Civil war rule?

[Sir Scarfalot]

IQ nations have declared wars against their allies and coalition partners in OFA. (And therefore UPN has an obligation to declare war on IQ, and therefore themselves, but let's ignore that part for now).

The question is, are coalition civil wars permitted to be declared in the middle of a hot war between coalitions?

Right now, there are only four possibilities outside of the wars being slotfililng: Either 1. OFA is going to get beiged, 2. OFA is going to get sit on, 3. OFA is going to do the beiging, or 4. OFA is going to be doing the sitting. Now, the 4th possibility is nonsense, but each and every one of those result in preventing the Chaos/KETOG coalitions from attacking several OFA and/or IQ nations. Which is the definition of slot-filling.

Since their entire CB is that they specifically DON'T want OFA to beige Chaos/KETOG, how can they justify the 4 possible outcomes of filling those slots, having those slots filled, getting beiged or beiging as being within the rules? If this behavior is allowable, and allies *can* farm beige/fill slots off each other, then that needs to be set in stone for all to understand as allowed and useable. If it is not then it must be clarified as such and penalties need to be applied.

To clarify: The question is not of damage. IQ is definitely zeroing out OFA's planes. The questions are: Is IQ permitted to declare on their own allies with the effect of preventing their enemies from attacking their allies? (That doing so is their express purpose should also be considered in this.) And if so, is IQ allowed to beige OFA heavily and permit OFA to rebuild their air under beige protection? Or is OFA permitted to beige IQ heavily and thus permit IQ to rebuild their air under beige protection?

Edited July 18, 2019 by Sir Scarfalot

[Roquentin]

We're not planning to mass beige. It's not slotfilling since we're doing more damage than the "wars" your side were launching. If someone on your side was willing to hit  CoS and zero their planes and not beige, I'd welcome it.

[Guest Curufinwe]

Yeah I think your side has the slot filling covered.  NPO's wars are actively doing damage to their opponents, which is more than we can say about quite a few wars you guys have been declaring against smaller opponents.

[Ayayay]

NPO isn't MDP chained to anyone on our side, they are an independent agent. Not to worry though, once we mop up the handful of nations left in your coalition the situation will be resolved properly.

[Guest Curufinwe]

19 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

FYI camelot is allied to BK (Enemy coalition for TKR), OFA is allied to NPO (same coalition). This is the equivalent of someone from KT hitting TGH

 

>trying to deflect from the main point by bringing something completely irrelevant up.

 

But this isn’t a discussion thread, so I suggest everyone just @Alex and let him decide

Considering Scarfalot claimed that NPO's behavior was...

23 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

the definition of slot-filling

...highlighting the many, many issues related to slot filling and beige seeking on your side seems pretty relevant to me actually.

[Sir Scarfalot]

12 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

-narrative-

The definition of slot-filling is the abuse of game mechanics to prevent hostile action from taking place. In this case, we are being prevented from attacking our enemies in OFA. Your entire admitted reason for attacking your allies in OFA is to prevent us from attacking them ourselves.

Tell me, can you find a war TKR declared that filled a slot in our coalition and prevented you from hitting one of our allies? Or one where our side beiged ourselves? No? Then your narrative is completely irrelevant to this report.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Sir Scarfalot

[Guest Curufinwe]

4 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

hyperbolic whining

Well, what we have found are at least 20 wars where members on your side hit micros (primarily OFA) and did little or no fighting (and in some cases went inactive for days after hitting) in what's a pretty blatant attempt to get beiged (which is definitely against the rules, if you'll recall Alex's ruling).  Seems to me that your primary motive here is a desire to retain access to your beige pinata, rather than any genuine concern to militarily defeat OFA, so spare us the sanctimony.  What's not against the rules is for genuine wars to be declared against a target with the attempt to do damage and not seek beige (as NPO has done with OFA), so your charge of 'slot filling' has zero merit.  Add in the fact that NPO has no direct tie of any kind with OFA (which is at least 3 or 4 steps removed on the web) and it's pretty clear what your motivation is here (hint: it's unrelated to a heartfelt concern for the rules).

4 hours ago, CandyShi said:

Trying to post on mobile does suck

 Considering your side screamed bloody murder when Sphinx hit micros with the intent to use nukes and missiles as his primary means of fighting (and successfully managed to get Alex to reverse the wars as a result), I'm not sure you really have a leg to stand on here.  In any case, the example simply highlights the hypocrisy of Scarfalot's accusations regarding slot filling and passivity in wars.  Unlike quite a few people on your side, NPO is actually engaging in genuine conflict in its wars with OFA, which negates any charges of slot filling.

[Adrienne]

Lol, not even at 12 MAPs yet and already being accused of slot filling. I feel like this must be some sort of record. 

Edit: For the record, I don't think NPO is slotfilling but I do think it's low to hit a member of your own coalition, regardless of the reason, but that's your coalition's issue to deal with. I also don't think Sphinx was slot filling but it's pretty against the spirit of things to be engaging in wars with non-combatants and paying them off in order to get beige. Neither against the game rules, just in poor taste. Shrugs. Also, seems a tad misguided of me to declare on an inactive nation with the hope that they'll suddenly become active again and beige me.... At any rate, have fun and enjoy your arguing. o7

Edited July 18, 2019 by Nizam Adrienne

[True King]

This is a dumb rule, due to a global war attacking some nations is against the rules?

I think just doing so all wars beige is best solution to end all this drama around beiging or make beige time based on damage received.

Edit: As for whether it’s slot filling to prevent other enemies from attacking them; OFA didn’t choose to get hit & NPO didn’t do it to prevent enemies from attacking. So I think that is a bad example for why we need a rule change to keep coalitions from having civil wars.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Noctis Anarch Caelum

[Sir Scarfalot]

1 hour ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

This is a dumb rule, due to a global war attacking some nations is against the rules?

I think just doing so all wars beige is best solution to end all this drama around beiging or make beige time based on damage received.

Edit: As for whether it’s slot filling to prevent other enemies from attacking them; OFA didn’t choose to get hit & NPO didn’t do it to prevent enemies from attacking. So I think that is a bad example for why we need a rule change to keep coalitions from having civil wars.

NPO did it to prevent us from attacking. They don't want us to attack OFA, since OFA has a track record of beiging us due to their own poor discipline. That's their reasoning. Which is very clearly scummy behavior at best, and quite literally "filling slots" of an ally. While the means may not be direct, they are declaring wars on their allies to prevent hostile actions against their allies.

You know though, a refinement to the mechanics where all wars end up in beige would be a really good idea, maybe I should suggest that ?

 

2 hours ago, Curufinwe said:

-more narrative bullshit-

The rules are there, the report is made. If you can find any instance of our coalition declaring war on ourselves for the purpose of denying your coalition an aggressive option, then feel free to make an actual report. That you have not and indeed cannot do so shows that you're the one desperately acting in bad faith.

[True King]

I think it was to punish OFA for beiging or try teaching them a lesson of sorts.

[Sir Scarfalot]

1 minute ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

I think it was to punish OFA for beiging or try teaching them a lesson of sorts.

Read Curu's posts; he clearly states that the intention is to keep us away from declaring on OFA. And even if that wasn't the main intent, the effect remains: Their slots are filled, and due to that we are unable to attack those OFA nations. What part of that isn't literally filling slots?

[True King]

7 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Read Curu's posts; he clearly states that the intention is to keep us away from declaring on OFA. And even if that wasn't the main intent, the effect remains: Their slots are filled, and due to that we are unable to attack those OFA nations. What part of that isn't literally filling slots?

Supposidly Arrgh is in your coalition, but attack both sides eventually. So think we should be careful with making up weird rules to prevent people in loosely defined coalitions from fighting as these wars drag out. Curu has his thoughts on it & not sure where he says it’s to prevent declarations. I think NPO likely filled all their slots to destroy all their planes as efficiently as possible. 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Noctis Anarch Caelum

[True King]

Since OFA isn’t allied with NPO, it’s a question of whether people can hit the allies of their allies. If Alex does decide he doesn’t want that, there is an easy code fix for that.

[Guest Curufinwe]

14 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Read Curu's posts; he clearly states that the intention is to keep us away from declaring on OFA. And even if that wasn't the main intent, the effect remains: Their slots are filled, and due to that we are unable to attack those OFA nations. What part of that isn't literally filling slots?

Actually, if you read my posts you'd see that I didn't speculate on NPO's motives - I simply said that the wars were legitimate and did not constitute slot filling (as defined in the rules), which is the basis of your complaint.  If we take your criteria (someone taking a defensive slot on a target) then literally every war is slot filling, since it prevents another person from declaring a war.  If you plan on embracing such an expansive interpretation of slot filling, you're going to have a lot more reports to make.  I did speculate on your motives, however, so perhaps you have mixed up the two when you were attempting to decipher what I said?

14 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

The rules are there, the report is made. If you can find any instance of our coalition declaring war on ourselves for the purpose of denying your coalition an aggressive option, then feel free to make an actual report. That you have not and indeed cannot do so shows that you're the one desperately acting in bad faith.

Don't shift the goal posts now, Scarfy - we don't want another slavery incident.  Since there is no rule I'm aware of that prevents one AA from declaring wars on another AA with which they have no treaty relationship, the nature of your complaint concerns slot filling rather than the non existent 'you can't declare a war against someone that someone else is affiliated with' rule (such a rule exists, feel free to cite it by the way). You've conceded that the wars declared by NPO are genuine and Roq has stated that he has no intention of beiging to allow OFA to rebuild, so by definition your argument that NPO is slot filling is invalid.  Now, you've speculated regarding NPO's motives (although you have no evidence to substantiate your claim) and I've speculated regarding your motives (which there is considerably more evidence for), but the fact remains that you have been unable to provide evidence that any violation of the rules has taken place.  As the accuser, the burden of proof is on you to establish that slot filling is indeed taking place (which you've failed to do), rather than the other way around, so demanding that we find further evidence to rebuff your claims is disingenuous at best.   

Edited July 18, 2019 by Curufinwe

[Ryan1]

13 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Supposidly Arrgh is in your coalition, but attack both sides eventually. So think we should be careful with making up weird rules to prevent people in loosely defined coalitions from fighting as these wars drag out. Curu has his thoughts on it & not sure where he says it’s to prevent declarations. I think NPO likely filled all their slots to destroy all their planes as efficiently as possible. 

Arrgh does Arrgh.

[True King]

14 minutes ago, Ryan1 said:

Arrgh does Arrgh.

Doesn’t mean other alliances should be banned from adopting similar systems & fight both sides if that is how they like to play. Some of the biggest turn arounds in coalition wars in CN was coalitions turning on each other. Also had BK hit TKR as some thought they would, if civil wars were banned KETOG wouldn’t have been able to attack BK until the war over.

Maybe just add an extra defense slot for everyone, but have all 4 can’t be filled by the same alliance. So one alliance can’t take all the slots.

[Alex]

Moved to Moderation Support as this is a question, not a report.

And the answer is that it depends. There can't be a blanket answer "yes" or "no" to this question because I don't believe either would be fair.

I'll treat each case individually and make my best judgement to determine whether there's a real war going on or not. If you have specific wars you'd like to report, please report them in the Game Reports subforum or DM/PM me (preferably in-game or on Discord.)

[Aksel]

Kertchtog getting petty.

ooooo