The Commonsense Revolution

[Moe Szyslak]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1294559435' post='2569534']
Again, why does it matter? If they're masked or not, ARE were still given the chance to do what they wanted with those nations, but that wasn't good enough for them. But, by ZIing Keve, you'll teach them a lesson!
[/quote]

Giving a nation up when it's clear you're only going to rebuild them when it's over is a lot different than pointing your finger and saying "gtfo!"

If the attackers were members of UINE gov, then I'd say that their actions were clearly gov sanctioned, and UINE is completely on the hook for those actions.


Keve, I've always liked you, and I still don't know that I can justify this ZI. If you need some help rebuilding when it's all over, I'll buy tech from you at 3/100 (slight chuckle). srsly though, you'll rebuild from this quickly no doubt. You would probably fare best in this matter if you did not continue to argue over the OWF though about the fairness or unfairness of terms that you've already accepted and chose to bow out of this thing gracefully.

Best of luck to everybody in the rebuilding effort from this war. I refuse to call the terms just, but nonetheless wish everybody the best in recovering and completing these terms.

[janax]

Could have been better, but at least one thing I've hoped for happened.

Good resolution R&R

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Pomiel' timestamp='1294566845' post='2569632']
When you combine someone as hot headed as Xiphosis with an alliance as stupid as Echelon, you cannot expect decent terms. Period. Keve may have $%&@ed up, but I find it hard to believe that it deserved a ZU.
[/quote]

What does your .gov think?

Thing that is wrong here is the word 'commonsense' because clearly it has still failed to penetrate in one of the parties to agreement.

Edited January 9, 2011 by shahenshah

[Penkala]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1294552115' post='2569357']
[color="#FF0000"]One would think that with a collection of powerful allies, like NpO and it's affiliates, that UINE could at least secure a more favorable conclusion, rather than buckling to the whims of traditionally cowardly alliances like Echelon. Congrats on having equally cowardly allies.

Those that have pressed this agreement are equally at fault. These terms reek of pre-Karma stench.[/color]
[/quote]

In case you didn't notice, R&R was involved too.

That's why they 'buckled'. R&R's political power

[quote]. In between dealing with another round of 'negotiations' I forgot a single mask on a single account which hadn't been forum active since August 12th[/quote]

Seems there are four examples of this, not just a 'single' example.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Penkala

[Henry Rollins]

This is silly.

Its nothing that a week long war wouldn't fix.

After the dust settles, shake hands and go home.

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='Henry Rollins' timestamp='1294599590' post='2569885']
This is silly.

Its nothing that a week long war wouldn't fix.

After the dust settles, shake hands and go home.
[/quote]
There's no point in fighting a week long war.

[Sup4l33t3ki11a]

The reps should have simply been monetary and tech reimbursement to AiD and the expulsion of the rogues. It's sad to see such extortion of UINE over this. Props to Polar though for getting the reps down from the ZI of both Keve [b]AND[/b] BigJoe.

[rant]I suppose if I'm ever in a position to inflict stupid reps on someone that's done something like this to an ally of mine, I'll be very keen to return the favor. [/rant]

:colbert:

[Scorponok]

[quote name='AmbroseIV' timestamp='1294548396' post='2569290']
[list][*]Keve69 will be reduced to ZI
[/list]

[/quote]

The above quote is, more than anything; stupid.

Glad you guys came to a decision.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1294548775' post='2569301']
Hurray for peace, let's never do this again.
[/quote]

Basically this is all I have to say. I enjoyed stupid drama (TIO-OO, GOD-IAA, GATO-Legion), but even this brought me to my knees.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Pomiel' timestamp='1294566845' post='2569632']
Keve may have $%&@ed up, but I find it hard to believe that it deserved a ZU.
[/quote]

I just wanted to say before I seemed like some sort of SF pawn that I also agree with this. Keve screwed up badly, but I don't think it was worth a ZI. He could have told RnR to go $%&@ themselves and brought down other with him, but instead he took the selfless road and lost all of his infra for his allies.

Normally if an alliance is so disorganized that they can't negotiate properly I would look into cutting ties with them, but Keve being completely selfless reminded me exactly why I enjoy being treatied to them. Good Show Keve.

[Monster]

[quote name='Scorponok' timestamp='1294606532' post='2570031']
The above quote is, more than anything; stupid.

Glad you guys came to a decision.
[/quote]

It's the best actually. Like I said if I declare someone rogue and keep them masked as members, it's either a CB or you can demand something like this. Keve's been playing above his weight class for a while and it was eventually going to catch up to him.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin

[Sephiroth]

These terms seem harsh, either you ask for reps or decide to continue your attacks on the aggressors, but to ask for reps, permission to ZI their leader and continue attacking those who conducted the raids seems excessive. I'm surprised UINE agreed to it, but congrats on peace I suppose.

[TheListener]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1294607828' post='2570075']
It's the best actually. Like I said if I declare someone rogue and keep them masked as members, it's either a CB or you can demand something like this. Keve's been playing above his weight class for a while and it was eventually going to catch up to him.
[/quote]

Wouldn't that be requiring similar to requiring access levels being changed for a Viceroyship? Biggest point here is Requiring access level changes.

[Monster]

Claiming someone is a rogue means removing their membership, no? No one is asking for control over forums, but the option is there for the alliance that is supposedly removing membership to either demask(which is a part of losing your membership as a rogue) or face consequences.

[TheListener]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1294609506' post='2570127']
Claiming someone is a rogue means removing their membership, no? No one is asking for control over forums, but the option is there for the alliance that is supposedly removing membership to either demask(which is a part of losing your membership as a rogue) or face consequences.
[/quote]

So once again, is that not forcing the alliance to change access levels or "face consequences"? which by definition would be extortion.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='TheListener' timestamp='1294609660' post='2570130']
So once again, is that not forcing the alliance to change access levels or "face consequences"? which by definition would be extortion.
[/quote]

You're kidding, right?

Edited January 9, 2011 by Il Impero Romano

[TheListener]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1294609767' post='2570132']
Your kidding, right?
[/quote]

You're*

Also, does it look like I'm kidding?

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='TheListener' timestamp='1294609853' post='2570136']
You're*

Also, does it look like I'm kidding?
[/quote]

Little bit, if you actually think that's extortion "by definition".

Also thanks for the grammar fix, you will make a great secretary for someone one day.

[TheListener]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1294610066' post='2570141']
Little bit, if you actually think that's extortion "by definition".

Also thanks for the grammar fix, you will make a great secretary for someone one day.
[/quote]

How is it not extortion by definition?

Extortion

Law . the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.

—Synonyms
1, 4. blackmail.

So once again how is requiring the change of an access level or "face the consequences" not extorition?

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='TheListener' timestamp='1294610338' post='2570145']
How is it not extortion by definition?

Extortion

Law . the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value [b]by the abuse of one's office or authority[/b].

—Synonyms
1, 4. blackmail.

So once again how is requiring the change of an access level or "face the consequences" not extorition?
[/quote]

Relevant portion in bold. Insisting they do what they said they would do in the first place is not abuse of authority. I understand lots of you people think the word extortion is fun to throw around or makes you sound smart, etc, but honestly you're just misusing it.

[TheListener]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1294610626' post='2570156']
Relevant portion in bold. Insisting they do what they said they would do in the first place is not abuse of authority. I understand lots of you people think the word extortion is fun to throw around or makes you sound smart, etc, but honestly you're just misusing it.
[/quote]

How is it not an abuse of Authority? RnR/Echelon came to UINE with all their friends and said if you don't do what we want you to, we will either ZI you or go to war with your alliance. Please tell me where in there, is there not an abuse of authority or power.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='TheListener' timestamp='1294610866' post='2570165']
How is it not an abuse of Authority? RnR/Echelon came to UINE with all their friends and said if you don't do what we want you to, we will either ZI you or go to war with your alliance. Please tell me where in there, is there not an abuse of authority or power.
[/quote]

In the way that you are using the word, every single time any alliance goes to war, its extortion, you realize that right? What you should have a problem with (if you must have a problem, that is) is them asking for the members to be removed in the first place, not their authority to insist that removal actually take place once the deal is done.

Listen, Listener. Extortion would be me randomly saying to you "give me 200 tech or I'm going to attack you". Having just cause to ask for the removal of members, having their removal be agreed to, then later having to insist that the agreeing alliance actually do what they said they would in the first place is certainly not.

[TheListener]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1294611305' post='2570176']
In the way that you are using the word, every single time any alliance goes to war, its extortion, you realize that right? What you should have a problem with (if you must have a problem, that is) is them asking for the members to be removed in the first place, not their authority to insist that removal actually take place once the deal is done.

Listen, Listener. Extortion would be me randomly saying to you "give me 200 tech or I'm going to attack you". Having just cause to ask for the removal of members, having their removal be agreed to, then later having to insist that the agreeing alliance actually do what they said they would in the first place is certainly not.
[/quote]

Perhaps you missed my point in referencing Viceroyships in my initial statement on this. The Required Change of Access levels on private forums, has been a banned request for a long period of time. So the point is, they're asking for Keve's ZI because he didn't change the access levels of someone on his private forums. My Usage and explanation of why this extortion is indeed a great explanation of exactly what it is and why it's illegal as per International Regulation #2 (Terms of Service Rule #2) as outlined here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=28&view=findpost&p=783646

[Caffine]

[quote name='TheListener' timestamp='1294610866' post='2570165']
How is it not an abuse of Authority? RnR/Echelon came to UINE with all their friends and said if you don't do what we want you to, we will either ZI you or go to war with your alliance. Please tell me where in there, is there not an abuse of authority or power.
[/quote]
That only works if you leave put all the facts, like you did. Think of it like this: A man continues to violate a contract, and is taken to mediation. An agreement is made, but the man violates the agreement. Another attempt is made, this time with an arbiter capable of making a legally binding agreement between the parties, resulting in a settlement. When the man violated this, then he is taken to court. The man continues to make promises but fails to honor them. The judge finds him in contempt of court, and sentences him to prison.

Now, the way you have spoken about the situation, it could be seen as: A man has a contract dispute, so he is thrown in jail.

This is not simply a matter of going to them and saying "or else". This is holding a man in contempt for his actions.


Edit: And as to the issue of the forum, that simply played a small part in it. Their members, gov and non-gov alike, told us that they were still members. When Keve said that he declared them rogue, he still offered them asylum. We never once demanded that they remove the member masks, we approached Polar and said "What's the deal? They still have these people masked as members and gov. It doesn't really feel like Keve is sticking to his word" and UINE removed them. There is a big difference.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Caffine1

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Caffine1' timestamp='1294611818' post='2570187']
That only works if you leave put all the facts, like you did. Think of it like this: A man continues to violate a contract, and is taken to mediation. An agreement is made, but the man violates the agreement. Another attempt is made, this time with an arbiter capable of making a legally binding agreement between the parties, resulting in a settlement. When the man violated this, then he is taken to court. The man continues to make promises but fails to honor them. The judge finds him in contempt of court, and sentences him to prison.

Now, the way you have spoken about the situation, it could be seen as: A man has a contract dispute, so he is thrown in jail.

This is not simply a matter of going to them and saying "or else". This is holding a man in contempt for his actions.
[/quote]
If the previous peace agreements were similar to this I can understand why the agreement wasn't upheld, it seems like they've been taken advantage of into agreeing to terms that make no sense for them to agree to. Somehow you guys have convinced part of the alliance to fund you guys as you continue to wage war on the other part of the alliance, either the terms should include all of them getting peace or it doesn't make sense for them to paying reps for 'partial' peace. UINE having terrible negotiating skills probably played into them getting these terms somewhat, but when terms don't even include peace but they do pay reps, it looks like UINE's leaders were taken advantage of using threats.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Methrage