An agreement of peace

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1299365616' post='2653817']
We're willing to be responded to, but those who respond should be aware of the risks when they have no real obligation, especially when bad blood is pre-existing. Simple as that.
[/quote]


They felt they had an obligation. Simple as that. 64 digits has fought in every single war TPF has fought in for years. Our entire section of the web is under direct, aggressive, and unprovoked assault from your side of the web.

I swear if people don't fight you guys get mad, if they do you guys get mad. Well if you are going to get mad either way, blowing up GOOns is a better reason than sitting on the sidelines waiting on you to pre-emptively strike next.

[Choson]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1299365795' post='2653821']
They felt they had an obligation. Simple as that. 64 digits has fought in every single war TPF has fought in for years. Our entire section of the web is under direct, aggressive, and unprovoked assault from your side of the web.

I swear if people don't fight you guys get mad, if they do you guys get mad. Well if you are going to get mad either way, blowing up GOOns is a better reason than sitting on the sidelines waiting on you to pre-emptively strike next.
[/quote]

I didn't know we had assaulted 64Digits. I could have sworn they attacked us.

At least wait until the war is over to start revising history.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Choson' timestamp='1299366224' post='2653827']
I didn't know we had assaulted 64Digits. I could have sworn they attacked us.

At least wait until the war is over to start revising history.
[/quote]


Your side assaulted this side. Coalition warfare. You know.....what Umbrella and your side has been speaking of since the Polar war started. No more ghost DoW's. Just attack who you want to, treaty be damned. That has been the stance coming from PB/UMB. It appears that UMB is pretty much at the top of the food chain in this conflict with the war planning.

Except in this case you are actually being critical of people who entered via direct treaty where not even ghost DoW's were required.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1299365795' post='2653821']
They felt they had an obligation. Simple as that. 64 digits has fought in every single war TPF has fought in for years. Our entire section of the web is under direct, aggressive, and unprovoked assault from your side of the web.

I swear if people don't fight you guys get mad, if they do you guys get mad. Well if you are going to get mad either way, blowing up GOOns is a better reason than sitting on the sidelines waiting on you to pre-emptively strike next.
[/quote]
To say we're "mad" is a stretch. Frankly I was glad to fight and smash HeroofTime not once, but twice. And watch his NS dwindle to nothing while I went back up and destroyed six more NPO guys (or five and a TPF or something, I forget).

What we're arguing is the idea that 64Digits had no choice but to enter, and that them paying reps would be unreasonable. If HoT wants to make good on his "we'll never pay you reps and will wage an eternal war against GOONS" claim, he's free to. But arguing that it's extortion to ask for 64Digits to pay something when they triggered an optional treaty to defend someone defending someone? Yeah, that's dumb.

It's war. If you lose you're going to be at the mercy of the people who won. So if you aren't cool with that, don't declare war in the first place.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1299367384' post='2653842']
To say we're "mad" is a stretch. Frankly I was glad to fight and smash HeroofTime not once, but twice. And watch his NS dwindle to nothing while I went back up and destroyed six more NPO guys (or five and a TPF or something, I forget).

What we're arguing is the idea that 64Digits had no choice but to enter, and that them paying reps would be unreasonable. If HoT wants to make good on his "we'll never pay you reps and will wage an eternal war against GOONS" claim, he's free to. But arguing that it's extortion to ask for 64Digits to pay something when they triggered an optional treaty to defend someone defending someone? Yeah, that's dumb.

It's war. If you lose you're going to be at the mercy of the people who won. So if you aren't cool with that, don't declare war in the first place.
[/quote]

Well he seems to acknowledge that he will be at the mercy of you, just that he's not paying you reps. His choice to make. And you guys have spent much of this thread trying to look like the victims here. At one point you posted that every alliance besides NPO was the aggressors on your front. That's ridiculous.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Vol Navy

[JT Jag]

[quote name='AndrewHG' timestamp='1299349766' post='2653607']
Pretty much when your government rhetoric is [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=99272&pid=2647453&st=0&#entry2647453"]this[/url].

edit: And yeah I stick my neck out and stand up. I fully expect some sort of back channel attack because it is to your cores and will never change.
[/quote]Wowsers, our government really must [i]be[/i] unstable if we give a two-week-old newbie a government position!

[Denial]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1299365468' post='2653811']
I agree completely, you were extremely aggressive in starting this coalition war. GOOns shouldn't complain when they are responded to after starting an aggressive war. You were all for no treaty at all being required for Sparta earlier in the Polar front. Now everyone from your side complains that GOOns are responded to by actual treaties. It's bold faced hypocrisy. If you don't want to be responded too, don't start aggressive wars just because you don't like someone.
[/quote]
As far as I see it, neither GOONS nor Doom House as a whole have a single issue with the act of being counter-attacked. Yet, when alliances make a clear [i]choice[/i] to be involved in the counter-attack - that is, they acted though optional treaty clauses, or no treaty at all - they better believe they are going to receive a swift and devastating reprimand for such action upon losing the war. Just as I would have expected Doom House to receive quite harsh terms had we lost this conflict.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1299367589' post='2653847']
As far as I see it, neither GOONS nor Doom House as a whole have a single issue with the act of being counter-attacked. Yet, when alliances make a clear [i]choice[/i] to be involved in the counter-attack - that is, they acted though optional treaty clauses, or no treaty at all - they better believe they are going to receive a swift and devastating reprimand for such action upon losing the war. Just as I would have expected Doom House to receive quite harsh terms had we lost this conflict.
[/quote]


And alliances on this side pretty much say flip you and your terms. We've saw that even massive reps make not a single bit of difference other than to strengthen your side for the next time you decide to roll us.

I would personally rather be at bill lock and triple Z than to see a single unit of technology flow from here towards PB/DH. This planet is old and withered and if my nation must perish off it after nearly 4 years, so be it.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Vol Navy

[lamuella]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1299365615' post='2653816']
Pacifica sent out billions of dollars that no one even asked for to it's allies post-Karma.

We don't particularly need their money currently, unlike a certain alliance that is simply unprepared to the max for the fire it jumped into.
[/quote]

UNPREPARED TO THE MAX!

Say that again, Extreme Sports Punk Number One?

(by the way, if someone on our side jumped into the fire, how come someone on your side just got burned?)

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1299367519' post='2653845']
Well he seems to acknowledge that he will be at the mercy of you, just that he's not paying you reps. His choice to make. And you guys have spent much of this thread trying to look like the victims here. At one point you posted that every alliance besides NPO was the aggressors on your front. That's ridiculous.
[/quote]
Who said that exactly? I know Sardonic said that we tend to ask reps from people who attack us regardless of their reason. There were people who MDPed through NPO. On the other hand, there were people who oAed through people who MDPed through NPO. In fact, several alliances attacked us who aren't treatied to NPO.

[lamuella]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1299367519' post='2653845']
Well he seems to acknowledge that he will be at the mercy of you, just that he's not paying you reps. His choice to make. And you guys have spent much of this thread trying to look like the victims here. At one point you posted that every alliance besides NPO was the aggressors on your front. That's ridiculous.
[/quote]

well, if we're being pedantic here, and I sometimes quite enjoy being pedantic, you could argue that who is the aggressor depends on who declares the war. We declared on one alliance, and were declared on by 12. That's not a complaint, simply a statement of fact.

Obviously, it's a bit more complicated than that in a war with as many treaties in it as this one does. It's also a bit more complicated than this ludicrous cartoon that you have in your head that by declaring on NPO we declared on every single alliance NPO is treatied with. Was it a fairly safe bet they'd end up in this war? Yes. Does that mean that them declaring war on us pursuant to a treaty obligation (or treaty option) is the same as us declaring on them? Not really.

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1299367832' post='2653851']
And alliances on this side pretty much say flip you and your terms.
[/quote]

Apart from that alliance on your side that agreed to terms and was therefore the subject of this thread.

I entirely respect your right to be as hyperbolic as you like, but if you say things that are inaccurate, I reserve the right to call you on it

Edited March 5, 2011 by Lamuella

[lamuella]

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1299367571' post='2653846']
Wowsers, our government really must [i]be[/i] unstable if we give a two-week-old newbie a government position!
[/quote]

Oh, I forgot to tell you. We're replacing you in government with SamiFire, leader of Arbitraria. He joined the alliance today, and that's just how we roll, apparently.

[Epiphanus]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1299365615' post='2653816']
Pacifica sent out billions of dollars that no one even asked for to it's allies post-Karma.

We don't particularly need their money currently, unlike a certain alliance that is simply unprepared to the max for the fire it jumped into.
[/quote]
Have you seen your alliance's warchests? I have, they are nothing to brag about :\

[Denial]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1299367832' post='2653851']
And alliances on this side pretty much say flip you and your terms. We've saw that even massive reps make not a single bit of difference other than to strengthen your side for the next time you decide to roll us.

I would personally rather be at bill lock and triple Z than to see a single unit of technology flow from here towards PB/DH. This planet is old and withered and if my nation must perish off it after nearly 4 years, so be it.
[/quote]
Enjoy burning.

[Hadrian]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1299368139' post='2653855']
Who said that exactly? I know Sardonic said that we tend to ask reps from people who attack us regardless of their reason. There were people who MDPed through NPO. On the other hand, there were people who oAed through people who MDPed through NPO. In fact, several alliances attacked us who aren't treatied to NPO.
[/quote]
What you don't seem to be grasping is that this is [i]coalition warfare[/i]. Whether 64D oA'd through an MDP or not is [i]completely irrelevant[/i].

Edited March 5, 2011 by Hadrian

[lamuella]

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1299368629' post='2653862']
What you don't seem to be grasping is that this is [i]coalition warfare[/i]. Whether 64D oA'd through an MDP or not is [i]completely irrelevant[/i].
[/quote]

"coalition warfare" is not a magic phrase that makes everything all right. Unless 64D have surrendered their sovereignty entirely to outside forces, they were the ones who decided to join this conflict. If they [i]have[/i] surrendered their sovereignty entirely to outside forces, I'd quite like to know who these forces are.

Additionally, at the point where we are discussing what terms we wish to bring for the cessation of hostilities with a particular alliance, we will most likely be the judges of what we consider relevant.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Lamuella

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1299368629' post='2653862']
What you don't seem to be grasping is that this is [i]coalition warfare[/i]. Whether 64D oA'd through an MDP or not is [i]completely irrelevant[/i].
[/quote]
Irrelevant to what conversation? I don't think GOONS is saying 64Digits had no [b]right[/b] to declare war on us. After all, we've been declared on with no CB numerous times and people cheer each time. 64Digits has every right to declare on us for whatever reason they feel is appropriate. Personally I think their reason is pretty weak. The only thing I'm arguing against is that we somehow have no right to ask reps from someone who declared an optional war on us. If "it's coalition warfare" and people are really just attacking us without even needing a treaty or CB (HoT would disagree with you though -- you're pretty much directly opposing his own argument), that's all the more reason for us to ask for them.

I'm also curious why this sudden "it's coalition warfare" excuse for the other side's actions after weeks of complaining about how we're doing things. Like it's only okay when you guys do it.

[Hadrian]

[quote name='Lamuella' timestamp='1299368947' post='2653866']
"coalition warfare" is not a magic phrase that makes everything all right. Unless 64D have surrendered their sovereignty entirely to outside forces, they were the ones who decided to join this conflict. If they [i]have[/i] surrendered their sovereignty entirely to outside forces, I'd quite like to know who these forces are.

Additionally, at the point where we are discussing what terms we wish to bring for the cessation of hostilities with a particular alliance, we will most likely be the judges of what we consider relevant.
[/quote]
Yes, they decided to join this conflict in defence of NPO. Is this too hard for you to understand? Or, are you being deliberately ignorant of this fact in order to uphold your supposed right to reparations?

Let me help you to read between those tricky little lines here...

Your coalition, Doom House, declared a wholly unjust war (lol) against Pacifica. In doing so, you ended up ticking off a number of people. Now, bearing in mind that [b]you[/b] are the [b]aggressors[/b], [i]anyone who declared on Doom House through a direct treaty with NPO[/i] become the [b]defenders[/b]. This includes TPF, Invicta, The Legion, etcetera, etcetera. Therefore, [i]any alliances that declare through a treaty with the aforementioned defenders, become defenders themselves[/i]. This is the crux of coalition warfare, GOONS.

I am amused that GOONS retains high hopes over the reparations issue, very amused indeed.

[Hadrian]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1299369677' post='2653873']
Irrelevant to what conversation? I don't think GOONS is saying 64Digits had no [b]right[/b] to declare war on us. After all, we've been declared on with no CB numerous times and people cheer each time. 64Digits has every right to declare on us for whatever reason they feel is appropriate. Personally I think their reason is pretty weak. The only thing I'm arguing against is that we somehow have no right to ask reps from someone who declared an optional war on us. If "it's coalition warfare" and people are really just attacking us without even needing a treaty or CB (HoT would disagree with you though -- you're pretty much directly opposing his own argument), that's all the more reason for us to ask for them.

I'm also curious why this sudden "it's coalition warfare" excuse for the other side's actions after weeks of complaining about how we're doing things. Like it's only okay when you guys do it.
[/quote]
It's not an "optional war". They are declaring in defence of NPO, whether you like it or not, whether HoT likes it or not, whether [i]anyone[/i] likes it or not.

Doom House attacked Pacifica without so much as a definitive CB. (They gave one, yes, but c'mon, we all know it's full of !@#$.)

Ha! Your side wanted to use this coalition warfare excuse first, we're just picking it up as the argument shifts around.

[lamuella]

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1299370001' post='2653877']
Yes, they decided to join this conflict in defence of NPO. Is this too hard for you to understand?
[/quote]

I wasn't aware that 64 digits had a treaty with NPO. Can you point me to it, please?

[Hadrian]

[quote name='Lamuella' timestamp='1299370378' post='2653880']
I wasn't aware that 64 digits had a treaty with NPO. Can you point me to it, please?
[/quote]
Sorry, I forgot your attention span is shorter than that of a rat.

They don't have a treaty with NPO. Read my reply again and you might just get it.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1299370001' post='2653877']
Yes, they decided to join this conflict in defence of NPO. Is this too hard for you to understand? Or, are you being deliberately ignorant of this fact in order to uphold your supposed right to reparations?

Let me help you to read between those tricky little lines here...

Your coalition, Doom House, declared a wholly unjust war (lol) against Pacifica. In doing so, you ended up ticking off a number of people. Now, bearing in mind that [b]you[/b] are the [b]aggressors[/b], [i]anyone who declared on Doom House through a direct treaty with NPO[/i] become the [b]defenders[/b]. This includes TPF, Invicta, The Legion, etcetera, etcetera. Therefore, [i]any alliances that declare through a treaty with the aforementioned defenders, become defenders themselves[/i]. This is the crux of coalition warfare, GOONS.

I am amused that GOONS retains high hopes over the reparations issue, very amused indeed.
[/quote]
That's actually pretty amazing. Allies of allies of NPO are defenders against GOONS, even if it's an optional treaty, and they used an oA. How far out does that go? Are allies of allies of allies of allies of allies of allies of allies of allies of NPO also in a defensive war against GOONS? We could do a six degrees type thing with this, see if we're in a defensive war against ourselves with enough treaty jumps.

I think "coalition warfare" is just the current blanket excuse to do whatever you want and justify it. Rogues attack GOONS, well that's just them having honor (even if they don't have a CB). Doomhouse supposedly attacks with no CB and there's a huge stink over it. A few weeks later, people stop arguing over treaty obligations and just claim "it's coalition warfare, treaty obligations have nothing to do with it!" The other side always has lots of convenient excuses that allow them to do things they constantly berate us for.

[lamuella]

this might be an apt point at which to address in more detail the issue of culpability in a war like this.

To stress before I make this argument, this isn't an official alliance position, just my thoughts on a particular issue of alliance warfare.

Once a conflict begins to wind down, it is worth looking at the issue of why a particular alliance is in the conflict in the first place. How much are they there out of choice, and how much are they there out of circumstance.

There are two extreme views that I would like to dispense with quite quickly in this discussion.

The "first punch" viewpoint. This is the view that whoever made the first attack is ultimately responsible for everyone being in the war. Whether the "first attack" is a declaraction of war, or an act that causes such a declaration, a reductionist way of looking at the conflict is to state that the war was an inevitable causal chain erupting from that first attack. This stance has some merit, which is why it's used on playgrounds to try and keep order. However, it gives no leeway for analysis of actions within their context. If all is absolved after the punch, then any retribution for the punch, no matter how extreme, is allowable.

THe "thousands of punches" viewpoint. This is the view that every alliance declaration, whether caused by treaty obligation or not, is its own individual act of aggression. Essentially, this recognizes no defensive wars apart from the aftermath of that first punch, and leaves everyone culpable. I'm not fond of this stance as it removes almost entirely the concept of the just war.

A third option attempts to synthesize these two by coming at this from a new point of view.

To every alliance in the conflict, ask this: Why are you here? Could you have avoided joining?

Discovering the circumstances of their entry can be a method of establishing their culpability. These are by no means all the levels of entry, but easily imaginable answers to this question, arranged roughly in order of culpability, might be as follows.

I am in this conflict because I was attacked.
I am in this conflict because an ally was attacked and I entered on a mutual defense clause
I am in this conflict because an ally of an ally was attacked and I entered on a mutual aggression clause.
I am in this conflict because an ally was attacked and I entered on an optional defense clause
I am in this conflict because an ally of an ally was attacked and I entered on a optional aggression clause.
I am in this conflict because someone was attacked and I decided to enter despite having no treaty chain to the alliance that was attacked.
I am in this conflict because I attacked someone.

As you can see, at each step along this spectrum, the ability of the alliance to have stayed out of the conflict grows stronger. Obviously an alliance that is attacked cannot stay out. Obviously, an alliance whose ally is attacked is compelled to defend. Where we get onto trickier ground is where alliances either enter on optional clauses, or enter on no clause at all. It is possible to say that an alliance entering on, say, an optional defense clause, chooses to be there much more than one entering on a mutual defense clause. This isn't of course to say that they shouldn't enter. They doubtless see their cause as just. It may however be fair to dsay that they hold part of the culpability for their presence in the war.

This is clearly a more complex issue than this. However, I like to think that my view of this may bring a little nuance to the discussion.

[Hadrian]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1299370539' post='2653882']
That's actually pretty amazing. Allies of allies of NPO are defenders against GOONS, even if it's an optional treaty, and they used an oA. How far out does that go? Are allies of allies of allies of allies of allies of allies of allies of allies of NPO also in a defensive war against GOONS? We could do a six degrees type thing with this, see if we're in a defensive war against ourselves with enough treaty jumps.[/quote]
That's coalition warfare for you. If you don't like it, maybe you shouldn't have gone along with it in the first place.

[quote]I think "coalition warfare" is just the current blanket excuse to do whatever you want and justify it. Rogues attack GOONS, well that's just them having honor (even if they don't have a CB). Doomhouse supposedly attacks with no CB and there's a huge stink over it. A few weeks later, people stop arguing over treaty obligations and just claim "it's coalition warfare, treaty obligations have nothing to do with it!" The other side always has lots of convenient excuses that allow them to do things they constantly berate us for.[/quote]
So, let me get this straight, Doom House used "coalition warfare" as a blanket excuse to justify their attack? Hmm...

Rogues are rogues, I'm not sure where they come into this. DH had a cassus belli, what mattered was that it was so full of !@#$ you could smell it a hundred light years away. And of course treaty obligations don't matter during coalition warfare..it's COALITION WARFARE. Christ, am I dealing with children here?

Perhaps the "other side" wouldn't have "convenient excuses" if "your side" wouldn't give them any?

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1299370946' post='2653887']
So, let me get this straight, Doom House used "coalition warfare" as a blanket excuse to justify their attack? Hmm...[/quote]
I won't pretend to have read every post on the subject, but all the complaints I see are when someone attacks GOONS, and then someone from Umb or MK attacks back without a formal DoW. We're directly tied to those people with MDPs. It should be a given and I don't personally see why we need a formal DoW for something so obvious. If you want to blow that up and make it so that people not even treatied to the people being attacked, and activating oAs, is the same thing, and call all that coalition warfare and say we started it? Knock yourself out.

[quote]And of course treaty obligations don't matter during coalition warfare..it's COALITION WARFARE. Christ, am I dealing with children here?[/quote]
Noted, "coalition warfare" is code for "do whatever we want with no CB required."

But I still don't care why or how the people attacking us attacked. All that matters is they attacked us, and will have to deal with that when they lose.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Beefspari