Heft Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1299483130' post='2655213'] Say what you want about not posting a declaration of war but you're either incredibly stupid or being deliberately obtuse if you really believe that our attacks on NSO nations weren't a part of the conflict surrounding NPO. I'm going for deliberately obtuse though your other actions could suggest just being stupidity. [/quote] Hold on, I'm going to do to this post what you just did to the surrender terms.... [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1299483130' post='2655213'] Say what you want [/quote] Will do! Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1299486471' post='2655263'] If the clause was intended to refer to conflicts not pertaining to this one, then why was it added to the same clause? Further, why was it even necessary to specify something that would have been obvious anyway (i.e. that alliances can defend their allies against unrelated attacks)? [/quote] Added as an afterthought? Yes it would be obvious anyway, but it makes more sense for it to mean that than to mean something which directly contradicts what comes before it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Are you drunk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Humphrey Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1299486828' post='2655266'] Added as an afterthought? Yes it would be obvious anyway, but it makes more sense for it to mean that than to mean something which directly contradicts what comes before it. [/quote] On the contrary, it makes more sense that it was added to vary the clause, or as an exception, because those signing it were concerned about further declarations on their allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Finally someone gives us a good reason to extort some tech out of them after they're dust. I do like me some blood tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Last Imperial Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) "These parties may defend against an alliance who DoWs (or equivalent) against their treatied allies after these terms are posted." http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=99085 I am pretty sure that is one of those "(or equivalent)" as NSO states "The New Sith Order recognizes a state of war with the Mushroom Kingdom and Umbrella [u][b]and considers the Mushroom Kingdom and Umbrella to be the aggressors[/b][/u]." Just FYI these are my thought, and are not the official word of CD.... Other then that Good fight to you guys in MK, I have never fought against you, fought along side you and know how good you guys are, so lets give each other a little hell Edited March 7, 2011 by The Last Imperial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biff Webster Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 You crafty Germans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelOfLight Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1299486828' post='2655266'] Added as an afterthought? Yes it would be obvious anyway, but it makes more sense for it to mean that than to mean something which directly contradicts what comes before it. [/quote] In wars fought on CN, we have a set of widely accepted rules. Surrender terms, for example, are one of the rules we would like everyone to abide by. Just as you would like to see CD abide by the rules of surrender, other alliances too would really like to see MK abide by another commonly accepted rule on CN - Declarations of War. The purpose of a DoW is to publicly inform the cyberverse of the purpose of a war, serving both as an official recognition of conflict as well as a CB. The reason a DoW is important (and even more so in this case), is because of the second half of the above sentence - the part about the CB. If the rules had been followed properly, then MK would have clearly stated in its CB that the attack on NSO was due to its role in the current conflict. Unfortunately, there was no clear CB stating that this was part of the larger war. I'm not denying that there's a good possibility that MK's intentions were to attack based on the sides in this global war. However, the rules of war in CN ask that you specify your CB, else the war just counts as little more than another tech raid or rogue attack. So MK's intention could possibly have been related to this war, but it is unable to claim this because it did not follow the rules itself by making it clear in its CB. It is the failure to comply with this rule regarding CBs that makes it possible for CD to claim that the attack on NSO was not in relation to the conflict. Moreover, CD's surrender terms clearly had a clause that, in no uncertain terms, stated that it is allowed to defend its allies so long as the DoW or equivalent against its allies has been made AFTER signing the treaty. Since this was clearly the case, we can assume that even if CD were to take MK's word about this being related to the current war (which it doesn't have to due to the lack of its mention in the form of a CB/DoW), CD would still be entitled to defend its allies. It's a part of the surrender terms as they were accepted by both sides. It's all right if MK doesn't agree that these terms should have been allowed, but now that they have been allowed, CD is entitled to claim them legitimately. It's not a violation if the surrender terms explicitly provide a clause that allows this to happen. Edited March 7, 2011 by AngelOfLight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biff Webster Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 I got an idea. MK: Surrender to CoJ, then jump the fence. When someone calls you on it, assert that CD was "ahead of it's time". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukapaka Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 No doubt, this blitz is a turning point in this war... [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavii Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Breaking surrender terms = we break your alliance. Don't expect to get out of this any time soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Xavii' timestamp='1299497363' post='2655314'] Breaking surrender terms = we break your alliance. Don't expect to get out of this any time soon. [/quote] Congratulations on not reading the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavii Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 I read between the lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Heft' timestamp='1299497483' post='2655316'] Congratulations on not reading the thread. [/quote] you mean the bit where cd try to weasel out of their terms? if they want to try and justify their actions, it's their prerogative. but we don't buy it, and really give a !@#$. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1299497811' post='2655319'] you mean the bit where cd try to weasel out of their terms? if they want to try and justify their actions, it's their prerogative. but we don't buy it, and really give a !@#$. [/quote] To argue that CD has broken terms is to literally be illiterate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavii Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 To say they aren't is being purposely obtuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Heft' timestamp='1299498138' post='2655321'] To argue that CD has broken terms is to literally be illiterate. [/quote] or to not buy into this convoluted argument that's been spun that relies upon 'rules or war,' as defined by nso/cd/tpf, and mk's supposed breach of them. but hey, cling onto your narrow world view, if you keep on plugging away you might convince someone outside of your echo chamber eventually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1299498541' post='2655324'] or to not buy into this convoluted argument that's been spun that relies upon 'rules or war,' as defined by nso/cd/tpf, and mk's supposed breach of them. but hey, cling onto your narrow world view, if you keep on plugging away you might convince someone outside of your echo chamber eventually. [/quote] I'm interested to know how our argument is somehow more convoluted than the argument that "These parties may defend against an alliance who DoWs (or equivalent) against their treatied allies after these terms are posted" doesn't explicitly and obviously allow CD to hit MK (or Umbrella, if they so choose). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Hahaha. Really?! That's got to be up there in the "worst e-lawyering" ranking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Some hilarious arguments presented ITT. We'll put you under real terms this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 As someone who was there when these terms were crafted Carpe Diem is correct in the assessment that the allowance to re-enter the war referred to further DoWs on allies, regardless of the war. From TFD's side it was produced out of concern of further CCC dogpilling for example. Sparta was informed of this and was aware of the spirit of the terms when they were signed. Whether there was an actual declaration of war on CD's allies that's a whole different story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Heft' timestamp='1299498784' post='2655326'] I'm interested to know how our argument is somehow more convoluted than the argument that "These parties may defend against an alliance who DoWs (or equivalent) against their treatied allies after these terms are posted" doesn't explicitly and obviously allow CD to hit MK (or Umbrella, if they so choose). [/quote] we seem to be missing something in your extract. what can that be? "[b]The parties of ... CD, ... agree to not re-enter on any point in the current conflict surrounding NpO or NPO.[/b] These parties may defend against an alliance who DoWs (or equivalent) against their treatied allies after these terms are posted." For us to believe this tripe, we have to first say that the nso's involvement in this war had nothing to do with the npo. by the way, you are. for someone who claims to be an upholder of cn literacy standards, i would have assumed you would have read the second sentence in its context as part of the entire clause. mk sees this as a breach of terms, and so cd can expect that this will be taken into account when they ask for surrender terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der_ko Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 I'll personally forgive you if one of your lot declares war on me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1299499324' post='2655332'] we seem to be missing something in your extract. what can that be? "[b]The parties of ... CD, ... agree to not re-enter on any point in the current conflict surrounding NpO or NPO.[/b] These parties may defend against an alliance who DoWs (or equivalent) against their treatied allies after these terms are posted." For us to believe this tripe, we have to first say that the nso's involvement in this war had nothing to do with the npo. by the way, you are. for someone who claims to be an upholder of cn literacy standards, i would have assumed you would have read the second sentence in its context as part of the entire clause. mk sees this as a breach of terms, and so cd can expect that this will be taken into account when they ask for surrender terms. [/quote] I am not exactly sure where MK signed or was a party to the discussion of those terms and therefore I have some doubts on MK's legitimacy or capacity to interpret them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1299499453' post='2655335'] I am not exactly sure where MK signed or was a party to the discussion of those terms and therefore I have some doubts on MK's legitimacy or capacity to interpret them. [/quote] i'm afraid i don't see how that changes things. we believe they have broken terms, this breach will be taken into account when they surrender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.