GOON spy orders

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1285440618' post='2464420']
You and others keep saying we are aiding them and yet have no addressed counter points made to explain how you're streteching the usage of aid and assistance. I took the liberty of pulling just my own previous statements on this topic from posts previously made in the hopes that maybe the walls of texts caused you to miss them.[/quote]
No, I read them, and disagree with them, and even addressed them. You're supposedly taking a position of "neutrality" in concerns to rogues. Or even claiming that someone who aids an enemy and then declares war on an alliance is not a rogue.

So there we go, red sphere takes a stance of "neutrality" in concerns to nuclear rogues, holding nuclear rogues in the same regard as alliances and deciding not to get involved.

[DragonsPhyre]

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1285434401' post='2464338']
Jim not only aided a rogue we were at war "secretly", but then decided to declare on our top nation. Your definition of the word 'rogue' must apply to people that have no possible way of existing on Bob. Not to mention, I'd like to see proof that GOONS actually conducted spy missions on his nation. Sounds much more like a hunch than our evidence of his aid.
[/quote]
GOONS doesn't have to spy on him (couldn't anyways, apparently) if you get friends to spy on him for you.

Also, [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=92577&view=findpost&p=2460938]this information[/url] only comes from conducting a spy operation. He didn't attack you until that spy operation was conducted and had given warning that he would do so. Regardless of who he aided, your alliance provoked him by spying on him based on a hunch. A pretty strong one, but one, nonetheless.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285441096' post='2464425']
No, I read them, and disagree with them, and even addressed them. You're supposedly taking a position of "neutrality" in concerns to rogues. Or even claiming that someone who aids an enemy and then declares war on an alliance is not a rogue.

So there we go, red sphere takes a stance of "neutrality" in concerns to nuclear rogues, holding nuclear rogues in the same regard as alliances and deciding not to get involved.
[/quote]Except the parties in control of the senate have already stated that they consider this a war between two alliances. They are under no obligation to get involved, even more so considering it is an alliance affair. Nor are they subject to your personal definition of what is and is not an alliance.

[Cortath]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285439592' post='2464409']
As said there are different forms of aiding.

One form would be secretly sending stockpiles of guns and missiles and bombs to someone and denying that you had any involvement. Secret aid. This sort of thing is a sneaky underhanded move that is definitely cause for reps, and very large ones, or war.

One form would be openly assisting by sending money and weapons openly and admitting to the world that you're eager to publicly assist.

Another form would be denying sanctions for no particular reason, or just because you don't like the person being attacked. That is, taking a stance that nuclear rogues are completely acceptable as long as they're attacking someone you don't like. You may not be [b]directly[/b] assisting that mugger by letting him beat up someone, but standing there watching isn't going to win you any fans. Nor are you going to convince anyone that you're "neutral" because you aren't doing anything about the situation even though it's fully in your power to.

Unfortunately, red sphere knows that there's little if any precedent for considering refusing sanctions "assistance," and are quite happy to "assist" rogues in any way that they can't [b]quite[/b] be held accountable for.
[/quote]

Comrade, you seem to have, as you did in our IRC conversation, some sort of mistaken perception about my feelings. You seem to think you know a bit about my feelings for GOONS. You say I "don't like you." Let me refute that claim.

I am entirely indifferent to you. I cannot recall having warred with GOONS. I do not recall GOONS helping us on any significant matters. We are neither friends nor foes, but know that when I think of the letters GOONS, they drip with nothing but the most lackluster indifference.

I admit, I have biases. I prefer neither milk nor sugar in my tea. I prefer my babies a la crue, and I think anything beyond tartare is barbaric. I do not, however, harbor any biases towards your alliance. Do I like some of your alliance's recent actions towards Red? No, of course not. I find them abhorrent and parasitic, but I am a very patient man, and it will take many more actions from you to color my indifference evil.

***

I will point out the irony of you using a "mugger" metaphor in describing the relationship of GOONS towards a Red nation.

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285441096' post='2464425']
No, I read them, and disagree with them, and even addressed them.[/quote]
To be quite honest I didn't see you addressing them. If you'd be willing to point me to them however I'd read them and of course reply as appropriate.

[quote]You're supposedly taking a position of "neutrality" in concerns to rogues. Or even claiming that someone who aids an enemy and then declares war on an alliance is not a rogue.

So there we go, red sphere takes a stance of "neutrality" in concerns to nuclear rogues, holding nuclear rogues in the same regard as alliances and deciding not to get involved.[/quote]
You're mis-characterizing things. The position isn't saying we won't sanction rogues but that we won't sanction them because they aren't rogues. There is quite the difference and it ultimately boils down to motivations and the general situation.

Edit: you're not your

Edited September 25, 2010 by Hyperbad

[Choson]

[quote name='Cortath' timestamp='1285441479' post='2464431']
I admit, I have biases. I prefer neither milk nor sugar in my tea. I prefer my babies a la crue, and I think anything beyond tartare is barbaric. I do not, however, harbor any biases towards your alliance. Do I like some of your alliance's recent actions towards Red? No, of course not. I find them abhorrent and parasitic, but I am a very patient man, and it will take many more actions from you to color my indifference evil.
[/quote]
You must have biases if you are willing to use such strong adjectives as "abhorrent" or "parasitic". To say otherwise is highly hypocritical of one's self.

[Cortath]

[quote name='Choson' timestamp='1285441891' post='2464435']
You must have biases if you are willing to use such strong adjectives as "abhorrent" or "parasitic". To say otherwise is highly hypocritical of one's self.
[/quote]

You must be incredibly stupid if you think you can read my mind. Unlike you, I don't prefer to paint with a broad brush onto an entire alliance from one or two incidents.

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Choson' timestamp='1285440755' post='2464422']
[size="7"]Wrong![/size]

He does fit the definition of what a rogue[sup]1[/sup] was as typically defined on Planet Bob prior to this incident.[sup]2[/sup]








[size="1"]1. The common definition of rogue, as an adjective, states: no longer obedient, belonging, or accepted and hence not controllable or answerable; [b]deviating, renegade[/b][sup]3[/sup]
2. Re. Both the Dopp and the rebel instances back up our definition. Both rulers took actions that were not sanctioned by their governments, therefore were considered rogues. The difference between Dopp and the rebel is, that the NSO allowed Dopp to stay in their alliance and pay suitable reps, while STA kicked the rebel out once his actions were made light to their leadership. Therefore considering their actions as "rogue-like".
3. rogue. (n.d.). [i]Choson English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition.[/i][/size]
[/quote]

You are really reaching. How can I be "no longer obedient" when I have no one to be obedient to in the first place. By your definition anyone without a centralized government structure loyal to some body or bloc can be rounded up and denied economic equality and placed indefinitely on some enemies list. Is that the CN you endorse?

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Choson' timestamp='1285441891' post='2464435']
You must have biases if you are willing to use such strong adjectives as "abhorrent" or "parasitic". To say otherwise is highly hypocritical of one's self.
[/quote]
Note that he applied those terms to your actions, and not GOONS itself. And yeah, if you punch me in the face, I'll probably have a bias against that action. Personally, I'm not such a terribly forgiving figure as Cortath and I personally would also have a bias against you, but, you know, I'm not Cortath.

And I had to laugh at the "poor helpless GOONS" getting "mugged" by Metherage.

[Sephiroth]

Kerberos Nexus is fighting for white peace for all our members including any future members that join during this war, GOONS want to either drive people from the game or impose extremely harsh terms. Its GOONS who drag this war out by being unwilling to walk away from a war they can't win, causing them a lot of damage.

[Choson]

[quote name='Cortath' timestamp='1285442156' post='2464436']
You must be incredibly stupid if you think you can read my mind. Unlike you, I don't prefer to paint with a broad brush onto an entire alliance from one or two incidents.
[/quote]
Sorry, toots... You said it, not me.

[dalstrs]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1285442354' post='2464440']
Kerberos Nexus is fighting for white peace for all our members including any future members that join during this war, GOONS want to either drive people from the game or impose extremely harsh terms. Its GOONS who drag this war out by being unwilling to walk away from a war they can't win, causing them a lot of damage.
[/quote]

I can firmly say you will never have white peace.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Choson' timestamp='1285442381' post='2464442']
Sorry, toots... You said it, not me.
[/quote]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1285442279' post='2464438']
[b]Note that he applied those terms to your actions, and not GOONS itself.[/b] And yeah, if you punch me in the face, I'll probably have a bias against that action. Personally, I'm not such a terribly forgiving figure as Cortath and I personally would also have a bias against you, but, you know, I'm not Cortath.

And I had to laugh at the "poor helpless GOONS" getting "mugged" by Metherage.
[/quote]

Reading comprehension helps greatly during the course of debate.

[Louisa]

[quote name='DragonsPhyre' timestamp='1285441243' post='2464427']
He didn't attack you until that spy operation was conducted . . .
[/quote]

Eh, no, in fact he attacked[sup][color="#0000FF"]1[/color][/sup] the second he sent aid to Methrage.



[sup][color="#0000FF"]1[/color][/sup] NB. (before you protest) not in the "firing shotgun in face" way.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='dalstrs' timestamp='1285442533' post='2464446']
I can firmly say you will never have white peace.
[/quote]
Then its you guys who choose to continue the war, it was because of your alliances insistence on overly harsh reps and continuing the war with Nicholai that I didn't just have him peace out and end this there.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Methrage

[Choson]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1285442548' post='2464447']
Reading comprehension helps greatly during the course of debate.
[/quote]
I can read perfectly fine, good sir. Please tell me how the bolded sections below do not relate to each other since they describe, apparently, our actions as an alliance?

[quote]
Do I like some of [b]your alliance[/b]'s recent actions towards Red? No, of course not. I find them [b]abhorrent and parasitic[/b]...
[/quote]

[dalstrs]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1285442625' post='2464449']
Then its you guys who choose to continue the war, it was because of your alliances insistence on overly harsh reps and continuing the war with Nicholai that I didn't just have him peace out and end this there.
[/quote]

This is not a war, it is a group of rogues. A war would imply that you have a legitimate alliance. While it may be referred to as a war at times it is only for the convenience of discussion.

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='dalstrs' timestamp='1285442533' post='2464446']
I can firmly say you will never have white peace.
[/quote]

You have authority on this matter?

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1285442625' post='2464449']
Then its you guys who choose to continue the war, it was because of your alliances insistence on overly harsh reps and continuing the war with Nicholai that I didn't just have him peace out and end this there.
[/quote]
We chose to "continue" the war because you think you can just declare on anyone you want for no reason and then get white peace when you're bored or losing. If you attack people for no reason they aren't going to let you off scott free. Your decision to fight GOONS -- twice -- is yours and yours alone. You always start the fights but then can't end them. TOP isn't going to bail you out this time, so unless YOU choose to approach us REALISTICALLY about surrender, you're prolonging this war yourself. It doesn't matter how much secret aid you get or how many more rogues and day 0 nations join your AA, until you're actually serious it's not going to stop. We don't care about the "damages" you're boasting. That's why we're fighting Jim.

[Choson]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1285442625' post='2464449']
Then its you guys who choose to continue the war, it was because of your alliances insistence on overly harsh reps and continuing the war with Nicholai that I didn't just have him peace out and end this there.
[/quote]
So, therefore, it was you who withdrew from the peace accords, not us. You have no one but yourself to blame for the continued hostilities between your group and our alliance.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Perhaps the precedent for automatically sanctioning declared rogues itself should be challenged, or at least looked at in greater detail.

Sanctioning a nation is an act of war; if a senator sanctioned an alliance member that alliance would demand that reparations be made or war would follow (at least if the alliance was strong enough). Any senator that sanctions a nation puts themselves (and effectively their alliance) in a state of war with the sanctioned nation.

With this in mind, asking another alliance to sanction a nation at war with you is asking that alliance to commit an act of war on that nation. Except for the historical precedent, there is no difference between asking an alliance to sanction an enemy nation and asking that alliance to send one of their nations to attack the enemy nation or to ask that alliance to provide material aid to nations fighting the enemy nation.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='dalstrs' timestamp='1285442919' post='2464453']
This is not a war, it is a group of rogues. A war would imply that you have a legitimate alliance. While it may be referred to as a war at times it is only for the convenience of discussion.
[/quote]
You posted a DoW, treating it as such. If we were just a group of rogues why would your entire gov sign off on an announcement to declare war on the alliance Kerberos Nexus? Regardless GOONS don't decide what an alliance is for the rest of CN, so it doesn't really matter. Although any peace talk would need to include all of KN and currently I think all the money you've extorted and inconveniences you've caused us makes up for any damages we've caused GOONS, so white peace is what we would find acceptable.

[Cortath]

[quote name='Choson' timestamp='1285442877' post='2464452']
I can read perfectly fine, good sir. Please tell me how the bolded sections below do not relate to each other since they describe, apparently, our actions as an alliance?
[/quote]

*writes M.-R. C-O-R-T-A-T-H on the blackboard in chalk*

Alrighty.

"Do I like some of your alliance's recent actions towards Red? No, of course not. I find them abhorrent and parasitic..."

Let's start with the first sentence. The subject of the sentence is "I". The verb is "like." The direct object of the verb ("like") is "your alliance's recent actions towards Red". Let's unpack that direct object. What is the direct object? "actions." What kind of actions? "actions towards red"? But lo! It's not just any actions, but there is an adjective, "recent" and a possessive pronoun phrase of "your alliance's." Thus, the direct object are the "actions" with "towards Red" describing what kind of actions, and "your alliance's" describing whose actions.

Let's move on to the next sentence. Again, the subject is "I" (Cortath). The verb is "find" meaning "believe" rather than "seek." The direct object of find is "them." "Them" is a pronoun. What does them refer to? Why, the direct object of the previous sentence: "actions!" Abhorrent and parasitic are adjectives describing the direct object.

Leave the apple on my desk.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Cortath

[Choson]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1285443173' post='2464459']
You posted a DoW, treating it as such. If we were just a group of rogues why would your entire gov sign off on an announcement to declare war on the alliance Kerberos Nexus? Regardless GOONS don't decide what an alliance is for the rest of CN, so it doesn't really matter. Although any peace talk would need to include all of KN and currently I think all the money you've extorted and inconveniences you've caused us makes up for any damages we've caused GOONS, so white peace is what we would find acceptable.
[/quote]
We relish the damage you caused, because we will give you far more in the long run. There will never be "white peace". Continuing to demand it won't make it happen any faster or slower.

[dalstrs]

[quote name='JimKongIl' timestamp='1285442928' post='2464454']
You have authority on this matter?
[/quote]

Actually I do have the authority and the support of the rest of GOONS gov. in this matter