The Fer-de-Lance Vs The Hydra Chicken [HARD MT][OOC]

[Flardania]

So kinda like me minus the neighbors since I lack those... Go for it bud!

Poor Malaysia...

China can be pretty cheeky at times....

[Greater Hayaba]

Poor Malaysia...

Well luckily we are in command of the Mallaca strait.

[Aeyariss]

So the rest are bading on RL standard but L&A are using 72km territorial claim? By his so called 'community based' views is he going to change that policy?

[Majuera]

Can Majuera post in-character as this is regional business of America Libre we're dealing with?

[Inyourfaceistan]

So the rest are bading on RL standard but L&A are using 72km territorial claim? By his so called 'community based' views is he going to change that policy?

No Lib is using the RL standard for international waters.
I'm claiming ~73km (3 radar horizons) as territorial waters, but the real dispute is internal waters.

I believe I get to draw the baseline of my own nation, Lib believes he gets the right to draw the baseline of my nation.

[Majuera]

Lib believes he gets the right to draw the baseline of my nation.

Does that include my nation's as well? Poor ****..

[New Aeyariss]

So the rest are bading on RL standard but L&A are using 72km territorial claim? By his so called 'community based' views is he going to change that policy?

No Lib is using the RL standard for international waters.
I'm claiming ~73km (3 radar horizons) as territorial waters, but the real dispute is internal waters.

I believe I get to draw the baseline of my own nation, Lib believes he gets the right to draw the baseline of my nation.

Not to mention that definition of the law is, that it requires to be enforced by some authority to be accepted.

This is NS; there is no real organization to define those things around. And even if there was one, it could not have done a thing as it would have had no means to enforce it. While I recognize the 72km limit as something that could be commonly accepted; there is no real international body to punish those who do have larger claims, and especially when some nations (Nihon for example) are hell bent on contesting "leftist world order" to the point when they see a "change of system" being a necessity, and are pretty eager to undermine the international structures like WA, especially because it provides them with increase in power projection capability, because in a sense, Nihonese are trying to create an alternative to it... Which is more deeply tied with geo - strategic goals of the Nihonese empire.

[Inyourfaceistan]

No Lib is using the RL standard for international waters.
I'm claiming ~73km (3 radar horizons) as territorial waters, but the real dispute is internal waters.

I believe I get to draw the baseline of my own nation, Lib believes he gets the right to draw the baseline of my nation.

Not to mention that definition of the law is, that it requires to be enforced by some authority to be accepted.

This is NS; there is no real organization to define those things around. And even if there was one, it could not have done a thing as it would have had no means to enforce it. While I recognize the 72km limit as something that could be commonly accepted; there is no real international body to punish those who do have larger claims, and especially when some nations (Nihon for example) are hell bent on contesting "leftist world order" to the point when they see a "change of system" being a necessity, and are pretty eager to undermine the international structures like WA, especially because it provides them with increase in power projection capability, because in a sense, Nihonese are trying to create an alternative to it... Which is more deeply tied with geo - strategic goals of the Nihonese empire.

Time for a SACTO declaration on the freedom of nations to determine their own standards and not some international bully?

[Isle of Lost]

No Lib is using the RL standard for international waters.
I'm claiming ~73km (3 radar horizons) as territorial waters, but the real dispute is internal waters.

I believe I get to draw the baseline of my own nation, Lib believes he gets the right to draw the baseline of my nation.

Let us not forget that the RL standards are by "NS Canon" false and illegitimate? The RL standard stems from the ratification of the UNs Convention on the Law of Sea which according to "NS Canon" is void due to the supposed superceding of the UN by the WA which, let us not forget, is not supported or ratified by many nations including Inyursta (whose rights are in question.)
Furthermore, if you do in fact support the WA then turn your attention to resolution #163 where the only resolution concerning international waters (as far as I know) is repealed.

However, let me once again shed light on the fact that Inyur is not a member of the WA and therefore even if there was an act describing territorial claims and innocent passage that as a nation he is not inclined to follow that law and therefore Inyurstan law rules over all unless otherwise challenged,


As a long time trade partner of Inyursta I speak from a position of experience and neutrality when I say the only internationally allowed passage through the Sea of Juarez is by filling out the proper paperwork like the rest of us do.

[Aeyariss]

[
No Lib is using the RL standard for international waters.
I'm claiming ~73km (3 radar horizons) as territorial waters, but the real dispute is internal waters.
I believe I get to draw the baseline of my own nation, Lib believes he gets the right to draw the baseline of my nation.

Oh, my bad. This is where the consensus gets tricky.

[New Aeyariss]

Time for a SACTO declaration on the freedom of nations to determine their own standards and not some international bully?

I would be totally up to this.

[New Aeyariss]

Let us not forget that the RL standards are by "NS Canon" false and illegitimate? The RL standard stems from the ratification of the UNs Convention on the Law of Sea which according to "NS Canon" is void due to the supposed superceding of the UN by the WA which, let us not forget, is not supported or ratified by many nations including Inyursta (whose rights are in question.)
Furthermore, if you do in fact support the WA then turn your attention to resolution #163 where the only resolution concerning international waters (as far as I know) is repealed.

However, let me once again shed light on the fact that Inyur is not a member of the WA and therefore even if there was an act describing territorial claims and innocent passage that as a nation he is not inclined to follow that law and therefore Inyurstan law rules over all unless otherwise challenged,


As a long time trade partner of Inyursta I speak from a position of experience and neutrality when I say the only internationally allowed passage through the Sea of Juarez is by filling out the proper paperwork like the rest of us do.

Not to mention that WA does not give a thing about II, and focuses totally on GPers. No RPers gotten condemned in years.

Shame. Real shame. You know how much I wish to have that honorary mark like Blackhelm (whom I know pretty well) on my nation page?

[Aeyariss]

Not to mention that WA does not give a thing about II, and focuses totally on GPers. No RPers gotten condemned in years.

Shame. Real shame. You know how much I wish to have that honorary mark like Blackhelm (whom I know pretty well) on my nation page?

Indeed. WA had gone to dog shit these past few years.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Not quite. If you could just fork over your evidence, I'd be happy to review.

Those papers were so hilariously specific

Make up your mind. Do you want detail or not?

Nobody is calling you a liar, Libraria. But, why does anyone have to accept what you say at face value?

Just fyi, being pretentious

Given that you followed up with the ridiculous allegation that I didn't know what I was talking about (second quote), I don't see how you can possibly argue that you thought the contrary. That would be logically impossible.

However, forgiving that, you two do skirt around a very real problem here: what is realistic (which is not quite the same as real) and what is not. All the easy things to categorize can be agreed by everyone. But when one starts discussing things which almost nobody here is qualified to discuss, one simply has to accept on authority, or waive realism for a more exciting RP - or reject somebody else's interpretation and avoid any RPs where the disagreement makes the subject matter too implausible for either party. Everybody must make that choice themselves.

[...]

[...]

The only reason I appear argumentative is because I have to spend nearly all my (increasingly) limited time here responding to all the slanderous allegations floating around (which is why I've lowered this almost to the bottom of my list of priorities). If you lot stopped talking such rot you might notice my conventional easy-going leadership style, which I am fast concluding is completely wasted on the vitriolic and frankly poisonous atmosphere of anonymous web platforms like this. Stephen Fry's abandonment of twitter should be considered indicative.

Anyway, the only reason for this argument is that others have been trying to tell me I couldn't do perfectly reasonable things. As far as I am concerned, you have all failed (from my viewpoint).

Now that that's all cleared up, I'm heading back to the RP. You are of course free to go on opposing everything or anything as you like.

[The Macabees]

Given that you followed up with the ridiculous allegation that I didn't know what I was talking about (second quote), I don't see how you can possibly argue that you thought the contrary. That would be logically impossible.

Nope, I never made that "ridiculous allegation." I recommend you re-read what I wrote, because you're wrong.

I said, "[y]ou'd be surprised how many people understand enough to follow you (and know when it's technobabble)". Nowhere there did I say (a) you're a liar and (b) you don't know what you're talking about.

I did accuse you of being pretentious and of using technobabble.

However, forgiving that, you two do skirt around a very real problem here: what is realistic (which is not quite the same as real) and what is not. All the easy things to categorize can be agreed by everyone. But when one starts discussing things which almost nobody here is qualified to discuss, one simply has to accept on authority, or waive realism for a more exciting RP - or reject somebody else's interpretation and avoid any RPs where the disagreement makes the subject matter too implausible for either party. Everybody must make that choice themselves.

Nope, wrong again. No one has to accept anything. You need to persuade the other party that the tech you're using is acceptable. And all the time you've spent accusing me of making "ridiculous allegations" is time you could have used to put together an argument, or a sales pitch, to get the other participants in this RP to agree that your use of tech is legitimate.

And stop using the excuse that people aren't going to understand you. If you can't phrase the idea in a way that makes sense to the layman, then you don't know what you're talking about. And if you're an engineer or a scientist, you'd understand that, because it's a basic tenet of any field where complex ideas need to be broken down into digestible bits.

[Inyourfaceistan]

So since you brought in a third party, I take it you won't mind if I have my regional allies make a diplomatic statement?

[New Aeyariss]

Make up your mind. Do you want detail or not?

Oh, before you start talking to me in a condescending tone, I know what you're trying to imply...but you seemed to skip over important parts. Namely that no working model has been built of it yet, and from what I can tell, they're still hung up over the cooling issue. After all, and I'm sure any engineer or researcher would agree, there's no substitute for direct proof or testing.

Please again, stop ignoring our posts and reply to them, since at this moment you gave no argument to support your thesis - in fact, I am 100% sure that you likely may have no idea what you are speaking about, to be frank, though I can not verify this at this moment. However, I may also likely conclude that you are trying to wank your way in just so you would get upper hand. Don't worry - I already have proper people put on alert to review your technological idea...

Sorry for enlarging but that is like 10th time my post gotten ignored. Thought you needed it to be reminded of.

[Common Territories]

So since you brought in a third party, I take it you won't mind if I have my regional allies make a diplomatic statement?

I think he decided to use a puppet. I believe that's the name of the company and nationalities he mentioned he is going to try to use to sneak past your embargo on his shipping. Least that's what I remember it being tbh.

[The Macabees]

Let's be constructive. Let's start the debate/conversation from here.

http://www.gizmag.com/sabre-engine-afrl-feasibility-study/37092/

According to AFRL, there's no theoretical problem with the concept if the engine is properly built and integrated.

...

The limit of the engine is how hot it gets. Above a certain point, even the best metal alloys soften and melt.

...

Although application of the SABRE for single stage to orbit space access remains technically very risky as a first application, the SABRE may provide some unique advantages in more manageable two stage to orbit configurations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/technology/technology-trends/12046493/hypersonic-jet.html

A BAE Systems spokesman said: “Once the technology is mature, in around 25 years, we aim to develop airliners capable of more than twice the speed of Concorde.

So, what we need to know is whether Libraria's RP partners are willing to suspend disbelief. That is, whether they can accept that, given the differences in development budgets (where on NS we can throw imaginary money at something without worrying about opportunity cost) you have come up with a solution that fixes the technical issues that in the real world still makes this tech impractical.

That being said, (a) citing a paper on a new ceramic isn't proof that the tech is feasible now (if so, you should definitely tell the company — it might save them a lot of money), even though I do get that it does address one of the issues with the tech; (b) you can tell from these press releases that the tech still has to mature quite a bit, not just in the components that make it up, but in how it's used (i.e. single-state v. being part of a two-stage system).

The tech is light PMT, and if it were up to me I'd accept it in an MT RP (but, it's not up to me). It's definitely not hard MT, but I think that it's at the point where it's feasible, even if it's not necessarily the best option, or if there are physical limitations due to the ancillary techs at our disposal (like problems with heat resistance, and finding a material that is heat resistant, but also has the right tensile strength, etc).

Let's have the discussion we should be having (and see how easy it is to start this debate on the right foot, Libraria? There's no reason to get super technical when you don't have to. It's a question of being persuasive).

[Common Territories]

Let's be constructive. Let's start the debate/conversation from here.

http://www.gizmag.com/sabre-engine-afrl-feasibility-study/37092/

According to AFRL, there's no theoretical problem with the concept if the engine is properly built and integrated.

...

The limit of the engine is how hot it gets. Above a certain point, even the best metal alloys soften and melt.

...

Although application of the SABRE for single stage to orbit space access remains technically very risky as a first application, the SABRE may provide some unique advantages in more manageable two stage to orbit configurations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/technology/technology-trends/12046493/hypersonic-jet.html

A BAE Systems spokesman said: “Once the technology is mature, in around 25 years, we aim to develop airliners capable of more than twice the speed of Concorde.

So, what we need to know is whether Libraria's RP partners are willing to suspend disbelief. That is, whether they can accept that, given the differences in development budgets (where on NS we can throw imaginary money at something without worrying about opportunity cost) you have come up with a solution that fixes the technical issues that in the real world still makes this tech impractical.

That being said, (a) citing a paper on a new ceramic isn't proof that the tech is feasible now (if so, you should definitely tell the company — it might save them a lot of money), even though I do get that it does address one of the issues with the tech; (b) you can tell from these press releases that the tech still has to mature quite a bit, not just in the components that make it up, but in how it's used (i.e. single-state v. being part of a two-stage system).

The tech is light PMT, and if it were up to me I'd accept it in an MT RP (but, it's not up to me). It's definitely not hard MT, but I think that it's at the point where it's feasible, even if it's not necessarily the best option, or if there are physical limitations due to the ancillary techs at our disposal (like problems with heat resistance, and finding a material that is heat resistant, but also has the right tensile strength, etc).

Let's have the discussion we should be having (and how easy it is to start this debate on the right foot, Libraria? There's no reason to get super technical when you don't have to. It's a question of being persuasive).

Mac makes good points, and I've gotta say I've learned a bit about the subject thanks to his links; if Lib wanted us to accept this tech he should have did what Mac did and present evidences like this - would have avoided this argument and instead make it into a debate. Anyways. I'd have to agree with Mac's estimations - the tech seems legit and is feasible. But to what extent is the debate point here. Like Mac said the materials and feasibility is there but the lack of actual experience making said engines and constructing them means this would be a cold turkey operation; you need tests, prototypes, research, and reapplication after failures to make this type of tech. Not to mention there mite be tech still missing to make this design usable or affordable that we (publicly or not aware of yet) don't know of yet. I would venture to say Mac is right about the tech range it should be in, but I am conflicted on when such tech would be used if it was in the MT sphere. My personal opinion is it shouldn't be used here where we're all going for hard MT - but in late MT environments this tech seems fine if everyone's alright with it. My position on this is that it would take years to develop this engine to the point it is acceptable to be used on actual aircraft for typical operation use - I think we wont see that for at least 5 years, a decade at the latest. But that's my opinion, someone who's not involved ICly, but I feel my opinion is alright here.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

I've tried being persuasive, months ago. I tried again. I've given up. I'm doing 'take it or leave it' - at least this way I don't have to bend over backwards and let everyone walk all over me. It isn't fun being the victim of sustained abuse.

I don't have the time to explain high temperature research, and I certainly don't have the inclination. I did check again for any proper review papers on the subject, but there weren't any - not that anybody here would likely be able to understand them anyway without my explaining which would take ages, and I'm not running a homework help course: the world is simply too complicated for NS-style mobocracy. As for practical tests, as you should be able to imagine, most of it is being done behind closed doors and the details I hear on the subject are non-attributable and I am not at liberty to reveal any more of it.

To sum, as far as I can make out, what I am doing with the technology is entirely realistic (my use of it is anyway less advanced than what Skylon wants to use it for - Ausitoria is using it for orbital flight only when assisted with rocket boosters, allowing further weight to be allocated to such thermal protection). However, given that I cannot reveal some details, do not have time to present other details, and am heartily fed up with you all, you are free to reach any conclusion you like. I am not going to try to persuade people who I cannot persuade.

You are free to RP as you wish.

So since you brought in a third party, I take it you won't mind if I have my regional allies make a diplomatic statement?

The third party isn't - it's ICly (mostly) a third party but not OOCly, since I'm keeping Naybra ticking over on behalf of an absent friend. Here I'm simply using the account to represent the activities of a multinational company notionally headquartered in Naybra.

I did accuse you of being pretentious

Indeed you did. Given the definition and connotations of the word, I think I was entirely justified in supposing you think me a liar, and therefore justified in supposing that you weren't willing to consider the matter from my perspective, so why should I bother?

Of course, I understand why you might think me a liar, and forgive you. I can no longer be bothered to prove I'm not, since everybody's already made up their minds, and unfortunately I forgive people for being wrong when I cannot put them right.

Perhaps one day something will be able to help us all... until then the darkness continues.

(Anyway, Macabees, sorry that you've been dragged into the argument: as you can tell, tensions between us all are laughably atrocious - I'm at my wit's end).

[New Aeyariss]

People are free to RP as they wish.

Yes - but RPing is also a COOPERATIVE form of game, which requires acceptance of BOTH sides, not just you. The whole issue is that you are unable to cooperate with people outside of your vision and how do you view the world to be; which never was perfect nor has any guarantee of being true. Same with mine.

If you feel you can not work on consensus with us, or that we do not suit your vision of RPing then why not stop RPing with us? You have no obligation to do so.


Though one could wonder if we are the bad guys after an open declaration that you will godmode our forces and this statement...

In short, 2ria: Don't like RPing with us? Do not RP with us. We will leave you alone, as believe me, all of us have enough of countless OOC arguments. Want to RP with us? Change your attitude, please.

[The Macabees]

Before I get into the quote-and-refute game, Libraria I get where you're coming from. But, I am not your enemy. I am not trying to ridicule you, belittle you, or anything of that nature. I am trying to carry the discussion forward.

I've tried being persuasive, months ago. I tried again. I've given up. I'm doing 'take it or leave it' - at least this way I don't have to bend over backwards and let everyone walk all over me. It isn't fun being the victim of sustained abuse.

Those links have nothing to do with our discussion.

I don't have the time to explain high temperature research, and I certainly don't have the inclination.

Again, you really don't need to go deep into the science (and, since you know the science it's not as if you have to spend time researching anything...right? You just need to explain).

And please, don't use the "I don't have time" excuse. You obviously have the time to make responses like this last one of yours, which don't do anything to push the conversation forward. You could have, in fact, saved time by addressing the pain points from the get-go.

I did check again for any proper review papers on the subject, but there weren't any - not that anybody here would likely be able to understand them anyway without my explaining which would take ages, and I'm not running a homework help course: the world is simply too complicated for NS-style mobocracy.

Wrong.

As for practical tests, as you should be able to imagine, most of it is being done behind closed doors and the details I hear on the subject are non-attributable and I am not at liberty to reveal any more of it.

It said in one of the articles I linked to that they will be conducting field tests by 2020.

I am not going to try to persuade people who I cannot persuade.

You're projecting.

Indeed you did. Given the definition and connotations of the word, I think I was entirely justified in supposing you think me a liar, and therefore justified in supposing that you weren't willing to consider the matter from my perspective, so why should I bother?

Nowhere in the definition you sent me is there anything that has to do with lying or someone being a liar.

And, no, you aren't justified "in supposing that [I am] not willing to consider the matter from [your] perspective." I am trying to get your perspective, but you have yet to make the case. But, don't worry, I went ahead and made a case for you.

[The Macabees]

Btw, Libraria, I use the same tech, so I know where you're coming from. But, it's also important to know where everyone else is coming from. It's not just about me. It's not just about you. It's about the RP and about those you are RPing with.

[McNernia]

Mcnernia is a SACTO nation so we would be most inclined to be interested in the situation. No major military involvement.