Embassy of The North Pacific

[Pallaith]

WZT seems to be under the impression they’re a longstanding ally of TEP. But I don’t blame you for thinking that, given the way TEP acted.

And yeah, losing a treaty with a so-called ally that does not have your back is actually not such a bad thing in my book. Collecting treaties is rather pointless if they aren’t worth anything when the chips are down, and this one was basically worthless when it came time to lean on it and rely on our so-called friends in The East Pacific. You probably have very little idea of just how unprofessional and unserious that region is in a diplomatic sense considering raider diplomacy is essentially just vibes and that’s all TEP runs on these days, but for the rest of us playing the actual political simulator game that we’re all here to play, what we’ve had to deal with trying to have summits with TEP has been bizarre and not what constitutes sensible or coherent gameplay.

The delegate’s statement on this is generous compared to what could have been said.

[Comfed]

Then of course there is the fact that not all that long ago, TNP was so offended by a thorn into an allied region (Stargate) that they cut off several of their former friends and partners over it, and yet TNP finds it unimaginable that a region finds it unacceptable for them to unapologetically raid and attempt to destroy a region which has been their longstanding ally. Do you guys genuinely hear yourselves? Do you have no self awareness?

The situation in Stargate is not comparable to the raid of Warzone Trinidad. First, Stargate was and is an ally of The North Pacific, in accordance with the Stargate Security Treaty. No such treaty exists between WZT and TEP, so your claim that WZT is a "longstanding ally" of The North Pacific is just incorrect. Second, the the thorn of Stargate was an incursion into an ally of The North Pacific with no basis - the commander who executed the move, Miravana, has even described it as a mistake. TNP can reasonably condition is support to other regions to the expectations that those regions refrain from incurring upon the sovereignty of its allies. By contrast, our raid of WZT was obviously justified; WZT is allied to the Brotherhood of Malice, and required by treaty to support BoM military operations - operations which have included direct attacks against TNP and our allies. Raiding that region - a warzone, against which raiding is to be expected - was proportionate retaliation for their continued and regular support for attacks against TNP and its allies.

Also Europe was not hosted by Malice, Warzone Trinidad was not involved nor were we treaty compelled to. You're just wrong on that. We weren't involved in the TW tip either, which makes pinning both of these events as reasons we're evil very funny. You're supposed to spin the truth, not outright lie.

The Murder Inc. Corporate Charter compels WZT to "send updaters and/or pilers when requested" to any BoM operation against any region except for Warzone Airspace. The operation conducted against Europe, Operation VULPINE, was conducted by a coalition that explicitly included the Brotherhood of Malice. More broadly, BoM has been preeminent in supporting and conducting military aggression against The North Pacific and its allies. The Murder Inc. Corporate Charter clearly binds WZT to such military operations.

[Angeloid Astraea]

Judging by the comments, raiders and those aligned with us understand the neutral ideology of TEP better than The North Pacific ever did. Imagine being in a treaty with a neutral region and acting betrayed by their neutrality. The Sparkling Army of Sparkalia understood when TEP couldn't commit certain actions or put forth certain rhetoric during and after the operation in Atlanticana, an embassy partner of both Sparkalia and TEP. We wanted to be much more aggressive with our rhetoric towards actors like TNP. The fact the EPSA was there and TEP was signing onto the statement about Atlanticana prevented such aggressive posturing. We were fine with this, and I even personally apologized to TEP's delegate Merlovich for being inconsiderate of their neutral ideology when I helped draft an initial statement that was more aggressive and less neutral. Being fine with neutrals and even being apologetic when not considering their position was easy, because we in the Sparkling Army don't carry a sense of entitlement in our interactions. Clearly that's not the case with TNP, and a large part of why this treaty died.

TEP doesn't run on "vibes", they run on respect, and you obviously stopped showing it to them.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Collecting treaties is rather pointless if they aren’t worth anything when the chips are down, and this one was basically worthless when it came time to lean on it and rely on our so-called friends in The East Pacific.

Has The Pacific started delivering anything more than the occasional detag run of appeasement?

Has TNP itself been reliable when the chips are down?

[Bormiar]

Judging by the comments, raiders and those aligned with us understand the neutral ideology of TEP better than The North Pacific ever did. Imagine being in a treaty with a neutral region and acting betrayed by their neutrality. The Sparkling Army of Sparkalia understood when TEP couldn't commit certain actions or put forth certain rhetoric during and after the operation in Atlanticana, an embassy partner of both Sparkalia and TEP. We wanted to be much more aggressive with our rhetoric towards actors like TNP. The fact the EPSA was there and TEP was signing onto the statement about Atlanticana prevented such aggressive posturing. We were fine with this, and I even personally apologized to TEP's delegate Merlovich for being inconsiderate of their neutral ideology when I helped draft an initial statement that was more aggressive and less neutral. Being fine with neutrals and even being apologetic when not considering their position was easy, because we in the Sparkling Army don't carry a sense of entitlement in our interactions. Clearly that's not the case with TNP, and a large part of why this treaty died.

TEP doesn't run on "vibes", they run on respect, and you obviously stopped showing it to them.

Their actions with regard to WZT don’t exactly scream “neutrality”.

[Valtarre]

The Murder Inc. Corporate Charter compels WZT to "send updaters and/or pilers when requested" to any BoM operation against any region except for Warzone Airspace. The operation conducted against Europe, Operation VULPINE, was conducted by a coalition that explicitly included the Brotherhood of Malice. More broadly, BoM has been preeminent in supporting and conducting military aggression against The North Pacific and its allies. The Murder Inc. Corporate Charter clearly binds WZT to such military operations.

It intrigues me that despite the fact that you clearly attempted to do your research, the conclusion that you came to doesn't hold water. You know for a fact that despite your use of the word required, that there is no such obligating language compelling the Mafia to always act on our behalf. That would not be military cooperation, that would be vassalage.

The actual language, as you yourself point out, is that they shall endeavor to participate in operations carried out by Malice, as in led by us, when requested. Neither Operation Hidden Vulpe nor the operation which put Pallaith into the delegacy invoked this clause, because they were not carried out by Malice. We have never requested the Mafia's assistance in any military operation conducted against The North Pacific. Feel free to tank your relationships with other regions as you see fit, but don't use a farcical interpretation of our treaty to do so by drawing a picture of Malice and WZT mutually messing with TNP that has no basis in reality.

[Angeloid Astraea]

Judging by the comments, raiders and those aligned with us understand the neutral ideology of TEP better than The North Pacific ever did. Imagine being in a treaty with a neutral region and acting betrayed by their neutrality. The Sparkling Army of Sparkalia understood when TEP couldn't commit certain actions or put forth certain rhetoric during and after the operation in Atlanticana, an embassy partner of both Sparkalia and TEP. We wanted to be much more aggressive with our rhetoric towards actors like TNP. The fact the EPSA was there and TEP was signing onto the statement about Atlanticana prevented such aggressive posturing. We were fine with this, and I even personally apologized to TEP's delegate Merlovich for being inconsiderate of their neutral ideology when I helped draft an initial statement that was more aggressive and less neutral. Being fine with neutrals and even being apologetic when not considering their position was easy, because we in the Sparkling Army don't carry a sense of entitlement in our interactions. Clearly that's not the case with TNP, and a large part of why this treaty died.

TEP doesn't run on "vibes", they run on respect, and you obviously stopped showing it to them.

Their actions with regard to WZT don’t exactly scream “neutrality”.

If the justification you use to invade a Warzone is contested by a neutral region with ties to that Warzone and you invade anyway, that neutral region responding negatively isn't a breach of their neutrality. It's a response to you breaching theirs. This point wouldn't even be a debate if Malice was the invading party, the Warzone was Warzone Sandbox, and the neutral region was Lazarus.

[Pallaith]

Their actions with regard to WZT don’t exactly scream “neutrality”.

If the justification you use to invade a Warzone is contested by a neutral region with ties to that Warzone and you invade anyway, that neutral region responding negatively isn't a breach of their neutrality. It's a response to you breaching theirs. This point wouldn't even be a debate if Malice was the invading party, the Warzone was Warzone Sandbox, and the neutral region was Lazarus.

This had nothing to do with their perceived neutrality. We were well aware of that from day one. This had to do with TEP lacking the imagination and the fucks to give to find anything at all they could do to have our back. There are plenty of things that can be done that don’t involve committing troops to the battlefield or levying sanctions or calling a big diplomatic meeting to express grievances. They chose to do nothing and expected us to be okay with nothing. An ally of almost a decade that doesn’t care about your troubles and doesn’t lift a finger to help in some way they can is not an ally worth having. It doesn’t matter how respectful you are, and contrary to what some of you think, we spent more time than we should have in retrospect trying to respect people who had no regard for us or what matters to us. I know TNP is hardly the only party who’s had to experience the one-sided, childish concept of diplomacy championed by TEP. But again, they lit this match, they made the alliance untenable, we’re simply adapting to that reality.

[Angeloid Astraea]

If the justification you use to invade a Warzone is contested by a neutral region with ties to that Warzone and you invade anyway, that neutral region responding negatively isn't a breach of their neutrality. It's a response to you breaching theirs. This point wouldn't even be a debate if Malice was the invading party, the Warzone was Warzone Sandbox, and the neutral region was Lazarus.

This had nothing to do with their perceived neutrality. We were well aware of that from day one. This had to do with TEP lacking the imagination and the fucks to give to find anything at all they could do to have our back. There are plenty of things that can be done that don’t involve committing troops to the battlefield or levying sanctions or calling a big diplomatic meeting to express grievances. They chose to do nothing and expected us to be okay with nothing. An ally of almost a decade that doesn’t care about your troubles and doesn’t lift a finger to help in some way they can is not an ally worth having. It doesn’t matter how respectful you are, and contrary to what some of you think, we spent more time than we should have in retrospect trying to respect people who had no regard for us or what matters to us. I know TNP is hardly the only party who’s had to experience the one-sided, childish concept of diplomacy championed by TEP. But again, they lit this match, they made the alliance untenable, we’re simply adapting to that reality.

The reality you're adapting to is that TEP repealed the treaty because you did expect things like troop commitments and for them to roll over when you attacked their other partners. Now you have to convince anyone reading your embassy thread that it's not you, it's them. What's beyond silly is the idea TEP is childish and lesser for sticking to their gameplay principles, especially coming from a region that realigned their gameplay principles after one accident.

[Altys]

WZT seems to be under the impression they’re a longstanding ally of TEP. But I don’t blame you for thinking that, given the way TEP acted.

And yeah, losing a treaty with a so-called ally that does not have your back is actually not such a bad thing in my book. Collecting treaties is rather pointless if they aren’t worth anything when the chips are down, and this one was basically worthless when it came time to lean on it and rely on our so-called friends in The East Pacific. You probably have very little idea of just how unprofessional and unserious that region is in a diplomatic sense considering raider diplomacy is essentially just vibes and that’s all TEP runs on these days, but for the rest of us playing the actual political simulator game that we’re all here to play, what we’ve had to deal with trying to have summits with TEP has been bizarre and not what constitutes sensible or coherent gameplay.

The delegate’s statement on this is generous compared to what could have been said.

It's ironic hearing all this coming from you given you're definitely not innocent in all of this. Your latest move being your abuse of administrative powers to kick all TEPers from Heroes of Valhalla, only to then hurriedly ask non-TEP HoV members for their approval because you'd been called out. I agree it's one of the many professional moves you've displayed over the years. Reminds me of when you bullied our Vice-Delegate, or when you insulted our region and our friends because we had different views than you, and those are public incidents. I'll admit, if your definition of professionalism is synonymous to disrespect, you've sure amassed a nice track record we cannot dream to compete with.

[Bormiar]

Neutrality meant condoning raider presence in WZT. What do they expect? WZT was a causality of raider interference long before TNP stepped in.

[Angeloid Astraea]

Neutrality meant condoning raider presence in WZT.

Yes, it did! If you have an issue with neutral regions being neutral towards parts of IC gameplay you don't like, then you should stick to alliances with anti-raider regions like Europeia and The League, who are only neutral when it suits them.

[Bormiar]

Neutrality meant condoning raider presence in WZT.

Yes, it did! If you have an issue with neutral regions being neutral towards parts of IC gameplay you don't like, then you should stick to alliances with anti-raider regions like Europeia and The League, who are only neutral when it suits them.

Yeah, and again, I don't see how TEP could've expected any other response. Raiderdom took over WZT and TEP backed what was essentially a raider government... what's the deal with that? Would TEP expect TNP to sit on its hands and not fight the very war TEP claims to have no opinion of them fighting?

[Pallaith]

This had nothing to do with their perceived neutrality. We were well aware of that from day one. This had to do with TEP lacking the imagination and the fucks to give to find anything at all they could do to have our back. There are plenty of things that can be done that don’t involve committing troops to the battlefield or levying sanctions or calling a big diplomatic meeting to express grievances. They chose to do nothing and expected us to be okay with nothing. An ally of almost a decade that doesn’t care about your troubles and doesn’t lift a finger to help in some way they can is not an ally worth having. It doesn’t matter how respectful you are, and contrary to what some of you think, we spent more time than we should have in retrospect trying to respect people who had no regard for us or what matters to us. I know TNP is hardly the only party who’s had to experience the one-sided, childish concept of diplomacy championed by TEP. But again, they lit this match, they made the alliance untenable, we’re simply adapting to that reality.

The reality you're adapting to is that TEP repealed the treaty because you did expect things like troop commitments and for them to roll over when you attacked their other partners. Now you have to convince anyone reading your embassy thread that it's not you, it's them. What's beyond silly is the idea TEP is childish and lesser for sticking to their gameplay principles, especially coming from a region that realigned their gameplay principles after one accident.

I was privy to the talks, you were not. We were explicit that we did not ask them for troops commitments. The fact that you and they continue to think that despite our clear communication on this point is not evidence in your favor. We also were very aware they did not like the WZT raid, but all we could do was explain our position and seek other areas where they could support us. That was a hopeless endeavor.

Our delegate intended to follow their lead on this and state our position as succinctly as possible. What I’m seeing here is that some of you won’t be content to let this be a relatively amicable and reserved separation, so if I need to elaborate at greater length as to why this was a needless farce necessitated by TEP’s failure to engage in ordinary diplomacy, I suppose I will.

[Varanius]

So when TNP (a TEP treaty ally for god knows however many years) is attacked, TEP’s neutrality means that it’s incapable of supporting TNP, but when WZT (an embassy partner that was added to the game under a year ago) is attacked, TEP’s neutrality simultaneously demands the ending of relationships with their attacker, because they support their a friends regardless of the political climate? Interesting. Maybe I’m in need of glasses, but whenever I try to look at this standard, I’m seeing double…

[Jar Wattinree]

So when TNP (a TEP treaty ally for god knows however many years) is attacked, TEP’s neutrality means that it’s incapable of supporting TNP, but when WZT (an embassy partner that was added to the game under a year ago) is attacked, TEP’s neutrality simultaneously demands the ending of relationships with their attacker, because they support their a friends regardless of the political climate? Interesting. Maybe I’m in need of glasses, but whenever I try to look at this standard, I’m seeing double…

*hands you a pair of outdated Miniluv spectacles*

[Bormiar]

It's clear from Ghost's post above that TNP wanted to respect TEP's relative neutrality while strengthening its relationship with TEP. It looks like TEP was upset that TNP wanted to fight its side of the war. That doesn't strike me as pure "neutrality".

[Hulldom]

It's clear from Ghost's post above that TNP wanted to respect TEP's relative neutrality while strengthening its relationship with TEP. It looks like TEP was upset that TNP wanted to fight its side of the war. That doesn't strike me as pure "neutrality".

They were. We implicitly structured a lot of things when I was FA Minister and what not with the aim of keeping them out since they wanted out so bad. And of course, this doesn't mention that they got invited to Heroes of Valhalla implicitly as a means of strengthening WA cooperation. Well, you win some, you lose some in working with people, I suppose.

And I will note that what Altys said was at least somewhat accurate. I apologized to Shadow and admitted the word choice was in poor taste. We made up and had a whole radio show where we laughed our way through 90 minutes. To keep using this as a gotcha, even given the present era of a not-exactly-great relationship between my former region and TEP, is...well, a bit silly if nothing.

Either the hatchet's been buried or it hasn't. If the hatchet's been buried, anyone who feels aggrieved can certainly feel free to reach out!

[Halsoni]

Your latest move being your abuse of administrative powers to kick all TEPers from Heroes of Valhalla [..] Reminds me of when you bullied our Vice-Delegate, or when you insulted our region and our friends because we had different views than you, and those are public incidents.

I want to be like Ghost when I grow up.

Anyway, it is clear as daylight that the joke that is The East Pacific values their embassy partner of less than a year (a raider-aligned warzone nonetheless) over their decade-long alliance with the North, but alas, it seems like common sense diplomacy is a very farfetched concept for our former "friends" in the East. When an RMBer is elected as the delegate and a minister of foreign affairs bad-mouths their ally in the discord server of a region that is currently at war with them, it's no surprise that things turn out the way they did.

This aged well:

As Delegate, I will hold a zero-tolerance policy on those who seek to harm our region or our allies. We will not tolerate attacks on our allies, regardless of R/D stances and moral justification. We have a duty to uphold our treaties and stand by our allies and friends, and I will do just that.

Lovely to see how you both failed to uphold your treaty obligations and stand by your ally.

[Texico]

Raiderdom took over WZT and TEP backed what was essentially a raider government... what's the deal with that?

This whole conception that raiderdom took over WZT and made it a colony is quite an interesting narrative, and also one that is quite divorced from reality. Fact is defenders were unwilling to give the fledgling Warzone Trindad Corporation any assurances of security because they "don't intervene in Warzones". This left the only logical option for the natives of WZT to approach raiders of their own volition to ask for security assurances from them, something Malice and later on Astoria, were more then happy to provide. We have always been an independent government, and always tried to leave the door open for defender collaboration. We never engaged in any first strike against the North Pacific. We were not present on the deltips of TNP or The Wellspring. We always wanted independence, and Malice respected and was willing to allow us to have that. We were never part of TNP's war or wanted to be until they made us one. As thanks, TNP invaded us twice and the second time when they did it again after being warned, they faced consequences, and act surprised.

If you're so caught up on Malice's relations with WZT, the opportunity to do something about that was when Warzone Trinidad wanted and was trying to work with you. But we only want what we can't have, don't we?

[Altys]

I want to be like Ghost when I grow up..

Given we had to ban you from talking in certain TEP channels because you flamebaited some of our members, I'd say you've already grown up.

[Angeloid Astraea]

It's a strange day when a raider with no interest in neutrality has a better understanding of the policy and ideology of a neutral GCR than its former long-time treaty ally. TNP's sanctioning circle can hold hands and play dumb about TEP's easily-understood approach to gameplay for as many posts in a row as they like. It doesn't change the fact that every question being asked of TEP's approach can be answered simply by understanding that they're neutrals that don't engage in offensive military action.

Lying about whether or not you wanted them to commit troops (you did), attacking their culture, attacking their diplomacy, attacking their sitting delegate, and the name-calling... With this behavior, is it any wonder TNP complained about TEP being too focused on people's vibes? =P

[Halsoni]

I want to be like Ghost when I grow up..

Given we had to ban you from talking in certain TEP channels because you flamebaited some of our members, I'd say you've already grown up.

If arguing about a terrible WA policy = flame-baiting, then sure. That's what happens when your delegate says that the "general likability of a person" should factor into whether or not they should receive a C/C. Sorry, not sorry.

[Comfed]

The Murder Inc. Corporate Charter compels WZT to "send updaters and/or pilers when requested" to any BoM operation against any region except for Warzone Airspace. The operation conducted against Europe, Operation VULPINE, was conducted by a coalition that explicitly included the Brotherhood of Malice. More broadly, BoM has been preeminent in supporting and conducting military aggression against The North Pacific and its allies. The Murder Inc. Corporate Charter clearly binds WZT to such military operations.

It intrigues me that despite the fact that you clearly attempted to do your research, the conclusion that you came to doesn't hold water. You know for a fact that despite your use of the word required, that there is no such obligating language compelling the Mafia to always act on our behalf. That would not be military cooperation, that would be vassalage.

The actual language, as you yourself point out, is that they shall endeavor to participate in operations carried out by Malice, as in led by us, when requested. Neither Operation Hidden Vulpe nor the operation which put Pallaith into the delegacy invoked this clause, because they were not carried out by Malice. We have never requested the Mafia's assistance in any military operation conducted against The North Pacific. Feel free to tank your relationships with other regions as you see fit, but don't use a farcical interpretation of our treaty to do so by drawing a picture of Malice and WZT mutually messing with TNP that has no basis in reality.

You appear to have accidentally addressed the inconvenient truth, which is that that, for all intents and purposes, Warzone Trinidad is a vassal of the Brotherhood of Malice. Semantics aside, the Murder Inc. Corporate Charter has the effect of requiring Warzone Trinidad to participate in military operations if it is requested by BoM. You are correct insofar as, yes, that provision of the treaty is one which vassalizes the Warzone Trinidad Mafia to BoM.

Of course, it is hardly surprising that the provision has never been invoked, because WZT is a region whose membership is almost entirely cosmopolitan. Asking for units representing WZT is rather redundant when those units are already present from the various other raider military organizations they are a part of, which together form a sphere of regions subordinate to BoM interests.

A supposedly neutral region such as The East Pacific really has no grounds to object to our attack on what is essentially a front for BoM members and affiliates.

Raiderdom took over WZT and TEP backed what was essentially a raider government... what's the deal with that?

This whole conception that raiderdom took over WZT and made it a colony is quite an interesting narrative, and also one that is quite divorced from reality. Fact is defenders were unwilling to give the fledgling Warzone Trindad Corporation any assurances of security because they "don't intervene in Warzones". This left the only logical option for the natives of WZT to approach raiders of their own volition to ask for security assurances from them, something Malice and later on Astoria, were more then happy to provide. We have always been an independent government, and always tried to leave the door open for defender collaboration. We never engaged in any first strike against the North Pacific. We were not present on the deltips of TNP or The Wellspring. We always wanted independence, and Malice respected and was willing to allow us to have that. We were never part of TNP's war or wanted to be until they made us one. As thanks, TNP invaded us twice and the second time when they did it again after being warned, they faced consequences, and act surprised.

If you're so caught up on Malice's relations with WZT, the opportunity to do something about that was when Warzone Trinidad wanted and was trying to work with you. But we only want what we can't have, don't we?

If you wish to maintain BoM's snake-oil "friendship," than that is entirely your prerogative, although I would note that BoM has not even lifted a finger to defend you against the two destructive raids you have suffered. Conversely, you can hardly be surprised that, when you align yourselves with regions that engage in regular provocation and aggression against other regions, you are considered to be their associates and thus suffer the brunt of military retaliation (especially as you are a warzone.) The only parties who have "acted surprised" in this case are the regions who find this utterly normal concept either difficult to grasp or offensive.

[Pallaith]

It's a strange day when a raider with no interest in neutrality has a better understanding of the policy and ideology of a neutral GCR than its former long-time treaty ally. TNP's sanctioning circle can hold hands and play dumb about TEP's easily-understood approach to gameplay for as many posts in a row as they like. It doesn't change the fact that every question being asked of TEP's approach can be answered simply by understanding that they're neutrals that don't engage in offensive military action.

Lying about whether or not you wanted them to commit troops (you did), attacking their culture, attacking their diplomacy, attacking their sitting delegate, and the name-calling... With this behavior, is it any wonder TNP complained about TEP being too focused on people's vibes? =P

You’re literally denying reality and calling me a liar. I honestly don’t know how to respond to that. TNP did not ask TEP to contribute military forces to advance our war. TNP explicitly said it was seeking support in whatever form TEP was willing to provide. TEP indicated it was unwilling to provide support of any kind. I was there, you were not. I had a stake in these events, you as you say do not. So other than the fact it is inconvenient for your narrative to concede this point, I’m not sure why you keep trying to insist on something that did not happen and is not true.

As for disgruntled posts and swipes and snipes after the fact…well a basic understanding of time will tell you whether that was part of what led to the end of the treaty or not. You want so much for this to be something that it’s not, I understand why, but the reality of the situation is what it is no matter how much you wish it was something different.