Varianz Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1299309031' post='2653282'] I assume this is a joke since it would be a violation of their surrender terms (I think, the wording is somewhat ambiguous and contradictory). [/quote] No, it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1299308668' post='2653276'] Yes, we're mocking one of our closest allies. Time to pack it up guys, he saw through our clever ruse. [/quote] Will you guys also be giving their treaty announcements in the future too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1299309211' post='2653288'] No, it's not. [/quote] No to which? MK isn't even fighting NSO so it would definitely be a terms violation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1299309387' post='2653291'] No to which? MK isn't even fighting NSO so it would definitely be a terms violation. [/quote] MK and NSO are at war. I'm guessing you missed Heft's recognition of hostilities? MK has committed numerous acts of war against us, and CD are defending us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBRaiders Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 They are defending you with about as much impact as your are defending NPO. Congrats to both of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1299309480' post='2653293'] MK and NSO are at war. I'm guessing you missed Heft's recognition of hostilities? MK has committed numerous acts of war against us, and CD are defending us. [/quote] I'm going to bet MK started committing acts of war against you shortly after you declared on GOONS. If they did so within the first round of war, then this is indeed a violation of Carpe Diem's surrender terms. [quote] February 7th 2. The parties of NV, GLOF, WAPA, Colossus, Quantum, AB, CD, TFD, NATO, TNG, TPC, and DDM agree to not re-enter on any point in the current conflict surrounding NpO or NPO. These parties may defend against an alliance who DoWs (or equivalent) against their treatied allies [b]after these terms are posted[/b].[/quote] MK was at war with you [i]before[/i] those terms were signed, so CD is not allowed to defend you from them (all based on the assumption that MK initiated hostilities within the first week following your attack on GOONS). If that is not the case, well then it's hard to say because the terms are contradictory, it isn't well explained if the second sentence supersedes the first or if the second is meant to allow defense of allies unrelated to either war. I would say it's up to the victor to interpret the terms when they are unclear, so that probably wouldn't go in their favor. It doesn't really matter much, as Ardus said its either a joke declaration or a joke of a declaration. Edited March 5, 2011 by Lord Brendan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 I'm not sure what to make of this. Apparently CD doesn't either. [23:04:40] <+Dibbun[Sparta]> Are you guys at war? [23:04:46] <+Dibbun[Sparta]> I saw the DoW but no declarations [23:04:53] <@Luxornv[CD]> I don't know [23:05:11] <+Dibbun[Sparta]> How do you not know whether or not you're at war? [23:06:43] <@Luxornv[CD]> because the only command given to attack was issued by someone not in our alliance, so I'm not sure how to treat it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibbun Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1299309480' post='2653293'] MK and NSO are at war. I'm guessing you missed Heft's recognition of hostilities? MK has committed numerous acts of war against us, and CD are defending us. [/quote] Did NSO attempt to resolve the rogue attacks diplomatically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBRaiders Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1299310054' post='2653297'] I'm not sure what to make of this. Apparently CD doesn't either. [23:04:40] <+Dibbun[Sparta]> Are you guys at war? [23:04:46] <+Dibbun[Sparta]> I saw the DoW but no declarations [23:04:53] <@Luxornv[CD]> I don't know [23:05:11] <+Dibbun[Sparta]> How do you not know whether or not you're at war? [23:06:43] <@Luxornv[CD]> because the only command given to attack was issued by someone not in our alliance, so I'm not sure how to treat it [/quote] Did you tell them they should go for it, looks legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1299309935' post='2653296'] I'm going to bet MK started committing acts of war against you shortly after you declared on GOONS. If they did so within the first round of war, then this is indeed a violation of Carpe Diem's surrender terms. MK was at war with you [i]before[/i] those terms were signed, so CD is not allowed to defend you from them (all based on the assumption that MK initiated hostilities within the first week following your attack on GOONS). [/quote] Actually, if we're going to go full e-lawyer, you're incorrect. The terms state that the surrendering alliances may not re-enter unless their allies are DoW'ed on, or the equivalent, after the terms are posted. MK never posted a DoW before the terms went up. Therefore, they continued to commit acts that are "the equivalent" of a DoW following the the signing of the terms. DoW's are a one time thing, but actions "the equivalent" can be continuous. NSO chose to recognize those actions after the terms were signed, and after such actions had taken on a repeated pattern of aggression towards the NSO. Therefore, there is no violation of the surrender terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='Dibbun' timestamp='1299310147' post='2653298'] Did NSO attempt to resolve the rogue attacks diplomatically? [/quote] It was made clear to us by MK that they were not rogue efforts. Also yes, we did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicknight Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 Seems NSO just wants to force CD into war if they can. Real classy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1299310244' post='2653300'] Actually, if we're going to go full e-lawyer, you're incorrect. The terms state that the surrendering alliances may not re-enter unless their allies are DoW'ed on, or the equivalent, after the terms are posted. MK never posted a DoW before the terms went up. Therefore, they continued to commit acts that are "the equivalent" of a DoW following the the signing of the terms. DoW's are a one time thing, but actions "the equivalent" can be continuous. NSO chose to recognize those actions after the terms were signed, and after such actions had taken on a repeated pattern of aggression towards the NSO. Therefore, there is no violation of the surrender terms. [/quote] I can't believe you're trying to e-lawyer this. "agree to not re-enter on any point in the current conflict surrounding NpO or NPO." is pretty clear, meaning that the other clause addresses any wars declared separately from the NPO and/or NpO conflict. And no matter how you slice it MK and NSO are at war over the NPO conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1299310244' post='2653300'] Actually, if we're going to go full e-lawyer, you're incorrect. The terms state that the surrendering alliances may not re-enter unless their allies are DoW'ed on, or the equivalent, after the terms are posted. MK never posted a DoW before the terms went up. Therefore, they continued to commit acts that are "the equivalent" of a DoW following the the signing of the terms. DoW's are a one time thing, but actions "the equivalent" can be continuous. NSO chose to recognize those actions after the terms were signed, and after such actions had taken on a repeated pattern of aggression towards the NSO. Therefore, there is no violation of the surrender terms. [/quote] A Declaration of War is posting an official thread saying "We declare war". An equivalent would be simply attacking you. That doesn't mean they are declaring a new war on you every time they launch a cruise missile, once they've attacked you they are at war with you. Edited March 5, 2011 by Lord Brendan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1299310408' post='2653304'] I can't believe you're trying to e-lawyer this. "agree to not re-enter on any point in the current conflict surrounding NpO or NPO." is pretty clear, meaning that the other clause addresses any wars declared separately from the NPO and/or NpO conflict. And no matter how you slice it MK and NSO are at war over the NPO conflict. [/quote] You complain about e-lawyering, and follow it up with some e-lawyering. Do you see the irony? But as long as we're doing it, the first clause is modified by the second clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1299310426' post='2653305'] A Declaration of War is posting an official thread saying "We declare war". An equivalent would be simply attacking you. That doesn't mean they are declaring a new war on you every time they launch a cruise missile, once they've attacked you they are at war with you. [/quote] Again, incorrect. War's don't start until they are officially recognized. If you accept the idea that the terms, which are an official agreement, are valid, then you must inherently accept that wars aren't "wars" until officially started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1299310571' post='2653309'] You complain about e-lawyering, and follow it up with some e-lawyering. Do you see the irony? But as long as we're doing it, the first clause is modified by the second clause. [/quote] It isn't clear which clause has superiority, they contradict one another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1299310699' post='2653312'] It isn't clear which clause has superiority, they contradict one another. [/quote] Invalid terms, back to war everyone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1299309186' post='2653287'] It was an either/or thing. Since we can't get an answer from their membership, their gov has to be [i]really[/i] bad for this to happen if it's not NSO making a joke. [/quote] You presented it as an either/or thing, but because one of those things is untrue does not make the other automatically true. It is not an NSO joke. CD's government is not 'really bad'. Youwish was given permission to post the DoW, I'm not sure on the details why, but it was approved by CD gov. [quote name='Matthew Conrad' timestamp='1299309226' post='2653289'] Will you guys also be giving their treaty announcements in the future too? [/quote] Yes. We'll post yours too, for a nominal fee. Or, you know, DoWs into the middle of an ongoing war might be a bit more time-reliant than treaty announcements. If their timetable called for them to enter this front today, the announcement had to be posted then. [quote name='TBRaiders' timestamp='1299309621' post='2653295'] They are defending you with about as much impact as your are defending NPO. Congrats to both of you. [/quote] I think you will find that GOONS has a different view of our performance thus far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1299310571' post='2653309'] You complain about e-lawyering, and follow it up with some e-lawyering. Do you see the irony? But as long as we're doing it, the first clause is modified by the second clause. [/quote] We're not the ones trying to make something out of how MK and NSO came to be officially at war and spin it as something separate from the NPO conflict. Edited March 5, 2011 by Azaghul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibbun Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1299310659' post='2653311'] Again, incorrect. War's don't start until they are officially recognized. If you accept the idea that the terms, which are an official agreement, are valid, then you must inherently accept that wars aren't "wars" until officially started. [/quote] When you went to MK to diplomatically resolve the rogue attacks, did they then tell you that they recognized a state of war with you, or did you make that decision on your own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1299310763' post='2653316'] We're not the ones trying to make something out of how MK and NSO came to be officially at war and spin it as something separate from the NPO conflict. [/quote] At no point have I claimed it's separate from the NPO war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='Dibbun' timestamp='1299310811' post='2653318'] When you went to MK to diplomatically resolve the rogue attacks, did they then tell you that they recognized a state of war with you, or did you make that decision on your own? [/quote] I see where you are going, and my answer would be to point you to the part of the terms where it says "or the equivalent". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='mythicknight' timestamp='1299310345' post='2653302'] Seems NSO just wants to force CD into war if they can. Real classy. [/quote] Aw man, you sure got us pegged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1299310763' post='2653316'] We're not the ones trying to make something out of how MK and NSO came to be officially at war and spin it as something separate from the NPO conflict. [/quote] I saw that quick edit, 'as our own' .. What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts