[DRAFT] First Convention on Mutual Defense

[Terttia]

“We are offended that we are labeled as ‘Dishonorable’ for failing to render military aid to other member nations. If those member nations are in a war, it is their problem to deal with, not ours. As such, we are against this proposal.”

Is that it, maggot? You're just going to pout in the corner? You think your frown is going to stop a Barbarignome from bludgeoning you with his adorable pointy hat? Barbarignome doesn't care about your tiny tears, maggot!

“Ambassador, or ‘general’ in your military, we have stated how we feel about your proposal. Anyways, we are offered many protections by this Assembly.”

Sometimes we don't go looking for Barbarignome trouble but Barbarignome trouble comes to us. Maybe it'll come to you. And when it does, I could say "Well, I guess that's their problem to deal with." But, because I am so damn honorable and handsome, I'll probably say, "I'll rescue you, maggot, you and all the other maggots out there. None of you sorry cowardly maggots should go it alone!"

“In Terttia, every capable citizen is given a firearm, so we aren’t afraid. Anyways, our chancellor has the discretion to authorize the creation of a defense force, within the limits of the Parliament.”

When you're ready to suggest something to make your whiny pacifist lobby happy I'll be all ears. Until then, drop and give me 20!

“We are giving you advice, and your ‘commands’ don’t apply to us ambassador.”

[General DD Gnomeslapper]

Is that it, maggot? You're just going to pout in the corner? You think your frown is going to stop a Barbarignome from bludgeoning you with his adorable pointy hat? Barbarignome doesn't care about your tiny tears, maggot!

“Ambassador, or ‘general’ in your military, we have stated how we feel about your proposal. Anyways, we are offered many protections by this Assembly.”

Sometimes we don't go looking for Barbarignome trouble but Barbarignome trouble comes to us. Maybe it'll come to you. And when it does, I could say "Well, I guess that's their problem to deal with." But, because I am so damn honorable and handsome, I'll probably say, "I'll rescue you, maggot, you and all the other maggots out there. None of you sorry cowardly maggots should go it alone!"

“In Terttia, every capable citizen is given a firearm, so we aren’t afraid. Anyways, our chancellor has the discretion to authorize the creation of a defense force, within the limits of the Parliament.”

When you're ready to suggest something to make your whiny pacifist lobby happy I'll be all ears. Until then, drop and give me 20!

“We are giving you advice, and your ‘commands’ don’t apply to us ambassador.”

It's General. Or Sir.

Have you ever fought a Barbarignome army, maggot? They're ruthless and cunning. They'll jump out from behind a toadstool when you least expect it and throw pixie dust right in your eye. They'll lash you with their luxurious white beards and poke you in the legs with their hats so you'll never walk the same again. Their soldiers number in the millions and they fly little zeppelins loaded with eleventy-billion-megaton dandelion bombs. Listen to my words, maggot, surely you can see that there may be foes out there which Terttia could not defeat on its own. You don't have to like it, but you need to accept it.

And maggot, telling me what you don't like about this proposal doesn't tell me anything about what you would like.

No pushups, huh? Looks like we got another one for latrine duty!

[The Sheika]

Upon hearing the watered-down profanities and demands, Colonel Austin enter the chamber and looks over the current draft.
"Well, I can't really say the Federation has anything against the idea, but I'm not completely convinced that a proposal for military cooperation is needed. Yes, bad actors and rogue states do exist and they can be a problem, but couldn't it reasonably be surmised that treaties and pacts exist without a formal resolution declaring so? Going a step further if a nation violates a treaty or pact, would that not be proverbially shooting themselves in the foot? I'm not saying this is a bad idea" he shrugs "I'm just not convinced it's needed. At least not yet."

[Denathor]

"General, I regretfully share the reluctance of my fellow ambassadors to enact such a proposal as this, which would seem to make neutrality in wartime undesirable and favours a military response to aggression, rather than a de-escalation of tensions through negotiations. However, as I don’t see anything blatantly illegal about this draft, I am certainly willing to help polish it to a point where its fate can be determined by the delegates, and perhaps the WA at large.

On that note, I have a suggestion for the definition of "unjustified aggression." It is short, but I believe it is sufficient:"

Unjustified agression: an unprovoked act or series of acts acts by one nation that infringe the sovereignty of another nation.

[Separatist Peoples]

But then in that case what in the hell is wrong with you, maggot? "Honor is an outdated concept"? You're never going to make it past maggot with that attitude.

"Alas. My lofty career goals. Ruined."

I'm not sure there's wind enough in these old lungs to convince you of the value of Honor.

"Honor is only useful if it generates useful results. Disregarding the concept in favor of realpolitik avoids the useless results."

So let me break it down as simple as I can for you:

"I suspect you underestimate my understanding."

(1) Member Nations must be permitted to act in their self-interest, but (2) where particular self-interest is not in jeopardy, it is in the general interests of all member nations that they be able to call on one another for reasonable defensive assistance,

"Your reasoning breaks down at 2, since it is not axiomatic that aiding other members benefits us."

and (3) the only means to enforce that and avoid lazy, good-for-nothing free riders who take advantage of others and then turn yellow when it's their turn to man the wall is with group shunning of the wrongdoer. You know, Honor.

"That isn't honor, that's realpolitik. Which, despite that, ignores the likelihood that nonmilitary powers are nonetheless powerbrokers in their own right."

If you haven't already, consider the flock of crows. I already explained that once to some maggot and, as a rule, I never say anything more than once. He's probably forgotten it or wasn't listening to begin with, so good luck. Now, imagine that one crow in the flock is a lazy sonofabish that can't be bothered to warn another crow that he's about to be eaten by a hawk. Once the rest of the crows realize that maggot crow is out there, they're going to shun maggot crow and refuse to flock with him. Why? Because maggot crow lacks any got'damned honor! You see my point here, son? Its so simple that only a wild animal can understand it.

"If you let the hawk eat the other crow, your own access to resources improves. You reach a point where more crows harms your overall security. Overall, I am unconvinced."

Now, as I've shown multiple times already, I'm a got'damned reasonable man.

"You've professed it. I've yet to see it."

If you have a better enforcement mechanism than the dishonor/sanctions principal I devised I'd sure like to hear it.

"The preexisting enforcement mechanism in the GA is sufficient to ensure compliance. I would know."

And I've even got a way to free up some time for you to think of something:

Now drop and give me 20!

"I can do that. For money."

[Araraukar]

"Araraukar does not have a military, and thus cannot provide military aid to any nation. Nor would we, even if we had a military, because there are no justifiable reasons to engage in warfare," Linda explained absent-mindedly, while playing Minesweeper on her cellphone. "Nor can you require the withholding of humanitarian aid without being contradictory with existing resolutions."

[Tinfect]

Rahlen, who had been rather unceremoniously left behind at the Imperial delegation when the foreigner general started shouting, started to speak. "The Imperium does not recognize any 'honor' systems, and we don't particularly care to put that kind of primitivism in International Law. The Imperium, further, cannot, and will not, supply military assistance to any foreign nation simply on the basis that they request it; Imperial security is not at the disposal of foreign governments or military officers." She paused a moment. "And, General, don't presume to give me orders. You're a foreigner and non-naval personnel; you have no power here."

[Excidium Planetis]

“In Terttia, every capable citizen is given a firearm, so we aren’t afraid. Anyways, our chancellor has the discretion to authorize the creation of a defense force, within the limits of the Parliament.”

"That's nice," Cornelia Schultz replies from her position on the floor, completing her 33th push up (one must stay fit for spaceflight, lest the muscles atrophy over time), "but tell me, Ambassador, what good are your citizen's firearms when Excidian warships begin firing kinetic kill vehicles from orbit? And there's much more dangerous nations out there than my own, nations which could wipe your miserable planet out without a second thought. Without a collective defense by the World Assembly, your nation hangs by a thread, gun rights or no."

Rahlen, who had been rather unceremoniously left behind at the Imperial delegation when the foreigner general started shouting, started to speak. "The Imperium does not recognize any 'honor' systems"

"Oh, that's abundantly clear, Imperial." Cornelia Schultz replies. "And believe me, not an Excidian would be happy to bail your totalitarian state's sorry ass out if any of your neighbor's decided to colonize you, but nevertheless I don't think your concerns here are valid in any way. And... 50!"

Schultz stands and assumes a parade rest. "If your nation does not wish to intervene in foreign affairs, then don't. The only punishment proscribed here is loss of honor, and you had none to begin with, and sanctions, and your government doesn't accept foreign aid or trade last time I checked. What's there to lose?"

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Leo's wiry hands twist the cap off a frosty bottle of beer as he sits down to watch the military types shout uselessly at each other. "Now where in the blazes did I place my afternoon's allotment of popcorn... ah, there we are."

Within the limits of Principal I, every Member Nation - except those exercising the rights of a neutral state - is expected to render reasonable military assistance requested by a fellow Member Nation that is fighting a war to defend itself against unjustifiable aggression;

"Now, then, you've misspel- ah, I see in the record that's been addressed. So, I will tell you true and up front that we will not consider any aggression by a democracy against a dictatorship; or by a socialist power against a capitalist one; to be 'unjustifiable' under virtually any circumstance. You cannot pre-select military alliances between powers; these must be arrived at naturally and, as Mr. Bell has pointed out, only within the self-selected, freely-determined self interest of both powers. Frankly there are a number of World Assembly member states whose influence - not to say 'existence' - we could happily do without, and given the opportunity we would be constitutionally unable to either exercise neutrality or render them assistance."

"And while I'm talking, waste not your breath barking me orders to calisthenics, sir. By grace I could do 'em, but I'm far too old and plenipotentiary to care."

Leo sits and begins munching on the contents of his paper bag, still slightly warm.

[Tinfect]

"Oh, that's abundantly clear, Imperial." Cornelia Schultz replies. "And believe me, not an Excidian would be happy to bail your totalitarian state's sorry ass out if any of your neighbor's decided to colonize you, but nevertheless I don't think your concerns here are valid in any way. And... 50!"

Schultz stands and assumes a parade rest. "If your nation does not wish to intervene in foreign affairs, then don't. The only punishment proscribed here is loss of honor, and you had none to begin with, and sanctions, and your government doesn't accept foreign aid or trade last time I checked. What's there to lose?"

"That's funny coming from a foreigner whose government's primary means of defense is human shields," she said with something of a bitter laugh, "But the Imperium is entitled to object to drafts when they're, to be frank, suicidally insane, even if the in-text consequences are fairly... inconsequential."

[Excidium Planetis]

"That's funny coming from a foreigner whose government's primary means of defense is human shields," she said with something of a bitter laugh, "But the Imperium is entitled to object to drafts when they're, to be frank, suicidally insane, even if the in-text consequences are fairly... inconsequential."

Cornelia Schultz frowns. "I see no point in these baseless accusations*. Excidium Planetis prefers to use drones because they value the lives of our soldiers, and usage of human shields is prohibited by WA law, I may add.

"Even if we did do what you accuse us of, I'm sure that it was due to extenuating circumstances, as it is most definitely not our nation's primary means of defense."


*Given the implosion of Aeiouian canon, the events of Olber III are now very questionable. The main enemy doesn't exist anymore, so there's probably no record of that whole action. Regardless Schultz wouldn't approve of or maybe even know of it.

[WayNeacTia]

What is your major damage, maggot

"Uhhh mmmm. I believe the correct quote is What is your major malfunction, numbnuts! Anywho, a real General wouldn't be out here yelling at the subordinates. Too far beneath him. So are you really a General, or just a blowhard who likes to yell about proposals that are actually illegal?" Thought so."

Wayne

[Island Girl Herby]

Gnomebanger... Gnomefluffer.

What is your major damage, maggot, other than being an inefficient old-model internal combustion vehicle! Is your horn too simple to honk the exotic and pleasing sound of my name? It's Gnomeslapper son... eh, car. Gnomeslapper. Now if that's too tricky for you, you can just call me General or Sir.

I can't rightly give you pushups on account of your lacking arms, so start running laps! Some corporal will find you when it's time to quit.

Son? SON? Ehhhh okay Sir Gnomebuttslapper I’ll let the misgenderin’ bit slide for now but you should know that cars are generally referred to as female. As in, she got forty horses under the hood, she gets twenty to the gallon, ya know? Anyway just to show there ain’t no hard feelings I’ll do a few laps..... around in the Strangers’ Bar.

That said ehhhhh I do like this proposal and I can’t wait until we can invoke it so we can quell the next human uprising I mean ehhhhhhhh the next invasion by our former slaver-drivers in our neighboring state.

[Tinfect]

"That's funny coming from a foreigner whose government's primary means of defense is human shields," she said with something of a bitter laugh, "But the Imperium is entitled to object to drafts when they're, to be frank, suicidally insane, even if the in-text consequences are fairly... inconsequential."

Cornelia Schultz frowns. "I see no point in these baseless accusations*. Excidium Planetis prefers to use drones because they value the lives of our soldiers, and usage of human shields is prohibited by WA law, I may add.

"Even if we did do what you accuse us of, I'm sure that it was due to extenuating circumstances, as it is most definitely not our nation's primary means of defense."


*Given the implosion of Aeiouian canon, the events of Olber III are now very questionable. The main enemy doesn't exist anymore, so there's probably no record of that whole action. Regardless Schultz wouldn't approve of or maybe even know of it.

Rahlen laughed again. "Don't pretend; 'neutral' or not, the Imperium keeps tactical analysis on hand."

OOC:
Not Olber III, she's referring the Reckoner, and the fact that the Excidian populace is rather heavily armed; the Imperium is slightly stretching the definition of 'human shield', naturally.

[General DD Gnomeslapper]

Apologies for the delay, maggots! I was called away to address a terrible Barbarignome uprising in the Northsouthern provinces. They were in the trees this time, throwing adorable little pine cone grenades that exploded in a poof of rainbows and sparkles. It was a got'damn bloodbath.

I must say, I'm proud of you maggots. You gave me a lot to think about during my time in theater, and with the agreement of the Judge Advocate substantial revisions were made. I was persuaded despite my better judgement to put aside some of my denigration of the pacifist types: "No need to alienate the political support of the cowards," some Lieutenant said and, well, I guess that's right.

Did away with the Honor system, which seemed to be as popular as a syphilitic prostitute.

And, while I'm quite sure I'll regret it, I've decided to allow the Sergeant from Denathor (hear that, maggot, you're a sergeant now!) lead us into the quagmire of trying to nail down a definition of "Unjustified aggression." Good luck Sergeant, don't let me down. I believe in you, and just remember, if we lose any men on this crusade their blood is on your hands so do a good job got'damnit!

Now to respond to a few of you directly:

---

Son? SON? Ehhhh okay Sir Gnomebuttslapper I’ll let the misgenderin’ bit slide for now but you should know that cars are generally referred to as female. As in, she got forty horses under the hood, she gets twenty to the gallon, ya know? Anyway just to show there ain’t no hard feelings I’ll do a few laps..... around in the Strangers’ Bar.

Well I guess I'm sorry for misgendering a car, maggot. Although referring to large conveyances as female simply serves to perpetuate the harmful gender stereotypes of the patriarchy. Also, Herby is a boy's name.

What is your major damage, maggot

"Uhhh mmmm. I believe the correct quote is What is your major malfunction, numbnuts!

I can emulate my heroes without copying them verbatim, maggot!

Anywho, a real General wouldn't be out here yelling at the subordinates. Too far beneath him. So are you really a General, or just a blowhard who likes to yell about proposals that are actually illegal?" Thought so.

I didn't fight in all the wars to come back here and have my rank questioned, maggot. It's right there in my got'damn name. And I guess you didn't hear me the first time because your ears are too full of the dirt you shovel for a living so I'll remind you: IT'S NOT ILLEGAL MAGGOT. Last I checked "actually illegal" is not a real challenge no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

(1) Member Nations must be permitted to act in their self-interest, but (2) where particular self-interest is not in jeopardy, it is in the general interests of all member nations that they be able to call on one another for reasonable defensive assistance,

"Your reasoning breaks down at 2, since it is not axiomatic that aiding other members benefits us."

Damn all the angles that oppress your sight, maggot! Yes, aiding other members may or may not benefit us, depending on our ultimate goal. But being in a position to call on other nations for aid is always a benefit.

If you haven't already, consider the flock of crows. I already explained that once to some maggot and, as a rule, I never say anything more than once. He's probably forgotten it or wasn't listening to begin with, so good luck. Now, imagine that one crow in the flock is a lazy sonofabish that can't be bothered to warn another crow that he's about to be eaten by a hawk. Once the rest of the crows realize that maggot crow is out there, they're going to shun maggot crow and refuse to flock with him. Why? Because maggot crow lacks any got'damned honor! You see my point here, son? Its so simple that only a wild animal can understand it.

"If you let the hawk eat the other crow, your own access to resources improves. You reach a point where more crows harms your overall security. Overall, I am unconvinced."

I really don't get you, maggot. On the one hand you seem to know something of military history since you noted that standing alliance chains can have disastrous results. On the other hand, it's as if you're not even aware of ReallyDamnBig War II. Best as I recall, there were some folks in that war who thought a bit as you say here - that its okay to eliminate other nations (or allow them to be elimiated) if it means more resources for you and yours. And best as I can recall, those jerks were the bad guys.

Now, as I've shown multiple times already, I'm a got'damned reasonable man.

"You've professed it. I've yet to see it."

I cannot control what you see, maggot, but lament your difficulty. Would that the world was more clear to us all.

---

Well that'll 'bout do it for now. This is shaping up to be a stronger regiment than I originally thought. I'm proud of you maggots. Keep it up and you'll all make scrub before you know it.

You're never going to make it past maggot with that attitude.

"Alas. My lofty career goals. Ruined."

Hmm... 'cept maybe you.

[Denathor]

In determining whether a fellow Member Nation is defending itself against unjustified aggression, Member Nations may apply the Denathor Rule: "Unjustified aggression" is "an unprovoked act or series of acts by one nation that infringe the sovereignty of another nation."

OOC: While I appreciate the acknowledgement, you can’t directly mention other nations unless you’re listing them as co-authors. Otherwise it’s illegal for branding. Just say something to effect of:

every Member Nation - except those exercising the rights of a neutral state - is expected to render reasonable military assistance requested by a fellow Member Nation that is fighting a war to defend itself against unjustified aggression, defined as an unprovoked act or series of acts by one nation that infringe the sovereignty of another nation

[WayNeacTia]

Anywho, a real General wouldn't be out here yelling at the subordinates. Too far beneath him. So are you really a General, or just a blowhard who likes to yell about proposals that are actually illegal?" Thought so.[/i]

I didn't fight in all the wars to come back here and have my rank questioned, maggot. It's right there in my got'damn name. And I guess you didn't hear me the first time because your ears are too full of the dirt you shovel for a living so I'll remind you: IT'S NOT ILLEGAL MAGGOT. Last I checked "actually illegal" is not a real challenge no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

"Hate to rain on your parade there Private, but there is no way in hell this will ever qualify as strong, in either category. So yeah, it is illegal. Now drop and give me 20, worm! Try not to pull a muscle while doing so."

Wayne

[General DD Gnomeslapper]

OOC: While I appreciate the acknowledgement, you can’t directly mention other nations unless you’re listing them as co-authors. Otherwise it’s illegal for branding. Just say something to effect of:

every Member Nation - except those exercising the rights of a neutral state - is expected to render reasonable military assistance requested by a fellow Member Nation that is fighting a war to defend itself against unjustified aggression, defined as an unprovoked act or series of acts by one nation that infringe the sovereignty of another nation

Why are you so sure this would violate the branding rule, sergeant? Is it because others have never done it this way before? In case you haven't noticed, I do things a bit different. I know different is scary, but scary doesn't mean wrong. Write this down sergeant: tactics of surprise can be the most effective.

Branding: Proposal authors cannot list their names, pronouns ("I" or "we"), or use acronyms to circumvent this. However, they can and should credit their co-author(s), where contribution is notable or significant. Authors may list up to three co-authors.

Have I listed my name or pronouns? No. Did I credit a co-author (you wrote the exact language that I adopted; that makes you a co-author) who made a notable or significant contribution? Yes. Have I exceeded three co-authors? No. Tell me why it's illegal, maggot, other than because it's scary and different and challenges your got'damn expectations.

That's right. It's not.

OOC: And if there's a GenSec member looking at this, please take a hard look and consider it for a while.

I didn't fight in all the wars to come back here and have my rank questioned, maggot. It's right there in my got'damn name. And I guess you didn't hear me the first time because your ears are too full of the dirt you shovel for a living so I'll remind you: IT'S NOT ILLEGAL MAGGOT. Last I checked "actually illegal" is not a real challenge no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

"Hate to rain on your parade there Private, but there is no way in hell this will ever qualify as strong, in either category. So yeah, it is illegal. Now drop and give me 20, worm! Try not to pull a muscle while doing so."

It's General, maggot. And just like your legality challenges you saying otherwise just don't make it so.

Is a strength challenge really the best you can do? Let's look at the got'damn rule together:

A proposal with mild language or affecting a narrow area of policy is Mild, while one which [someone should really take a look at this I'm pretty sure this is a typo and there really should be a word here like "affects" but maybe something else that's less obvious... for now lets just go with "affects"] a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way is Strong.

In all my time in service I can't really recall getting word of a WA proposal being pulled for a strength violation, so presumably it's not something that happens too often. Anyway, I would say that a law which creates, for the first time, a pact of mutual defensive assistance affects a broad area of policy in a dramatic way.

There's an old saying in the rodeo, maggot: You can't range a calf until you've found your got'damn lasso. It's okay to challenge the legality here; I admit it's a bit dif'rent so there's a lot to consider. But at least put some effort into it!

And I can't do pushups anymore maggot, not since a Barbarignome bit off a finger on my right hand and two fingers on my left. It's okay to look, I don't mind. (And a solitary tear fell from his grizzled old eye).

Now, drop and give me 20!

[Terttia]

In determining whether a fellow Member Nation is defending itself against unjustified aggression, Member Nations may apply the Denathor Rule: "Unjustified aggression" is "an unprovoked act or series of acts by one nation that infringe the sovereignty of another nation."

OOC: Mentioning a nation’s name anywhere except the co-author line is branding. Also, I’m not sure about the forum link and if that’s a rule(s) violation (meta-gaming?).

[WayNeacTia]

OOC: While I appreciate the acknowledgement, you can’t directly mention other nations unless you’re listing them as co-authors. Otherwise it’s illegal for branding. Just say something to effect of:

every Member Nation - except those exercising the rights of a neutral state - is expected to render reasonable military assistance requested by a fellow Member Nation that is fighting a war to defend itself against unjustified aggression, defined as an unprovoked act or series of acts by one nation that infringe the sovereignty of another nation

Why are you so sure this would violate the branding rule, sergeant? Is it because others have never done it this way before? In case you haven't noticed, I do things a bit different. I know different is scary, but scary doesn't mean wrong. Write this down sergeant: tactics of surprise can be the most effective.

Branding: Proposal authors cannot list their names, pronouns ("I" or "we"), or use acronyms to circumvent this. However, they can and should credit their co-author(s), where contribution is notable or significant. Authors may list up to three co-authors.

Have I listed my name or pronouns? No. Did I credit a co-author (you wrote the exact language that I adopted; that makes you a co-author) who made a notable or significant contribution? Yes. Have I exceeded three co-authors? No. Tell me why it's illegal, maggot, other than because it's scary and different and challenges your got'damn expectations.

That's right. It's not.

OOC: And if there's a GenSec member looking at this, please take a hard look and consider it for a while.

"Hate to rain on your parade there Private, but there is no way in hell this will ever qualify as strong, in either category. So yeah, it is illegal. Now drop and give me 20, worm! Try not to pull a muscle while doing so."

It's General, maggot. And just like your legality challenges you saying otherwise just don't make it so.

Is a strength challenge really the best you can do? Let's look at the got'damn rule together:

A proposal with mild language or affecting a narrow area of policy is Mild, while one which [someone should really take a look at this I'm pretty sure this is a typo and there really should be a word here like "affects" but maybe something else that's less obvious... for now lets just go with "affects"] a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way is Strong.

In all my time in service I can't really recall getting word of a WA proposal being pulled for a strength violation, so presumably it's not something that happens too often. Anyway, I would say that a law which creates, for the first time, a pact of mutual defensive assistance affects a broad area of policy in a dramatic way.

There's an old saying in the rodeo, maggot: You can't range a calf until you've found your got'damn lasso. It's okay to challenge the legality here; I admit it's a bit dif'rent so there's a lot to consider. But at least put some effort into it!

And I can't do pushups anymore maggot, not since a Barbarignome bit off a finger on my right hand and two fingers on my left. It's okay to look, I don't mind. (And a solitary tear fell from his grizzled old eye).

Now, drop and give me 20!

"Yeah you can keep spouting that until the gnomes decide to quit and you'll still be wrong Cadet. But hey, no risk no reward right? So why not damn the torpedoes and submit? When the wise Secretariat dings it, and I finish laughing (which will take a while), maybe you'll start to take some advice? Oh and for the record its You can't wrangle a calf until you have found your lasso. If you are going yell aphorisms, at least try to get them right for a change?"

Wayne

[Kenmoria]

In determining whether a fellow Member Nation is defending itself against unjustified aggression, Member Nations may apply the Denathor Rule: "Unjustified aggression" is "an unprovoked act or series of acts by one nation that infringe the sovereignty of another nation."

OOC: Mentioning a nation’s name anywhere except the co-author line is branding. Also, I’m not sure about the forum link and if that’s a rule(s) violation (meta-gaming?).

(OOC: I don’t know if it’s metagaming, but I remember from somewhere that forum links aren’t allowed. I also think, however, that it is allowable to link to gameside resolutions.)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

In determining whether a fellow Member Nation is defending itself against unjustified aggression, Member Nations may apply the Denathor Rule: "Unjustified aggression" is "an unprovoked act or series of acts by one nation that infringe the sovereignty of another nation."

OOC: This is definitely Branding. While it might be nice to be able to do something like this, as you could cite rules and interpretive tests the way that e.g. the U.S. Supreme Court does, that isn't legit under the current ruleset. You can give a separate co-author credit on its own line.

While I don't think it would be totally unreasonable to permit this sort of thing, it would require us to come up with an objective standard to separate it from outright advertisement, so any change wouldn't happen all that soon.

[Separatist Peoples]

Damn all the angles that oppress your sight, maggot! Yes, aiding other members may or may not benefit us, depending on our ultimate goal. But being in a position to call on other nations for aid is always a benefit.

"Your enemies having the same opportunity is not."

I really don't get you, maggot. On the one hand you seem to know something of military history since you noted that standing alliance chains can have disastrous results. On the other hand, it's as if you're not even aware of ReallyDamnBig War II. Best as I recall, there were some folks in that war who thought a bit as you say here - that its okay to eliminate other nations (or allow them to be elimiated) if it means more resources for you and yours. And best as I can recall, those jerks were the bad guys.

"It strikes me, General, that those nations were the bad guys for other reasons. History is otherwise replete with examples of nations who absorb others for resources or who refrain from intervention when it benefits them. Few of them have the kind of reputation to which you allude.

"I'm not a complicated man, General. Merely a practical one."

I cannot control what you see, maggot, but lament your difficulty. Would that the world was more clear to us all.

"Your quote is out of context, since I used that line to note a textual concern with my draft. You used it to highlight a subjective facet of your personality that has yet to be demonstrated."