Believland Posted December 6, 2010 Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1291670447' post='2532275'] BoS is out of my range, so it would require more nations helping BoS for me to be to join the war regardless. Also I have been being diplomatic by discussing this war rather than rushing into it, I doubt they'll need any help just fighting BoS. [/quote] No, actually you haven't. You've been more hurtful as you've killed many brain cells with your incredibly retarded arguments and crazy theories. If you actually cared you would try to reach someone in private and actually talk about the situation at hand. That's actual diplomacy, not running around the forums screaming of evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted December 6, 2010 Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 [quote name='Believland' timestamp='1291670980' post='2532299'] No, actually you haven't. You've been more hurtful as you've killed many brain cells with your incredibly retarded arguments and crazy theories. If you actually cared you would try to reach someone in private and actually talk about the situation at hand. That's actual diplomacy, not running around the forums screaming of evil. [/quote] When you guys made that announcement that BoS was under your protection for a while, it didn't seem that BoS agreed to having the protectorate with you guys since he claimed only to have an ODP with you after that. So its you guys who are rushing into wars without first getting your treaties sorted out and it makes you look quite foolish. If its killing your brain cells it shows you never had strong ones to begin with, so no loss for anybody really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believland Posted December 6, 2010 Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1291671275' post='2532305'] When you guys made that announcement that BoS was under your protection for a while, it didn't seem that BoS agreed to having the protectorate with you guys since he claimed only to have an ODP with you after that. So its you guys who are rushing into wars without first getting your treaties sorted out and it makes you look quite foolish. If its killing your brain cells it shows you never had strong ones to begin with, so no loss for anybody really. [/quote] There are things that go through back rooms first. Also, OTS isn't in a war! SURPRISE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted December 6, 2010 Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 [quote name='Believland' timestamp='1291671415' post='2532307'] There are things that go through back rooms first. Also, OTS isn't in a war! SURPRISE! [/quote] Well you're still trying to claim them a protectorate of yours despite it not being valid under your own arguments, I recall you saying in this very thread that both parties need to agree on a protectorate and it can't be decided by one alliance, [quote name='Believland' timestamp='1291669403' post='2532252'] There's a difference about two alliances agreeing to something and one alliance forcing something. For example, most alliances do this while a protectorate is in talks. [/quote] BoS considered you guys to have an ODP, so you guys can't unilaterally decide you have a protectorate with them from what you're saying. In one post you argue one alliance stating another is under their protection isn't valid without both agreeing to it and then you claim to have a unilaterally decided on protectorate with BoS. Seems like a very hypocritical viewpoint you have on how treaties and agreements work, which seems to always be how you want them to even if you contradict yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashoka the Great Posted December 6, 2010 Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1291669219' post='2532246']If just stating something without signing an actual treaty counts as a protectorate these days....[/quote] I can cite a 2007 precedent, if you'd like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted December 6, 2010 Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1291674405' post='2532366'] I can cite a 2007 precedent, if you'd like. [/quote] They tried arguing against that earlier in the thread, but I know its been done. If I state I'll protect Sajasabie if they need it, it doesn't make my claim of having an obligation to get involved any less valid than OTS. Both are a statements saying how things are and my view is treaties aren't needed, it was OTS who was saying that doesn't count and I pointed out how they were contradicting themselves. Anyways unless OTS or other alliance jump in to try curb stomping Sajasabie I have no reason to get involved, but if more alliance jump in to attack Sajasabie I'll probably help them as it would be a clearly unfair fight. Edited December 6, 2010 by Methrage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 [quote name='Believland' timestamp='1291668646' post='2532236'] ^That's not an ODP. [/quote] To be fair here, Damsky has been saying it's an ODP left, right, and center. Quick perusal found these: [quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1291532479' post='2530718']We have an ODP with OTS. I've told them not to counter declare if Sajasabie's protectorate counter-declares.[/quote][quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1291593351' post='2531353']Our treaty with OTS is an ODP not an MDP.[/quote][quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1291594675' post='2531370']OTS has every right to stick out (I encouraged them to aswell) because it's an OPTIONAL Defense Pact.[/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kubla Khan Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 epic, God speed guys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Schumacher Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 Have fun with this D. Good to know your stirring it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnCapistan Posted December 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Jeb the Wise' timestamp='1291657313' post='2532057'] Good move Sajasabie. Most honorable. [/quote] How is it honorable to declare on a protected nation and after you were informed of the fact said nation was protected continue to war them? I can't believe I forgot to post these, oh well: [quote]Session Start: Sat Dec 04 22:30:26 2010 Session Ident: #SJBWarroom 03[22:30] * Now talking in #SJBWarroom [22:31] <@KingNai> Hello again 03[22:31] * Rand[clone] (xxx) has joined #SJBWarroom [22:32] <@KingNai> Hello [22:32] <Rand[clone]> Howdy, Randalla here, in case there's any dispute 01[22:33] <MrDamsky> Alright [22:33] <@KingNai> Ok, so no CB [22:33] <@KingNai> It is my impression that defending a rouge nuked nation is a CB upon itself 01[22:33] <MrDamsky> What? 01[22:33] <MrDamsky> That sentence doesn't make any sense. [22:33] <@KingNai> Cat Land has nuked the RED member 01[22:33] <MrDamsky> We are defending Cat Land against all bandwagoners 01[22:34] <MrDamsky> For the purpose of this discussion we are defining a bandwagoner as someone who enters in a war without a CB 01[22:34] <MrDamsky> You have no treaties 01[22:34] <MrDamsky> Thus no CB. 01[22:34] <MrDamsky> Thus you are a bandwagoner. [22:34] <Rand[clone]> Catland doesn't have a CB against RED. They're nothing but nuke rogues as far as I can tell 01[22:35] <MrDamsky> That is true [22:35] <Rand[clone]> SJB decided that, since no one is capable or willing to help the RED nation that was nuked, they would lend a hand. If catland are your allies, not just nuke rogues, call them off 01[22:35] <MrDamsky> But as we all learned in kindergarten two wrongs don't make a right. 01[22:35] <MrDamsky> We basically have an ODP with Cat Land [22:35] <Rand[clone]> You protecting nuke rogues doesn't make a right [22:36] <Rand[clone]> they are the aggressors without a CB 01[22:36] <MrDamsky> I'm protecting them from raiders and bandwagoners [22:36] <Rand[clone]> While they raid and nuke a defenseless alliance 01[22:36] <MrDamsky> That's acceptable to us. 01[22:36] <MrDamsky> Raiding is okay. 01[22:36] <MrDamsky> So we present you with two options: 01[22:37] <MrDamsky> 1. Declare peace in that thread with Cat Land pending reparations 01[22:37] <MrDamsky> Or 01[22:37] <MrDamsky> 2. Face the wrath of the brotherhood [22:37] <Rand[clone]> Will catland be the one paying reps to RED? 01[22:37] <MrDamsky> You have 10 minutes to make your decision 01[22:37] <MrDamsky> No 01[22:37] <MrDamsky> SJB will be paying to Cat Land 01[22:37] <MrDamsky> For their unwarranted attacks [22:37] <Rand[clone]> For catland's unwarranted attacks against RED? 01[22:37] <MrDamsky> It's a raid 01[22:38] <MrDamsky> Against an unprotected alliance [22:38] <Rand[clone]> It was a declared war [22:38] <Rand[clone]> without a CB 01[22:38] <MrDamsky> So what? It was a raid. 01[22:38] <MrDamsky> RED has no treaties 01[22:38] <MrDamsky> Cat Land does. 01[22:38] <MrDamsky> You are attacking my ally without a treaty connection. [22:38] <Rand[clone]> Far as I know, catland disbands and reforms whenever they get bored, just to rogue on another alliance [22:39] <Rand[clone]> There's nothing official in that, and nothing official between the two of you that I've seen 01[22:39] <MrDamsky> So what? [22:39] <Rand[clone]> same instance as SJB decideing to help RED 01[22:39] <MrDamsky> We have an agreement 01[22:39] <MrDamsky> We don't make our treaties public 01[22:39] <MrDamsky> I assure you though, it exists. [22:39] <Rand[clone]> so SJB made an agreement to help RED against the nuke rogue 01[22:39] <MrDamsky> No they didn't 01[22:40] <MrDamsky> SJB stated they had no ties to RED [22:40] <Rand[clone]> They did by their active defense of the nation 01[22:40] <MrDamsky> That's not an agreement 01[22:40] <MrDamsky> You cannot make up an agreement at the eleventh hour to justify your war. 01[22:40] <MrDamsky> That's not how it works. 01[22:41] <MrDamsky> You have five minutes. [22:41] <Rand[clone]> They're nuke rogues [22:41] <Rand[clone]> And get catland in here for proper negotiations, instead of threatening my protectorate. We will defend our protectorate against "bandwagoners" 01[22:42] <MrDamsky> Catland is not in here 01[22:43] <MrDamsky> As their leader is not online 01[22:43] <MrDamsky> You have three minutes [22:43] <Rand[clone]> We will not be hounded into negotiating without all parties present then, if you insist that they aren't simply nuke rogues [22:43] <Rand[clone]> Arrange for them to be present [22:44] <Rand[clone]> and we'll come to an agreement [22:45] <Rand[clone]> Also, Ernie needs to be present as head of SJB [22:45] <Rand[clone]> before anything is agreed on 01[22:46] <MrDamsky> Your time is up 01[22:46] <MrDamsky> What is your decision? [22:46] <@KingNai> The full head of SJB isn't here [22:46] <Rand[clone]> You just saw what I've said. Get catland in here before you continue to issue threats. [22:47] <@KingNai> nor is Cat Land [22:47] <Rand[clone]> catland needs to be here, if you consider them more than rogues [22:48] <Rand[clone]> Set a time tomorrow where they're likely to be available [22:48] <@KingNai> I will be, Ernie most likely not [22:49] <Rand[clone]> Not even afternoonish? :/ [22:49] <@KingNai> No, gone all day pretty much, maybe afternoon [22:49] <@KingNai> He may pop back on tonight 01[22:49] <MrDamsky> Stalling [22:50] <Rand[clone]> No, but if you're saying they're not just rogues, then appropriate parties need to be present [22:51] <Rand[clone]> I don't think they're anything but rogues, myself, but I'm willing to help with the negotiations, regardless [22:53] <Rand[clone]> I see by your attack against a Sajasabie nation that was not involved in the defensive attacks against catland, you're not terribly interested in arriving at a resolution, yourself 01[23:05] <MrDamsky> Rand[clone] 01[23:05] <MrDamsky> I declared on the alliance 01[23:05] <MrDamsky> When someone DoWs an alliance they attack who they can 01[23:05] <MrDamsky> I can only attack that nation [23:07] <Rand[clone]> Congratulations for supporting a nuke rogue, I suppose. 01[23:07] <MrDamsky> He's a raider 01[23:07] <MrDamsky> And yes 01[23:07] <MrDamsky> I support raiders 01[23:07] <MrDamsky> deal with it [23:09] <Rand[clone]> We will be. I have no interest in persuing reps, even for RED. 01[23:09] <MrDamsky> It's a shame we couldn't reach a peaceful solution 01[23:09] <MrDamsky> Alas the Brotherhood rides to war [23:11] <Rand[clone]> You fairly well prevented it from happening, by refusing to have your ally meet 01[23:12] <MrDamsky> I didn't refuse 01[23:12] <MrDamsky> He just wasn't on [23:12] <Rand[clone]> And your failure to yield long enough for parties to be present is negligent 01[23:12] <MrDamsky> If you were interested in negotation you would have persued it prior to Declaring War [23:12] <Rand[clone]> there was no way to do so, since by your admission, this was a secret treaty [23:13] <Rand[clone]> by everything that we could see, catland is nothing but a rogue alliance, formed out of the blue for kicks, without any ties of their own except for a few lookie-loos on the oWF 01[23:13] <MrDamsky> <Rand[clone]> there was no way to do so, since by your admission, this was a secret treaty 01[23:13] <MrDamsky> I meant negotiations with Catland [23:14] <Rand[clone]> With rogues? [23:14] <Rand[clone]> I'm sure it would have gone something like, please stop nuking a nation that is incapable of returning the favor. Response: LOL I'll get right on that [23:15] <Rand[clone]> SJB were the ones who wanted to help the nuked nation. I checked for any connections with catland, and found none 01[23:15] <MrDamsky> Welp 01[23:15] <MrDamsky> Should have looked harder 01[23:15] <MrDamsky> Now Sajasabie pays [23:15] <Rand[clone]> your attack, in turn, is incredibly negligent, given the fact that there was no way to conduct diplomacy 03[23:29] * @KingNai (xxx) has left #SJBWarroom Session Close: Sat Dec 04 23:41:53 2010 [/quote] As you can see AzN and Sajasabie both knew they were declaring war on a protected nation. They did not care and stated they would continue to attack SWAT. This was unacceptable, thus this declaration. (OOC: for some reason I can't properly post the link to the logs so I'll just directly post them) Edited December 7, 2010 by Mr Damsky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNai Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 [font=arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif][size=2][quote][color=#1C2837]<MrDamsky> We don't make our treaties public[/quote][/color] [color=#1C2837] [/color][/size][/font] [color=#1C2837][quote][/color][color=#1C2837][size=2]As you can see AzN and Sajasabie both knew they were declaring war on a protected nation.[/quote][/size][/color] [color=#1C2837][size=2] [/size][/color] [size="2"][color="#1C2837"][size=2]Please tell us how we knew of these secret "treaties"[/size][/color][/size] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnCapistan Posted December 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 (edited) [quote name='KingNai' timestamp='1291697187' post='2532615'] Please tell us how we knew of these secret "treaties" [/quote] I told you all about it in those logs. You continued to attack him even after you knew he was protected. Your initial attack was forgivable, your refusal to peace out was not. Edited December 7, 2010 by Mr Damsky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNai Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 [quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1291697533' post='2532618'] I told you all about it in those logs. You continued to attack him even after you knew he was protected. Your initial attack was forgivable, your refusal to peace out was not. [/quote] As was your refusal of diplomacy. If you want diplomacy, make sure all parties are present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnCapistan Posted December 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 [quote name='KingNai' timestamp='1291697653' post='2532620'] As was your refusal of diplomacy. If you want diplomacy, make sure all parties are present. [/quote] All parties didn't need to be present. I was simply stating you attacked a nation we were protecting and to offer peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 [quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1291689160' post='2532550'] How is it honorable to declare on a protected nation and after you were informed of the fact said nation was protected continue to war them? [/quote] Defending victims against unprovoked assaults is always honourable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnCapistan Posted December 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1291698323' post='2532627'] Defending victims against unprovoked assaults is always honourable. [/quote] Spare me your moralist garbage. The nation was protected from those without a treaty connection to RED. They knew this and continued to attack. Edited December 7, 2010 by Mr Damsky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 [quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1291698520' post='2532630'] Spare me your moralist garbage. The nation was protected from those without a treaty connection to RED. They knew this and continued to attack. [/quote] Treaties aren't needed to do what's right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnCapistan Posted December 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1291698678' post='2532634'] Treaties aren't needed to do what's right. [/quote] That's all your argument hinges on. What you believe is "right". I personally see nothing wrong with what SWAT did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 [quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1291698817' post='2532637'] That's all your argument hinges on. What you believe is "right". I personally see nothing wrong with what SWAT did. [/quote] And he does. Both are subjective viewpoints.You can't base an argument on that unless you're willing to accept the other side can do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernando12 Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 (edited) [quote]01[22:33] <MrDamsky> We are defending Cat Land against all bandwagoners 01[22:34] <MrDamsky> For the purpose of this discussion we are defining a bandwagoner as someone who enters in a war without a CB 01[22:34] <MrDamsky> You have no treaties 01[22:34] <MrDamsky> Thus no CB. 01[22:34] <MrDamsky> Thus you are a bandwagoner.[/quote] Damsky, you really can't be that clueless. A nation or an alliance does not need a treaty to go to war on behalf of another nation or alliance. Sajasabie's reason for declaring war is the use of nukes against a non-nuke nation. That is their CB, their cause for war. Intervention to defeat rogues and nations the likes of yours is cause enough to go to war for Sajasabie. Deal with it Damsky or tuck tail and run. Edited December 7, 2010 by Fernando12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 [quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1291698817' post='2532637'] That's all your argument hinges on. What you believe is "right". I personally see nothing wrong with what SWAT did. [/quote] Actually, I didn't say I see anything wrong with what SWAT did. What I said was, defending victims against unprovoked assaults - which is what SWAT did - is honourable and right. You're the one out here trying to claim someone committed a terrible crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnCapistan Posted December 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 [quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1291699420' post='2532645'] Intervention to defeat rogues and nations the likes of yours is cause enough to go to war for Sajasabie. Deal with it Damsky or tuck tail and run. [/quote] This "rogue" (SWAT) was protected. They didn't care and did not peace out. That is unacceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernando12 Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 [quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1291700501' post='2532656'] This "rogue" (SWAT) was protected. They didn't care and did not peace out. That is unacceptable. [/quote] And to Sajasabie it's not acceptable for nuke nations to nuke non-nuke nations. Swat has not peaced out, either. That is unacceptable. It's even more unacceptable to say you're protecting a rogue. Your defensive slots are empty still, interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1291700959' post='2532658'] And to Sajasabie it's not acceptable for nuke nations to nuke non-nuke nations. [/quote] [url=http://tinyurl.com/27sn384]E_T? Is that you?[/url] Edited December 7, 2010 by wickedj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stelios Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 o/ damsky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.