Operation flySWATter

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1291534814' post='2530751']
"We are aiding a nation in order to assist it in its war against Sajasabie, an alliance, in contradiction to all standards."
[/quote]

No sir, we are simply doing the same thing that Sajasabie is doing in the OP. Taking up the plight of the maltreatment of small nations being mercilessly destroyed by the bloodthirsty(yet ironically hypocritical) forces of Sajasabie.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1291535187' post='2530757']
Rush Sykes, Champion of Persecuted Rogues Everywhere.


Are you writing this or is someone you trust to argue on your behalf playing you? You aided SWAT before anyone ever got on his case.
[/quote]

Of course we did. He was in a non-alliance. Fighting a non-alliance. And he is a friend. Friends help friends. I know this is difficult for you to grasp. I really do not know how much simpler to make it though. I thought friends helping friends was a good thing. I am glad you are hear to educate me differently though. Thank you sir.

[Kevin McDonald]

Give 'em hell, SWAT.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1291535276' post='2530758']
No sir, we are simply doing the same thing that Sajasabie is doing in the OP. Taking up the plight of the maltreatment of small nations being mercilessly destroyed by the bloodthirsty(yet ironically hypocritical) forces of Sajasabie.
[/quote]
That is the stupidest thing I have seen posted ever. A rogue attacks an alliance. You aid the rogue. You aided him before he was attacked. You are doing no such thing. You are purposely being obtuse to justify "defending" your friend. I am okay with defending a friend, regardless of what they've done, but don't try to justify it. Just say "I'm their friend and I really don't care what they did." Archon did it for you guys during Ni. You should know better by now.

Edited December 5, 2010 by Earogema

[Locke]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1291535104' post='2530755']
I can apply THEIR own values to them. They created it when they espoused the values. They created the rule they are to be judged by with their own words. CATLAND is 2 men fight 14. Yet the OP set THIS tone...

Ladies and Gentlemen of Planet Bob, [b]Sajasabie has always concerned itself with the maltreatment of small nations,[/b] most recently we've seen a DoW from the alliance Cat Land on Red Elite Defence. Athens, being similarly moved the maltreatment of small nations, has decided to aid the tiny nations flying the AA of CATLAND.

Sajasabie set the standard in this thread. I am simply playing this new gambit, by their rules.
[/quote]
As I've already gone at length to explain, Cat Land is hardly experiencing "maltreatment." They, the aggressor, preyed upon a much weaker opponent (the 14 to 2 argument is !@#$%^&* and you know it), and Sajasabie jumped in to even the odds, pitting one advantage to another. If you leave it at that, the fight is even. But instead, you aid the attacker, who already likely has a massive warchest and hardly needs such help, making it pure overkill. It only stands to reason that to even the fight again, the other side should receive equal treatment.

[Schattenmann]

I think two people are posting as Rush. That is the only explanation of the schizophrenic nature of his arguments.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1291535187' post='2530757']
Rush Sykes, Champion of Persecuted Rogues Everywhere.


Are you writing this or is someone you trust to argue on your behalf playing you? You aided SWAT before anyone ever got on his case.
[/quote]

ITP Schattenman tries to project that "Simpley because he views SWAT as a rogue, that makes SWAT a rogue"... as we all know.. Schatt, and only Schatt, gets to make that determination for everyone else. Newsflash: SWAT, who before HAS been a rogue several times, is NOT a rogue in this instance.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1291535507' post='2530763']
As I've already gone at length to explain, Cat Land is hardly experiencing "maltreatment." They, the aggressor, preyed upon a much weaker opponent (the 14 to 2 argument is !@#$%^&* and you know it), and Sajasabie jumped in to even the odds, pitting one advantage to another. If you leave it at that, the fight is even. But instead, you aid the attacker, who already likely has a massive warchest and hardly needs such help, making it pure overkill. It only stands to reason that to even the fight again, the other side should receive equal treatment.
[/quote]

You heard it here 1st folks. 21 vs 2 is even.

NEVER EVER CHANGE !

[Earogema]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1291535628' post='2530766']
ITP Schattenman tries to project that "Simpley because he views SWAT as a rogue, that makes SWAT a rogue"... as we all know.. Schatt, and only Schatt, gets to make that determination for everyone else. Newsflash: SWAT, who before HAS been a rogue several times, is NOT a rogue in this instance.
[/quote]
Wait so...

Athens gets to decide the number where an alliance becomes an alliance, but no other alliance is allowed to decide who is rogue is, even though they are CLEARLY a rogue who aggressively attacked another alliance without provocation?

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1291535628' post='2530766']
ITP Schattenman tries to project that "Simpley because he views SWAT as a rogue, that makes SWAT a rogue"... as we all know.. Schatt, and only Schatt, gets to make that determination for everyone else. Newsflash: SWAT, who before HAS been a rogue several times, is NOT a rogue in this instance.
[/quote]
"Just because Schattenmann calls SWAT a rogue doesn't make him one. Just because I say SWAT is not a rogue means that he is not."

You're so much fun! 50 more, people, 50 more tech for me.

Edited December 5, 2010 by Schattenmann

[Locke]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1291535611' post='2530764']
I think two people are posting as Rush. That is the only explanation of the schizophrenic nature of his arguments.
[/quote]
That would explain an awful lot.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1291535683' post='2530767']
You heard it here 1st folks. 21 vs 2 is even.

NEVER EVER CHANGE !
[/quote]
Or 3 non-nuclear nations to 1 nuclear nation, like I've said all along.

I really do never ever change, unlike some.

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1291535828' post='2530768']
Wait so...

Athens gets to decide the number where an alliance becomes an alliance, but no other alliance is allowed to decide who is rogue is, even though they are CLEARLY a rogue who aggressively attacked another alliance without provocation?
[/quote]
Exactly.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1291535991' post='2530770']

Exactly.
[/quote]
5bux says we get some kind of half-assed sovereignty reply.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1291535496' post='2530762']
That is the stupidest thing I have seen posted ever. A rogue attacks an alliance. You aid the rogue. You aided him before he was attacked. You are doing no such thing. You are purposely being obtuse to justify "defending" your friend. I am okay with defending a friend, regardless of what they've done, but don't try to justify it. Just say "I'm their friend and I really don't care what they did." Archon did it for you guys during Ni. You should know better by now.
[/quote]

Everything you said here is true and accurate, except for all of it. Lets go with the 2nd sentence...

A rogue attacks an alliance. -- fails. At least in the eyes of Athens(and to be honest, most other alliances on this game). Why? RED has no treaties. RED is less than 15 members. Athens does not recognize RED as an alliance. You cannot "rogue" a non-alliance (well, I suppose maybe you could in the rawest of terms, but that is another debate).

Sentence 2: You aid the rogue. -- Patently false, as the debunking of sentence 1 already proved SWAT , in this case, was not a rogue.

You aided him before he was attacked. -- For the 376379857983795th time, he was a friend, we helped a friend. Friends help friends, its what they do. If he were a rogue, we wouldnt have helped him.

After this point, I agree with pretty much everything you said. But just because YOU(or anyone else for that matter, alliance or individual) views SWATs attack on RED as a rogue attack(to the general meaning of rogue to the community at large, not in the rawest of terms), doesnt mean anyone else does, or has to. It is in the eye of the beholder, or more simply, in the eye of the alliance charter.

[Schattenmann]

Sorry, Locke, I sort of cheated you on that 5 bucks. I knew there would be no payout, see?

[Locke]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1291536081' post='2530773']
You aided him before he was attacked. -- For the 376379857983795th time, he was a friend, we helped a friend. Friends help friends, its what they do. If he were a rogue, we wouldnt have helped him.
[/quote]
Being your (subjective) friend makes him (objectively) not a rogue? I mean, you can call blue red, but that doesn't make it any less blue.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1291535865' post='2530769']
"Just because Schattenmann calls SWAT a rogue doesn't make him one. Just because I say SWAT is not a rogue means that he is not."

You're so much fun! 50 more, people, 50 more tech for me.
[/quote]

Except, I have said all along (in Haf's blog as well), that the determination of what does, and does not make an alliance, is up to the individual alliance. We all have our own point at which alliances become "off limits". In Athens' case, as well as many others, RED does not meet that criteria. Hence, in Athens eyes, RED is not an alliance. For Athens(and Athens only) purposes, SWAT cannot be considered a rogue of a non-alliance. You all can have your own standards, indeed every alliance has them. Your are yours. Simply because they are yours, however, does not make them mine, or anyone else's. I was not aware this was a new concept.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1291536081' post='2530773']
Everything you said here is true and accurate, except for all of it. Lets go with the 2nd sentence...

A rogue attacks an alliance. -- fails. At least in the eyes of Athens(and to be honest, most other alliances on this game). Why? RED has no treaties. RED is less than 15 members. Athens does not recognize RED as an alliance. You cannot "rogue" a non-alliance (well, I suppose maybe you could in the rawest of terms, but that is another debate).

Sentence 2: You aid the rogue. -- Patently false, as the debunking of sentence 1 already proved SWAT , in this case, was not a rogue.

You aided him before he was attacked. -- For the 376379857983795th time, he was a friend, we helped a friend. Friends help friends, its what they do. If he were a rogue, we wouldnt have helped him.

After this point, I agree with pretty much everything you said. But just because YOU(or anyone else for that matter, alliance or individual) views SWATs attack on RED as a rogue attack(to the general meaning of rogue to the community at large, not in the rawest of terms), doesnt mean anyone else does, or has to. It is in the eye of the beholder, or more simply, in the eye of the alliance charter.
[/quote]
So like I said before. Attacking Cat Land is not a rogue or bandwagon action because he is not part of an alliance. See, I am trying to work via your double standards and it isn't working.

If we assume that both are alliances, you are wrong.
If we assume that RED is an alliance and SWAT is a rogue, you are wrong.
If we assume that RED is not an alliance at Cat Land is you MAY be right.
If we assume neither are an alliance you are wrong and Sajasabe are not bandwagoners they are just attacking somebody who is not in an alliance.

You are pretty much wrong. It doesn't matter that RED isn't viewed as an alliance by Athens or anyone. SWAT said implicitly by attacking them that he could take them on his own and you aided him regardless. You are also well aware of lower nation mechanics and know that 3 million at SWATs level is more than enough to defeat the nations he's fighting.

Sajasabe's attack is justified on the ground that Cat Land is not an alliance.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1291535828' post='2530768']
Wait so...

Athens gets to decide the number where an alliance becomes an alliance, but no other alliance is allowed to decide who is rogue is, even though they are CLEARLY a rogue who aggressively attacked another alliance without provocation?
[/quote]

Have you never EVER read a thread about tech raiding? This is among the oldest arguments on all of Planet Bob. Surely you have not been under a rock the last 2 years. You know who Athens gets to determine what is and isnt an alliance for? Athens. Nobody else. Not CoJ. Much like CoJ's determination of what is, and isnt an alliance means nothing to me. Im literally amazed, that you, as well as others, act as though this is a new concept.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1291536496' post='2530780']
Have you never EVER read a thread about tech raiding? This is among the oldest arguments on all of Planet Bob. Surely you have not been under a rock the last 2 years. You know who Athens gets to determine what is and isnt an alliance for? Athens. Nobody else. Not CoJ. Much like CoJ's determination of what is, and isnt an alliance means nothing to me. Im literally amazed, that you, as well as others, act as though this is a new concept.
[/quote]
How large does an "alliance" need to be for Athens to recognize it as an alliance?

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1291532915' post='2530723']
RED is not an alliance. CATLAND is not an alliance. Let them have at one another. That is, as it should be.[/quote]
Arguing they're not an alliance undermines the argument that it's a 14 vs. 2 war, particularly since there are only two actual wars between the AAs being fought. They're either nations banded together into an organization for mutual protection (ie. an alliance) or they're just independent nations ghosting the same AA. Which is it?

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1291536475' post='2530779']
[b]So like I said before. Attacking Cat Land is not a rogue or bandwagon action because he is not part of an alliance. See, I am trying to work via your double standards and it isn't working.[/b]

If we assume that both are alliances, you are wrong.
If we assume that RED is an alliance and SWAT is a rogue, you are wrong.
If we assume that RED is not an alliance at Cat Land is you MAY be right.
If we assume neither are an alliance you are wrong and Sajasabe are not bandwagoners they are just attacking somebody who is not in an alliance.

You are pretty much wrong. It doesn't matter that RED isn't viewed as an alliance by Athens or anyone. SWAT said implicitly by attacking them that he could take them on his own and you aided him regardless. You are also well aware of lower nation mechanics and know that 3 million at SWATs level is more than enough to defeat the nations he's fighting.

Sajasabe's attack is justified on the ground that Cat Land is not an alliance.
[/quote]

The bolded part, believe it or not, is actually ALMOST totally true. And while badnwagoning may be a poor choice of words, it is the best word I have to use at this moment. They are not tech raiding SWATs non-alliance, they are attacking him in the name of destruction. Which, I really have no major issue with, we could all use with some wanton destruction right about now. We are continuing our policy of helping a friend. If they want to view their action as an alliance war, then I am willing to concede the point to them, that it is an alliance war. Which makes them bandwagoners.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1291536880' post='2530784']
The bolded part, believe it or not, is actually ALMOST totally true. And while badnwagoning may be a poor choice of words, it is the best word I have to use at this moment. They are not tech raiding SWATs non-alliance, they are attacking him in the name of destruction. Which, I really have no major issue with, we could all use with some wanton destruction right about now. We are continuing our policy of helping a friend. If they want to view their action as an alliance war, then I am willing to concede the point to them, that it is an alliance war. Which makes them bandwagoners.
[/quote]
So it becomes an alliance war because they view themselves as an alliance, even though they are only 7 members in size, but an alliance that is 14 members in size that has not clarified their position as an alliance in this conflict is not an alliance. Would RED be an alliance if it recognized hostilities?

Anyway, I'm glad you at least admit that bandwagoning is probably the incorrect word.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1291536824' post='2530783']
Arguing they're not an alliance undermines the argument that it's a 14 vs. 2 war, particularly since there are only two actual wars between the AAs being fought. They're either nations banded together into an organization for mutual protection (ie. an alliance) or they're just independent nations ghosting the same AA. Which is it?
[/quote]

Incorrect. They can be(as has been proven in raiding event after raiding event) nations banded together for mutual protection, and still not be an alliance by the standards of 2/3 of the planet. I dont recall ever saying they are 14 nations ghosting the same AA. Im pretty sure that in their own minds, they think of themselves as an alliance. I will now ask you the same thing I asked in my last post, to your alliance mate. Have you never read a tech raiding thread? All alliances on this planet have their own criteria for when they recognize another alliance. Hurray, you have yours, and you play by that rule. We dont have yours, we have ours. Ours is not yours. Ours is different than yours. Simply because you view X as an alliance, does not mean we do. Simply because we do, by the same token, does not mean that you have to. I will say, for at LEAST the 10th time now, this is NOT A NEW CONCEPT.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1291537103' post='2530787']
So it becomes an alliance war because they view themselves as an alliance, even though they are only 7 members in size, but an alliance that is 14 members in size that has not clarified their position as an alliance in this conflict is not an alliance. Would RED be an alliance if it recognized hostilities?

Anyway, I'm glad you at least admit that bandwagoning is probably the incorrect word.
[/quote]

Erm, you are not stupid, so I will assume you missed a fact or 2. These guys view themselves as an alliance. Athens , as well, views them as an alliance. Reason? They have a protector. AGAIN, this is not a new concept. You can ridicule my arguments, all you want, I am a big boy, I can take it. But to willfully misrepresent something that is totallt concrete( Sajasabie being an alliance vs RED not being an alliance) is really poor form on your part.

Would RED be an alliance if it recognized hostilities? --NO... They have no treaties, and are less than 20 members(Athens guideline). Why do you act like this is a new concept?

[Schattenmann]

The big, glaring, stupid problem for all this "they are not an alliance by our definition/charter" is Athens' charter itself:

Article V
The Use of Force

Raiding Rules
Athens permits and approves of the practice of tech/land/money raiding within a reasonable framework of rules. Unaligned targets may be raided by any member of Athens. Raid targets with any alliance affiliation must be approved directly by a member of the military chain of command with the rank of Lochagos or higher. While team raids (2 or more Athens members attacking the same target) are permitted on the unaligned, this practice is strictly forbidden for aligned targets. Raiding aligned targets of below 10,000 NS is [b]forbidden, as is raiding aligned targets in an alliance affiliation which has greater than 10 members,[/b] or a protectorate, or is an "alliance applicant" affiliation. Forms of attack other than ground attacks and spy operations are NOT to be used unless your target uses them first. Peace offers are to be sent immediately following two ground attacks. If a nation has not become active by the update, it is acceptable to make two more attacks, providing that a new peace offer is sent thereafter. Nations which nuke you while you are raiding them are not considered rogue, and will not be pursued beyond the duration of the war or made targets for sanctions because of their choice to nuke. Any violation of these rules will be dealt with as seen fit by the government.


Even though Athens' charter says nothing about treaties, Rush keeps bringing it up as a requirement/factor of allianceship. Even though Athens' charter says "10" Rush keeps saying they're not an alliance by Athens' definition. RED has 14 nations, they have a treaty.

So what gives? Have you just never read your charter, Rush?

edit:
[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1291537411' post='2530789']
Would RED be an alliance if it recognized hostilities? --NO... They have no treaties, and are less than 20 members(Athens guideline). Why do you act like this is a new concept?
[/quote]
Haha. Charter says 10, Rush says 20.

Edited December 5, 2010 by Schattenmann