Joint Poison Clan - iFOK Announcement

[Ardus]

[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' timestamp='1292831420' post='2546202']
This is !@#$%^&*.

Per NEW's logic, they weren't attacking an alliance, as it had disbanded and had less than ten members. As far as I know, PC isn't all that strict on the raid rules either, so the same should apply for them. By NEW's standards, this won't come under the oA clause at all, and shouldn't do by PC's standards either.

Your problem is that you are unsure on how this one would have played out if you defended NEW. And don't come with any "We've defended our allies no matter what" in the past. You haven't been close to the losing side ever since you climbed a bit higher on the hierarchical pyramid.

So man the $%&@ up or at least admit that you're too happy with your position to ever risk the current balance in the world. Don't blame it on the old "oA" clause. In global wars, you have treaty chained like a mother to get to war, on the right side. It is and will always be optional when convenient.
[/quote]

Per NEW's logic, up is down, left is right, and you're a smart fellow. Just because NEW says an aggressive action is not an aggressive action doesn't somehow make it magically true. Just because you think that somehow all treaties above a NAP are MADPs doesn't make that true either. What I see are [i]droves[/i] of people pissed off at PC and iFOK for not fulfilling the popular and depraved fantasy that a KARMA CIVIL WAR would erupt from NEW blowing a raid (millions shocked). NEW is almost universally recognized as in the wrong by friends, foes, acquaintances, and total invalids. No amount of raw emotion or legal gymnastics is going to change their relationship with their allies into one where PC and iFOK are obligated to follow NEW in every stupid little venture that crosses their pretty little heads.

[Dilber]

Ardus, according to previous actions taken by both PC and iFOK, NEW was not the aggressor. During the Red Safari, PC and iFOK both claimed that you cannot protect things that are not alliances. Dark Fist, by it's own statement, was no longer an alliance.

[jonte]

[quote name='Dilber' timestamp='1292832736' post='2546234']
Ardus, according to previous actions taken by both PC and iFOK, NEW was not the aggressor. During the Red Safari, PC and iFOK both claimed that you cannot protect things that are not alliances. Dark Fist, by it's own statement, was no longer an alliance.
[/quote]

Can you please enlighten me as to the actions iFOK took during Red Safari?

[Dilber]

iFOK was involved during the Red Safari, which was to test the NPO and Red Dawns ability to protect non-aligned nations on their sphere.

[jonte]

[quote name='Dilber' timestamp='1292833048' post='2546237']
iFOK was involved during the Red Safari, which was to test the NPO and Red Dawns ability to protect non-aligned nations on their sphere.
[/quote]

As far as I know FOK was involved, but I find no records of iFOK taking action.

[Dilber]

The CN wiki of the incident has multiple nations of iFOK shown as having participated.

[Petrovich4]

SpiderJ and Dilber's line of thinking is spot on.

Gotta give credit to PC and iFOK for being politically intelligent.

[jonte]

[quote name='Dilber' timestamp='1292833264' post='2546242']
The CN wiki of the incident has multiple nations of iFOK shown as having participated.
[/quote]

Two iFOK nations had raids out on Red at the time. iFOK never made a comment in regards to Red Safari - either condoning nor condemning it.

Edit:

I might add that PC had one raid on Red according to the wiki.

Considering these are two tech raiding alliances with more than 200 members I wouldn't call that participating.

Edited December 20, 2010 by jonte

[JT Jag]

For the record, a nation on none, in a one-man AA or or in a small unaligned micro alliance is not necessarily the same thing as recognized alliance with ties to several larger recognized alliances--- ties that have not yet expired, mind you--- that happened to close up shop.

The sequence of events here is quite important. DF had protection before NEW attacked them. Meanwhile, NPO and Red Dawn were attempting to resolve incidents with nations that had absolutely no bearing on them after the fact simply because they happened to share a color.

[pezstar]

I seem to remember PC raising a stink when STA stopped \m/ from raiding the remnants of GGA. They were quite approving of raiding dead alliances then.

[Starcraftmazter]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1292823772' post='2545871']Three alliances held MDP's or above with DF (four actually, but nemesis disbanded). Also, those three alliances have NEW more then covered and certainly have the ability to dole out the justice that they deserve.[/quote]

Dark Fist did not care much for the [i]lack of[/i] treaties, and had a policy of not signing treaties with black team alliances. Nemesis was a special exception. The relations between the former Dark Fist and DT are no lesser than with any other former ally - and this is not for you, nor anyone else, to refute. Furthermore, the connection between Dark Fist and Darkfall is obvious.

[hellsign]

[b][size="7"]NEW YEAR!!!! NEW WAR!!!![/size][/b]

[Dilber]

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1292833556' post='2546250']
For the record, a nation on none, in a one-man AA or or in a small unaligned micro alliance is not necessarily the same thing as recognized alliance with ties to several larger recognized alliances--- ties that have not yet expired, mind you--- that happened to close up shop.

The sequence of events here is quite important. DF had protection before NEW attacked them. Meanwhile, NPO and Red Dawn were attempting to resolve incidents with nations that had absolutely no bearing on them after the fact simply because they happened to share a color.
[/quote]


According to Dark Fist itself, it is no longer an alliance. You cannot have a treaty with a non-entity. Therefore, it is a one sided protection offered by INT and TPE. It was not out of necessity to defend a treaty partner. Dark Fist was below the number of members to be recognized as an alliance, a convention which was created by tech raiders. TPE and INT no longer were required to resolve the incidents. Previous actions taken by both PC and iFOK show this. You also remain allied to people that have attacked Micro alliances that were larger then Dark Fist as at the time of the incident. The only difference between a micro and Dark Fist is that Dark Fist claimed to no longer be an alliance.

*edit* Sorry, didn't realize I was responding to a different person. GOONs has hit alliances larger then Dark Fist. *end edit*

Edited December 20, 2010 by Dilber

[Dilber]

[quote name='jonte' timestamp='1292833556' post='2546248']
Two iFOK nations had raids out on Red at the time. iFOK never made a comment in regards to Red Safari - either condoning nor condemning it.

Edit:

I might add that PC had one raid on Red according to the wiki.

Considering these are two tech raiding alliances with more than 200 members I wouldn't call that participating.
[/quote]


Look at the numbers of the other participants. It's around the same size and amount. You also remained allied to those that participated on a larger scale, showing tacit approval.

[Earogema]

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1292833556' post='2546250']
For the record, a nation on none, in a one-man AA or or in a small unaligned micro alliance is not necessarily the same thing as recognized alliance with ties to several larger recognized alliances--- ties that have not yet expired, mind you--- that happened to close up shop.

The sequence of events here is quite important. DF had protection before NEW attacked them. Meanwhile, NPO and Red Dawn were attempting to resolve incidents with nations that had absolutely no bearing on them after the fact simply because they happened to share a color.
[/quote]
How have the ties not expired if the alliance in question is no longer in existence?

I think that's a silly thing to argue. FARK, TPE, and INT have the right to dictate what they wish to defend, even if they were just single nations on None. Hell, PC did it before. NEW just attacked into unaligned nations that had that protection. Those alliances were large/well connected enough to justify by might the protection of a former AA.

If any of those alliances wished to go to war over just a single, none, nation that was never part of an alliance, as long as they announced and made clear this protection it would be the exact same thing imo.

[jonte]

[quote name='Dilber' timestamp='1292833934' post='2546261']
Look at the numbers of the other participants. It's around the same size and amount. You also remained allied to those that participated on a larger scale, showing tacit approval.
[/quote]

You can't use our lack of response on a subject as a positive, and then twist it into supporting your point of view.

The fact is that iFOK did not condone nor condemn Red Safari. Our lack of response in regards to that incident does in no way shadow the current situation.

Edit:
OOC: I need to catch some shut-eye as I have work in the morning. Won't respond until I get back in about 12 hours.

Edited December 20, 2010 by jonte

[Dilber]

Did you punish your members for raiding red? It was a protected area, as stated by a group of alliances.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Dilber

[Voytek]

[quote name='Dilber' timestamp='1292834699' post='2546275']
Did you punish your members for raiding red? It was a protected area, as stated by a group of alliances.
[/quote]
I can say that I'm protecting anything I like, but it's not actually protected unless I go and protect it.

[SpiderJerusalem]

[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1292832128' post='2546219']
Dear SpiderJ

<3

Signed,
WickedJ

P.S. remember this? http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=58325
[/quote]

Hi wicked.

Also, that link is a gem that proves my point. Thanks


[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1292832597' post='2546231']
Per NEW's logic, up is down, left is right, and you're a smart fellow. Just because NEW says an aggressive action is not an aggressive action doesn't somehow make it magically true. Just because you think that somehow all treaties above a NAP are MADPs doesn't make that true either. What I see are [i]droves[/i] of people pissed off at PC and iFOK for not fulfilling the popular and depraved fantasy that a KARMA CIVIL WAR would erupt from NEW blowing a raid (millions shocked). NEW is almost universally recognized as in the wrong by friends, foes, acquaintances, and total invalids. No amount of raw emotion or legal gymnastics is going to change their relationship with their allies into one where PC and iFOK are obligated to follow NEW in every stupid little venture that crosses their pretty little heads.
[/quote]

Ardus. You are smarter than this.

It is not about protecting NEW because they deserve it. It is about protecting NEW because Poison Clan has done the [b]exact same thing[/b] as NEW before, and have suddenly changed their moral view on the world because now it's convinient of them to do so. If Poison Clan had [i]any[/i] balls at all, they would have defended NEW, no matter what the consequences would be.

Because, they don't have a NAP (Not that they wouldn't break that if they had to ), but they do have an obligation to [b]defend[/b] them through their M[b]D[/b]oAP. And as Poison Clan have so eloquently pointed out before, raiding dead alliances is perfectly fine. But when was this, I can't quite bring my mind to remember it


[quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1292833674' post='2546254']
I seem to remember PC raising a stink when STA stopped \m/ from raiding the remnants of GGA. They were quite approving of raiding dead alliances then.
[/quote]

Oh, never mind, there it was.

Edited December 20, 2010 by SpiderJerusalem

[JT Jag]

[quote name='Dilber' timestamp='1292834699' post='2546275']
Did you punish your members for raiding red? It was a protected area, as stated by a group of alliances.
[/quote]No, we didn't, because we didn't recognize NPO's sovereignty over an entire color sphere.

But that's another issue entirely.

[Dilber]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1292834858' post='2546277']
I can say that I'm protecting anything I like, but it's not actually protected unless I go and protect it.
[/quote]


I agree. I'm just stating that by their own actions, they have set the precedent that it is ok to hit "protected" nations that are not an alliance.

[Dilber]

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1292834889' post='2546280']
No, we didn't, because we didn't recognize NPO's sovereignty over an entire color sphere.

But that's another issue entirely.
[/quote]


NEW didn't recognize the sovereignty of TPE and INT over an entirely seperate AA.

[Earogema]

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1292834889' post='2546280']
No, we didn't, because we didn't recognize NPO's sovereignty over an entire color sphere.

But that's another issue entirely.
[/quote]
Well NEW didn't recognize the treaties as in effect since DF ceased to exist.

The only difference I'm seeing is that one was directed at NPO, an alliance that was weakened and not well connected, and the other was directed at a former alliance which had allies that could cause quite a stir in the treaty web.

I suppose the ability to actually [i]protect[/i] the entity is important as to if one can claim sovereignty though.

[Supa_Troop3r]

[quote name='Kryievla' timestamp='1292825837' post='2546007']
It's a difficult spot you guys are in, but looks like you made the best possible decision.
[/quote]
Reading up to here. I think this is the best post I've read so, I'll quote it.

DT has been put in this situation before and it sucks, no denying that. Although with the history of it all, I am pretty shocked to see PC taking this position.

[Sir Keshav IV]

Rather interesting decision but it seems logical so it does seem the better decision to take.