a rogue. A rogue is already outnumbered 3v1 at least, usually 4v1 if he's smart, 6v1 if he's crazy.

Even if you invoke subjective alliance rules in regards to this whole thing, red has full right to not sanction anybody for any reason. It'll sour relations, but if they aren't somebody you're going to be even trying to get close to, I don't see the problem.

[JT Jag]

Can we all just cut it out with sanctiontalk? I mean really. At this point nothing's going to change anything, and it's fully within Red's right to set the precedent they have chosen to go with regarding these incidents. But, as those who are on the opposite side of the treaty web of my alliance are fond of saying about us, red should be prepared to stand up to the standards they have set for these incidents when those standards hit closer to home.

Edited September 26, 2010 by JT Jag

[Choson]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1285471426' post='2464852']
Eh? That doesn't make any sense.

Red decides that it wants nothing to do with a rogue. It isn't tied to GOONS/supportive of GOONS/or has anything to do with GOONS. It has no reason to sanction an individual who has declared war on GOONS. If GOONS can define an alliance as it sees fit, then Red can do the same and provide reasons for why that alliance isn't going to be sanctioned. Personally, I would never sanction a rogue. A rogue is already outnumbered 3v1 at least, usually 4v1 if he's smart, 6v1 if he's crazy.

Even if you invoke subjective alliance rules in regards to this whole thing, red has full right to not sanction anybody for any reason. It'll sour relations, but if they aren't somebody you're going to be even trying to get close to, I don't see the problem.
[/quote]
If Red wants nothing to do with rogues, then they should sanction them instead of providing them with safe harbour. Not sanctioning them explicitly shows you condone the behavior of nuclear rogues.

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Bilrow' timestamp='1285470093' post='2464830']
Wrong. Red has decided that it will not get involved between an alliance attacking another alliance. GOONS definition of an alliance is not the global law that guides our world.
[/quote]
They feel otherwise good sir.

Goons, you're funny.

[Choson]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' timestamp='1285473226' post='2464876']
They feel otherwise good sir.

Goons, you're funny.
[/quote]
Ever send that aid?

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Bilrow' timestamp='1285470093' post='2464830']
Wrong. Red has decided that it will not get involved between an alliance attacking another alliance. GOONS definition of an alliance is not the global law that guides our world.
[/quote]
That doesn't explain why Jim isn't sanctioned. Not at all. Besides, Cortath said that they would've sanctioned Methrage if not for the red raiding safari. NPO and CoJ are all over the map with these excuses and explanations. They have about ten different ones, each disconnected from the last, with each poster citing a different one.

Besides, you just said "We don't care what GOONS says, we are guided by global law," and then immediately after said,

[quote name='Bilrow' timestamp='1285470983' post='2464843']
Hmmm, unable to find NPO anywhere in my response, try again. So, what you are saying, is that as long as the majority of other people do it, it makes it acceptable?
[/quote]
So what you're driving at is, you don't care what one alliance thinks, you do what the rest of the world believes. But when the rest of the world believes someone should be sanctioned, you say "What, just cause everyone else does it, NPO should too?" What a ludicrous contradiction.