An agreement of peace

[HeroofTime55]

[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]This just in, 64Digits has no treaty ties to the conflict and declared without any valid CB. Their rationale for entering was "super weak."

Hm, that's news to me. Also, lol at you claiming other people have a "super weak" reason for entering this war.

[General Scipio]

[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]
Just because you think that's how it is doesn't make it true. And even if it war true, [i]it still doesn't matter[/i]. We've said it many times but I guess I'll say it again loud and clear. [i][b]If an alliance attacks GOONS when they could have sat the war out, they will pay us if they lose[/i][/b]. This is a reality when declaring war on GOONS. Hold us to the same standards if you ever get the upper hand.

[b]Deal with it[/b]

[Beefspari]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1299371459' post='2653894']
This just in, 64Digits has no treaty ties to the conflict and declared without any valid CB. Their rationale for entering was "super weak."

Hm, that's news to me. Also, lol at you claiming other people have a "super weak" reason for entering this war.
[/quote]
It's true, you aren't treatied to NPO. Saying you're "honor bound" is pretty weak. Although I'm still up for the alternative answer which is that you have no control over what your alliance is made to do.

[lamuella]

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1299370490' post='2653881']
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.
[/quote]

So they don't have a treaty with NPO, but they're declaring in defense of NPO? I fail to see their obligation to enter.

Like I said, they entered this war on an optional aggression clause. I have no problem with that, i'm just making sure we stay honest about it.

[Hadrian]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1299371418' post='2653893']
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]
As far as [i]I'm[/i] concerned, during coalition warfare an oA may as well be on the same level as an MDP, for all intents and purposes. Everything is simplified down to two sides, attack and defend. The treaty web really can't be taken into account with a CB like the one Doom House has used. Saying that, I'm surprised anyone would try to argue anything different. It really is as plain, basic, and simple, as that.

[quote]Noted, "coalition warfare" is code for "do whatever we want with no CB required."[/quote]
Doom House is doing whatever they want with little in the way of a CB.

[quote]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.[/quote]
Fair enough. You should go read up on various resistance movements and whatnot, if you haven't already, starting with [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Phoenix_Federation_Resistance_Movement"]this[/url].

[lamuella]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1299371459' post='2653894']
This just in, 64Digits has no treaty ties to the conflict
[/quote]

Who said that?

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1299372311' post='2653903']
As far as [i]I'm[/i] concerned--
[/quote]
Well good thing you aren't calling the shots. Just don't "up the ante" and pretend we started it. I haven't seen anyone on our side activating an oA for a treaty partner of a treaty partner and trying to claim it's a defensive war.

[Hadrian]

[quote name='General Scipio' timestamp='1299371498' post='2653896']
Just because you think that's how it is doesn't make it true. And even if it war true, [i]it still doesn't matter[/i]. We've said it many times but I guess I'll say it again loud and clear. [i][b]If an alliance attacks GOONS when they could have sat the war out, they will pay us if they lose[/i][/b]. This is a reality when declaring war on GOONS. Hold us to the same standards if you ever get the upper hand.

[b]Deal with it[/b]
[/quote]
Lol? You're not making a very good argument.

The alliances who are fighting you won't pay anything. At least, judging from their responses, I don't believe they will.

The same standards? Oh no, no no no...no, you see, I have something far more special planned for GOONS.

[b]They're not paying. You deal with it.

[/b][quote name='Lamuella' timestamp='1299372157' post='2653901']
So they don't have a treaty with NPO, but they're declaring in defense of NPO? I fail to see their obligation to enter.

Like I said, they entered this war on an optional aggression clause. I have no problem with that, i'm just making sure we stay honest about it.
[/quote]
Coalition warfare is a !@#$%*, I know.

[Spartan519]

Of course, I slip into hippie to restock nukes and get out of Anarchy, then Pansy and QH go off and get peace before I can come back in for another round.

Glad to see peace all the same. Good show.

[Hadrian]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1299372590' post='2653906']
Well good thing you aren't calling the shots. Just don't "up the ante" and pretend we started it. I haven't seen anyone on our side activating an oA for a treaty partner of a treaty partner and trying to claim it's a defensive war.
[/quote]
Wait what? Doom House didn't start anything?

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1299372598' post='2653907']
The alliances who are fighting you won't pay anything. At least, judging from their responses, I don't believe they will.
[/quote]
The only people I've seen promising no reps and eternal war against us are HeroofTime and no wait that's it. But he represents a 9-man alliance and his own nation is under 200 NS so I don't think we could get anything from him if we wanted to (and if we asked the couple people in his alliance to pay on his behalf it would probably cause them to leave and then we'd get called out for disbanding 64Digits or something hilarious).

In case you didn't notice, we're already getting reps from people who surrendered to us. But if large alliances like Legion and others really want to commit to an eternal war against GOONS like 64Digits is promising us, losing all their nations, rather than pay some reps, I'd love to see it.

[Hadrian]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1299372874' post='2653912']
The only people I've seen promising no reps and eternal war against us are HeroofTime and no wait that's it. But he represents a 9-man alliance and his own nation is under 200 NS so I don't think we could get anything from him if we wanted to (and if we asked the couple people in his alliance to pay on his behalf it would probably cause them to leave and then we'd get called out for disbanding 64Digits or something hilarious).

In case you didn't notice, we're already getting reps from people who surrendered to us. But if large alliances like Legion and others really want to commit to an eternal war against GOONS like 64Digits is promising us, losing all their nations, rather than pay some reps, I'd love to see it.
[/quote]
You forget TPF. Don't let the ball drop on intelligence now rookie, not this far in, not after all that average strength lost.

I think it would sure as Hell be fun to see a bunch of alliances committing to eternal war against GOONS. I myself would go through ZI fifty times before I payed a single note of my currency to a nation of GOONS. And yeah, you may already be recieving reps from those who have already surrendered but then again, they've made no such announcements that they will be paying nothing to GOONS.

[lamuella]

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1299372311' post='2653903']
Doom House is doing whatever they want with little in the way of a CB.
[/quote]

And if we lost this conflict, i'm sure we'd face the consequences of that.

[Hadrian]

[quote name='Lamuella' timestamp='1299373672' post='2653918']
And if we lost this conflict, i'm sure we'd face the consequences of that.
[/quote]
Of course you would, being the aggressors.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1299373385' post='2653915']
You forget TPF. Don't let the ball drop on intelligence now rookie, not this far in, not after all that average strength lost.

I think it would sure as Hell be fun to see a bunch of alliances committing to eternal war against GOONS. I myself would go through ZI fifty times before I payed a single note of my currency to a nation of GOONS. And yeah, you may already be recieving reps from those who have already surrendered but then again, they've made no such announcements that they will be paying nothing to GOONS.
[/quote]
As I said, the only people I've seen promising no reps and eternal war against us was 64Digits. If someone else wants to commit to that, I welcome it. For people constantly complaining that GOONS is driving people off the planet, willingly leaping at us for eternal war and letting us destroy you is a funny way to protest it. But if you want to speak up and promise that, go ahead.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Lamuella' timestamp='1299370555' post='2653883']
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.
[/quote]
An interesting analysis, but I would argue that we had no choice, but for the sake of our own well being as an alliance, to stand up against both the attack on what is arguably the central part of the web to which I depend on for protection, and to stand up against the notion that one can commit unjustified acts of aggression on a whim. It's no secret that GOONS harbors hatred for me, and even had I chosen to be a coward and sit out, I have no doubt GOONS would then come for me, having no way to defend myself, and they would probably dress it up as some sort of "tech raid" so that when I fought back, they could charge me "reps" anyway.

So when you consider more than the black-and-white binary of who declared on who, we really didn't have much of an ability to stand out. Beyond that, by judging alliances on their "ability to stay out," you are essentially promoting cowardice as the ideal way of life, and that I view as a despicable stance to take. And here, I thought that you guys did this mainly because you "wanted to have a big war where everything burns" if your own words are to be believed. Now that you have it, why complain, and why encourage cowardice?

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1299373791' post='2653922']
As I said, the only people I've seen promising no reps and eternal war against us was 64Digits. If someone else wants to commit to that, I welcome it. For people constantly complaining that GOONS is driving people off the planet, willingly leaping at us for eternal war and letting us destroy you is a funny way to protest it. But if you want to speak up and promise that, go ahead.
[/quote]I'm not promising eternal war. I have [i]only[/i] said that I will not pay reps. If that translates to you as "We must therefore keep 64Digits in a state of eternal war" then fine, but don't then claim that it is something we seek. It would be you committing eternal war against us.

I intend to enter peace talks with the rest of this coalition when we are ready for that step.

[lamuella]

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1299373759' post='2653921']
Of course you would, being the aggressors.
[/quote]

Your world really is a simple place, isn't it? There really are good guys and bad guys, and the moral universe happens to coincide with your likes and dislikes. I'm quite glad I can see more nuance than that.

There are levels of culpability, levels of consequence, and different shades of grey require different responses.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1299374105' post='2653931']
I'm not promising eternal war. I have [i]only[/i] said that I will not pay reps. If that translates to you as "We must therefore keep 64Digits in a state of eternal war" then fine, but don't then claim that it is something we seek. It would be you committing eternal war against us.

I intend to enter peace talks with the rest of this coalition when we are ready for that step.
[/quote]
I look forward when you try to paint it as GOONS causing eternal war when you've made numerous posts saying you would fight us indefinitely rather than pay a cent in reps to us. Not granting peace due to the losing party's stubbornness is not the same thing as imposing eternal war on them, as much as I'm sure you'd love to claim otherwise. This is not Bizarro Bob where the losing party dictates the terms, Methrage.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Beefspari

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1299312766' post='2653355']
Where is the clash? You can be aggressive while participating in a coalition war. Was 10-12 alliances on GOONS needed? Or was it a good way of getting a cheap shot in? Given the history between GOONS and several of the alliances who are not directly treatied to the New Pacific Order that attacked them, they knew what they were getting into.
[/quote]It was needed, it is something that is commonly referred to as strategy. We are not curb-stomping them, we attacked them and then braced for incoming counters.

We entered because of our relationship with TPF and for absolutely no other reason, as much as you guys love pretending I'm on some sort of crusade.

[lamuella]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1299373811' post='2653923']
An interesting analysis, but I would argue that we had no choice, but for the sake of our own well being as an alliance, to stand up against both the attack on what is arguably the central part of the web to which I depend on for protection, and to stand up against the notion that one can commit unjustified acts of aggression on a whim. It's no secret that GOONS harbors hatred for me, and even had I chosen to be a coward and sit out, I have no doubt GOONS would then come for me, having no way to defend myself, and they would probably dress it up as some sort of "tech raid" so that when I fought back, they could charge me "reps" anyway.
[/quote]

Oh please, you give yourself way too much credit.

Trust me when I say that until this was the most we thought about you was to say "hey, remember those numbskulls in the WCE?"

Martyr complexes are fun, but you weren't anywhere near important enough to be more than a fond memory.

[Hadrian]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1299373791' post='2653922']
As I said, the only people I've seen promising no reps and eternal war against us was 64Digits. If someone else wants to commit to that, I welcome it. For people constantly complaining that GOONS is driving people off the planet, [b]willingly leaping at us for eternal war and letting us destroy you is a funny way to protest it[/b]. But if you want to speak up and promise that, go ahead.
[/quote]
That hasn't happened yet. But now that you've said it, I'll be waiting for the surely inevitable destruction of those alliances by the "mighty" forces of GOONS.

[Hadrian]

[quote name='Lamuella' timestamp='1299374123' post='2653933']
Your world really is a simple place, isn't it? There really are good guys and bad guys, and the moral universe happens to coincide with your likes and dislikes. I'm quite glad I can see more nuance than that.

There are levels of culpability, levels of consequence, and different shades of grey require different responses.
[/quote]
I'm not entirely sure what you expect, or what you want to expect.

Your bloc declared aggressively against an alliance.

Do I need to make it simpler? In fact, I don't think I can. Any simpler than what I've said and I'm pretty sure I'd have to resort to using terms that can be understood by a ten-year old.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1299374303' post='2653939']
I look forward when you try to paint it as GOONS causing eternal war when you've made numerous posts saying you would fight us indefinitely rather than pay a cent in reps to us. Not granting peace due to the losing party's stubbornness is not the same thing as imposing eternal war on them, as much as I'm sure you'd love to claim otherwise. This is not Bizarro Bob where the losing party dictates the terms, Methrage.
[/quote]
Right, because imposing ridiculously harsh terms on someone, knowing they won't accept them, and then claiming that they are only at war because of their own choosing, is totally accurate and honest.

Tell me, have you ever heard of a little war called VietFAN? Perhaps you should ask a certain alliance in your coalition why they chose of their own free will to fight a losing war against NPO for so long. I mean, NPO wasn't keeping them at war, they totally had an option to surrender!

[Beefspari]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1299374777' post='2653948']
Right, because imposing ridiculously harsh terms on someone, knowing they won't accept them, and then claiming that they are only at war because of their own choosing, is totally accurate and honest.

Tell me, have you ever heard of a little war called VietFAN? Perhaps you should ask a certain alliance in your coalition why they chose of their own free will to fight a losing war against NPO for so long. I mean, NPO wasn't keeping them at war, they totally had an option to surrender!
[/quote]
What makes you think they'd be "ridiculously harsh terms" when we haven't even discussed them? You said you wouldn't even pay a [b]cent[/b]. If we demanded something your 9 alliances could easily pay, and you said no, would that still be our fault that we're still fighting? I'm sure you'd love to think so.