Osiris | Danburg Seized!

[Wascoitan]

the league's continued pushing of this line is very ironic, considering I'm pretty sure everyone knows damn well that if a member of the council of hawks or whatever wrote a manifesto like that you would 100% be claiming it represents the views as TBH as a whole (possibly even raiderdom as a whole, considering how you tend to respond to these things). just stop. yall know that this line is bullshit just as well as anyone else, you don't need to try to push it every time someone brings up the manifesto.

The immediate need to pull on hypotheticals that have not and likely will not happen to justify your argument doesn't bode well. Traditionally irony doesn't depend upon something that "you [we] would 100% be claiming".

literally anyone who has spent a considerable amount of time in GP knows that what I said is true, but if you want an example, how about the time two random hawks (who weren't even on the council of hawks, unlike queb who very much is in leadership positions in the league) voted on an RMB in TSP and suddenly everyone acts like TBH as an organization tried to coup TSP?

the league's continued pushing of this line is very ironic, considering I'm pretty sure everyone knows damn well that if a member of the council of hawks or whatever wrote a manifesto like that you would 100% be claiming it represents the views as TBH as a whole (possibly even raiderdom as a whole, considering how you tend to respond to these things). just stop. yall know that this line is bullshit just as well as anyone else, you don't need to try to push it every time someone brings up the manifesto.

Please, elaborate as to how we "tend to respond to these things" with preferably some form of idk, evidence or justification.

please go read the malice thread around the time BoM raided epsa and TNP's jump points, I think it's pretty hard to argue yall weren't trying to tie those actions to raiderdom as a whole.

the league's continued pushing of this line is very ironic, considering I'm pretty sure everyone knows damn well that if a member of the council of hawks or whatever wrote a manifesto like that you would 100% be claiming it represents the views as TBH as a whole (possibly even raiderdom as a whole, considering how you tend to respond to these things). just stop. yall know that this line is bullshit just as well as anyone else, you don't need to try to push it every time someone brings up the manifesto.

Even if you assume your bogus argument is true, that we would react in that way if for example someone created a region called TL Delenda Est, that still wouldn't justify you in doing the same. If TL government claims oranges are actually purple that doesn't mean that the OFO is justified in claiming the Eiffel Tower is pink, its a nonsensical argument.

show me where exactly I tried to say we would be justified in posting a manifesto like that. You can't, cause that's not what I was saying, I was pointing out how shit the argument of "uh, actually, this person who is very much the face of the league saying he wants osiris to be coup'd doesn't represent the league as a whole" (tho anyone who thinks about that argument for more than 10 seconds should be able to realize the problem with that, so this level of diving into it shouldn't really be necessary. yet here I am, so I suppose the jokes on me)

[Lazarene Dino]

Is Lazarus still trying to stay strictly neutral in NSGP?

It's not a violation of neutrality to stand up for your allies.

[Lord Dominator]

Is Lazarus still trying to stay strictly neutral in NSGP?

It's not a violation of neutrality to stand up to your allies.

I think you mean stand up for, not to

[Haganham]

Is Lazarus still trying to stay strictly neutral in NSGP?

It's not a violation of neutrality to stand up to your allies.

It takes even more courage then standing up to your enemies.

[Quebecshire]

For what it's worth, I don't think Lazarus' participation in this statement violates their general alignment neutrality. It's unfortunate that they went in this direction, but understandable all things considered given their treaty. Just as we hope people understand our position in that the declaration of war was a measured reaction to an unacceptable attack on one of our allies.

[Apatosaurus]

It's not a violation of neutrality to stand up to your allies.

I think you mean stand up for, not to :p

True xD

[Custadia]

Lazarus is still neutral when it comes to R/D. This does not mean that attacks on the legitimacy of our allies made with a pretext relating to R/D will go unanswered. Osiris has not forfeited its sovereignty or the support of its friends by participating in a routine raid.

[A Bloodred Moon]

A neutral stance in R/D does not equal a hesitation to stand by Lazarus’ treaty allies. The assumption is absurd - if we were afraid to stand by our allies for fear of breaking our stance of R/D neutrality, we wouldn’t be signing any treaties in the first place.

The diplomatic and military actions against the OFO

I will grant you the diplomatic part of that sentence, if we are generous, but which military actions? I’ve seen you cry your heart out that a Warzone got used for its designated purpose, I was not aware of any actual military operations you carried out against Osiris in response to the Warzone Sandbox raid. After all:

The immediate need to pull on hypotheticals that have not and likely will not happen to justify your argument doesn't bode well

were a response to direct and unprovoked aggression by the OFO against a treaty ally of The League

It’s a Warzone. Its very nature is to be raided.

and they alone are responsible for the outbreak of hostilities, to frame this as aggression by TL is nonsensical.

I read your treaty again. It obligated a “diplomatic response”, which is as non-specific as one can get. Unless your diplomatic response equals a declaration of war and a vow of destruction of Osiris’ government, it is, in fact, aggression by the League towards Osiris - your treaty did not obligate it, and as such no action against Warzone Sandbox would have triggered a declaration of war per the treaty. It was therefore the League’s decision to declare war and vow the overthrow of the OFO (as laughable as the latter is).

[The Tirol Region]

The immediate need to pull on hypotheticals that have not and likely will not happen to justify your argument doesn't bode well. Traditionally irony doesn't depend upon something that "you [we] would 100% be claiming".

literally anyone who has spent a considerable amount of time in GP knows that what I said is true, but if you want an example, how about the time two random hawks (who weren't even on the council of hawks, unlike queb who very much is in leadership positions in the league) voted on an RMB in TSP and suddenly everyone acts like TBH as an organization tried to coup TSP?

Well this is literally besides the point, I represent The League, not the entirety of Defenderdom and most certainly not TSP.

Please, elaborate as to how we "tend to respond to these things" with preferably some form of idk, evidence or justification.

please go read the malice thread around the time BoM raided epsa and TNP's jump points, I think it's pretty hard to argue yall weren't trying to tie those actions to raiderdom as a whole..

See above.

Even if you assume your bogus argument is true, that we would react in that way if for example someone created a region called TL Delenda Est, that still wouldn't justify you in doing the same. If TL government claims oranges are actually purple that doesn't mean that the OFO is justified in claiming the Eiffel Tower is pink, its a nonsensical argument.

show me where exactly I tried to say we would be justified in posting a manifesto like that. You can't, cause that's not what I was saying, I was pointing out how shit the argument of "uh, actually, this person who is very much the face of the league saying he wants osiris to be coup'd doesn't represent the league as a whole" (tho anyone who thinks about that argument for more than 10 seconds should be able to realize the problem with that, so this level of diving into it shouldn't really be necessary. yet here I am, so I suppose the jokes on me)

Hold on bro, at no point did I claim that you would be justified in posting such a manifesto, let me make this more clear because clearly you've misconstrued what I was conjecturing. What I did argue is that, if some Osiran had published such a manifesto, we wouldn't be justified in holding that as an aggression by the OFO, not that we're short on those either way, that is unless we could prove that the state actively supported and endorsed the actions. I'm not going to deny Quebec is significant political figure in The League but he has been abundantly clear that those actions do not represent The League's official position on the matter. There's a reason the declaration of a state of war followed unprovoked violence against our allies, not the manifesto authored by a private citizen without state support or intervention. So let me be clear to Osirans in case you still weren't sure, this war is because of repeated aggression and military action against treaty allies of The League.

[Varanius]

The argument that Quebec doesn’t represent the League is plainly stupid. He is your founder. By the inherent mechanical power of NS, he controls the region. Furthermore, he is a Consul, which seems to be the League’s equivalent of a head of state. If the Delegate of the South Pacific said that the League was a dumb stinky region no one likes, the league would be perfectly justified in being upset over this.

[Quebecshire]

The argument that Quebec doesn’t represent the League is plainly stupid. He is your founder. By the inherent mechanical power of NS, he controls the region. Furthermore, he is a Consul, which seems to be the League’s equivalent of a head of state. If the Delegate of the South Pacific said that the League was a dumb stinky region no one likes, the league would be perfectly justified in being upset over this.

You can argue that my actions with the manifesto reflect upon The League, to whatever degree (even if it wasn’t government policy, which it objectively isn’t). You can even argue the manifesto was unwarranted. Those would be a series of defensible claims.

However, the narrative being pushed by Osiris in general and in the above statement in particular, the one that suggests an uninterrupted manifesto -> declaration of war series of events, is simply untrue. The declaration of war wasn’t even on the table or in our minds until options were being considered after the raid, which was, again, a raid on a treatied ally of The League by a group of invader regions.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Since....sometime before 2004 (they existed where the Jolt forum records start, there's no news post, and I'm forgetting my history), Warzones have existed specifically for Military Gameplay to happen in. Since an ancient era, prior to influence, where difficult-to-moderate subjective invasion rules reigned, the Warzones have existed as site-sanctioned targets. To build a community in one is bold; to guarantee that community by threat of war is a just silly. They literally can't even be password or refounded, hah. If you're going to fight tbe game mechanics like that, you might as well declare war for voting against your resolution, or cut the middleman and declare war on Max. I don't know how even the most ardent moralist could claim that raiding a warzone isn't a risk that the those specific natives very explicitly accepted, to the point of a disclaimer on their region page.

Props to TWP and Lazarus for having a sensible response.

[Kavagrad]

Since....sometime before 2004 (they existed where the Jolt forum records start, there's no news post, and I'm forgetting my history), Warzones have existed specifically for Military Gameplay to happen in. Since an ancient era, prior to influence, where difficult-to-moderate subjective invasion rules reigned, the Warzones have existed as site-sanctioned targets. To build a community in one is bold; to guarantee that community by threat of war is a just silly. They literally can't even be password or refounded, hah. If you're going to fight tbe game mechanics like that, you might as well declare war for voting against your resolution, or cut the middleman and declare war on Max. I don't know how even the most ardent moralist could claim that raiding a warzone isn't a risk that the those specific natices very explicitly accepted, to the point of a disclaimer on their region page.

Props to TWP and Lazarus for having a sensible response.

I would go so far as to question why one would have this sort of agreement with a Warzone government if not with the explicit intent of finding an excuse to declare war on regions using them for their intended purpose.

[Quebecshire]

I would go so far as to question why one would have this sort of agreement with a Warzone government if not with the explicit intent of finding an excuse to declare war on regions using them for their intended purpose.

Interesting conspiracy theory. You might want to do some research. The Sandbox government predates the LDF’s existence and there is a well documented series and buildup of meaningful cooperation between TL and WZSB prior to the treaty and anything that came after it.

What a load of shit that post is. Posturing aside I’d genuinely be surprised if people, even raiders, side with that one.

[A Bloodred Moon]

Well this is literally besides the point, I represent The League, not the entirety of Defenderdom and most certainly not TSP.

So are we to assume the League does in fact think it unreasonable for TSP to hold TBH accountable for the actions of two members voting on an RMB?

The declaration of war wasn’t even on the table or in our minds until options were being considered after the raid, which was, again, a raid on a treatied ally of The League by a group of invader regions.

I don't believe the statement suggested that the declaration of war followed from your post. It notes that the regions signing the statement have observed a pattern of hostility - whether you agree with that claim is up to you, but it does not equal pushing a narrative stating the essay led to the declaration of war.

[Zukchiva]

The argument that Quebec doesn’t represent the League is plainly stupid. He is your founder. By the inherent mechanical power of NS, he controls the region. Furthermore, he is a Consul, which seems to be the League’s equivalent of a head of state. If the Delegate of the South Pacific said that the League was a dumb stinky region no one likes, the league would be perfectly justified in being upset over this.

Founder statements are not equivalent to official government policy in any case unless the Foundership itself is an executive office by regional law/norms, or the Founder holds a separate executive position.

An argument can be made that Quebec's statements partially represent TL's informal stances, especially as Consul, but as Quebec said his statements are not official government policy because TL's Founder does not hold executive authority by default, afaik.

Note that I don't agree with couping Osiris at all, I just also don't agree with the idea that a Founder, with no executive duties, is representative of a region's hard-line positions.

Since....sometime before 2004 (they existed where the Jolt forum records start, there's no news post, and I'm forgetting my history), Warzones have existed specifically for Military Gameplay to happen in. Since an ancient era, prior to influence, where difficult-to-moderate subjective invasion rules reigned, the Warzones have existed as site-sanctioned targets. To build a community in one is bold; to guarantee that community by threat of war is a just silly. They literally can't even be password or refounded, hah. If you're going to fight tbe game mechanics like that, you might as well declare war for voting against your resolution, or cut the middleman and declare war on Max. I don't know how even the most ardent moralist could claim that raiding a warzone isn't a risk that the those specific natices very explicitly accepted, to the point of a disclaimer on their region page.

Props to TWP and Lazarus for having a sensible response.

I would go so far as to question why one would have this sort of agreement with a Warzone government if not with the explicit intent of finding an excuse to declare war on regions using them for their intended purpose.

Just like any other treaty, therein exists a close relationship between the two signatories, to the point where they would help each other out whenever possible and feasible. Just because one signatory rules over a region built to be invaded, and that its natives inherently understand & accepted that risk by residing in said region, does not invalidate that bond or actions that come from it.

As far as I can see, moralism isn't relevant here. TL acted for WZSB as an ally would in clear-cut circumstances, just as TWP & Lazarus have acted out of their closeness with Osiris.

[Ikania]

This whole song and dance routine from raiders to cast aspersions on the legitimacy of Warzone governments was wholly expected. As stated in the initial declarations, the League does not make a distinction between a normal region and a Warzone region. They are a treaty ally. It doesn't matter how reasonable you think it is to have treaties with Warzones, or pointing out the obvious fact that a Warzone is a Warzone, as if we didn't know -- they are our ally, and we will treat them like an ally. They made the decision to build a community in a region where it's nigh-impossible to meet success, but they are persisting, and we are supporting them in this effort. When you raid a region that has a treaty with the League, the League will respond in kind. Really don't think there's anything else to say beyond that.

We've also run in circles for probably decades now over the question of whether someone speaking their mind is necessarily doing so on behalf of the region they lead. We're no closer to an answer today than we were then.

[Custadia]

It doesn't matter how reasonable you think it is to have treaties with Warzones, or pointing out the obvious fact that a Warzone is a Warzone, as if we didn't know -- they are our ally, and we will treat them like an ally.

If it is the policy of TL to wilfully ignore long-standing interregional consensus, isolation is inevitable.

[Ikania]

It doesn't matter how reasonable you think it is to have treaties with Warzones, or pointing out the obvious fact that a Warzone is a Warzone, as if we didn't know -- they are our ally, and we will treat them like an ally.

If it is the policy of TL to wilfully ignore long-standing interregional consensus, isolation is inevitable.

We don't believe that "long-standing interregional consensus", however you want to quantify that, invalidates our commitment to our allies. We do not need nor seek out the friendship of invaders who desire regional sovereignty for themselves but not for other regions they don't deem worthy.

[Goobergunchia II]

It doesn't matter how reasonable you think it is to have treaties with Warzones, or pointing out the obvious fact that a Warzone is a Warzone, as if we didn't know -- they are our ally, and we will treat them like an ally.

If it is the policy of TL to wilfully ignore long-standing interregional consensus, isolation is inevitable.

Perhaps a Declaration on the status of Warzones might clarify what (if any) interregional consensus there is on this question?

[Quebecshire]

If it is the policy of TL to wilfully ignore long-standing interregional consensus, isolation is inevitable.

Perhaps a Declaration on the status of Warzones might clarify what (if any) interregional consensus there is on this question?

I actually had drafted something along those lines in the summer but it kind of fell on the backburner and then just... fell off.

I might revisit it, but if anyone else is interested, don't hesitate to DM me about it if you want to take it up.

[Guy]

Since....sometime before 2004 (they existed where the Jolt forum records start, there's no news post, and I'm forgetting my history), Warzones have existed specifically for Military Gameplay to happen in. Since an ancient era, prior to influence, where difficult-to-moderate subjective invasion rules reigned, the Warzones have existed as site-sanctioned targets. To build a community in one is bold; to guarantee that community by threat of war is a just silly. They literally can't even be password or refounded, hah. If you're going to fight tbe game mechanics like that, you might as well declare war for voting against your resolution, or cut the middleman and declare war on Max. I don't know how even the most ardent moralist could claim that raiding a warzone isn't a risk that the those specific natives very explicitly accepted, to the point of a disclaimer on their region page.

Agree with this. The unique mechanics of Warzones is really a gift to military gameplayers, enabling an interesting form of the invasion game without harming native communities. Taking it away by building a community there is selfish, and harms not only those who might seek to use them for their intended purpose, but also any players you recruit there. Don’t expect my sympathies if you get invaded in a Warzone.

[Quebecshire]

We can argue about the legitimacy of Warzones in a general sense all day, but this conflict isn't because any old Warzone was hit. It is because a region (which happens to be a Warzone), a defender region at that, which was treaty allied to The League, was raided. The pattern of behavior by Mira during the raid shows that it was clearly meant to be antagonistic, and this can be shown by Mira only closing 4 of the region's embassies during the raid (the other Warzone they are associated with, XKI, TL, and TRR), all either associates of Warzone Sandbox, or defenders.

This is a part of a larger pattern of raiders antagonizing the allies of their opponents, as seen by BoM's astronomically poor decision making in Stargate. It's a part of a raider trend of heightened hostility, Warzones or not.

[The Universe World]

We can argue about the legitimacy of Warzones in a general sense all day, but this conflict isn't because any old Warzone was hit. It is because a region (which happens to be a Warzone), a defender region at that, which was treaty allied to The League, was raided. The pattern of behavior by Mira during the raid shows that it was clearly meant to be antagonistic, and this can be shown by Mira only closing 4 of the region's embassies during the raid (the other Warzone they are associated with, XKI, TL, and TRR), all either associates of Warzone Sandbox, or defenders.

This is a part of a larger pattern of raiders antagonizing the allies of their opponents, as seen by BoM's astronomically poor decision making in Stargate. It's a part of a raider trend of heightened hostility, Warzones or not.

Agreed. I would like to say that having a stable regional government in a Warzone is a great achievement in regards to gameplay and mechanics. Taking away all of that hard work and burning it is both cruel and outright harmful to Warzones and the game in general, and it proves yet again that a large amount of raiders do not care about anything else in regards to the game but raiding. That is fine, but there is a difference between not caring about the rest of the game and outright disrespecting it.

[WayNeacTia]

We can argue about the legitimacy of Warzones in a general sense all day, but this conflict isn't because any old Warzone was hit. It is because a region (which happens to be a Warzone), a defender region at that, which was treaty allied to The League, was raided. The pattern of behavior by Mira during the raid shows that it was clearly meant to be antagonistic, and this can be shown by Mira only closing 4 of the region's embassies during the raid (the other Warzone they are associated with, XKI, TL, and TRR), all either associates of Warzone Sandbox, or defenders.

This is a part of a larger pattern of raiders antagonizing the allies of their opponents, as seen by BoM's astronomically poor decision making in Stargate. It's a part of a raider trend of heightened hostility, Warzones or not.

Oh dear….. It looks like stories can’t even be kept straight…..