I think the difference here is that we'd kick them out and be done with it. According to that post, you'd consider that the whole commune attacking you and start/restart a war. Kicking them out or killing them is reasonable, I suppose. Anything beyond that is idiocy.

Yes, that's the entire point of the treaty - forcing Serenwilde to take responsibility for its members so that we DON'T have people like Ixion running around our territory.

EDIT: And it doesn't mean that one person trespassing will cause us to declare war, but it means that we WILL expect Serenwilde to punish that person.

Which is absurd. We're not going to punish anyone for trespassing. That's your job. Take some goddamned responsibility. If you don't catch them, and all they were doing is trespassing, there's no harm to punish them for causing, even if we cared.

We'll punish people if they start trouble for us. We won't punish them because you're too lazy to kick someone out of your territory. Trespassing by itself is not an act of war by any stretch of the imagination, and claiming that it is makes you look silly.

Maybe we need to reword the policy to only include sane organizations in it.

Its this line of thinking that's made me go from being eager and willing to work out an acceptable agreement for both sides to being completely uninterested in having anything to do with negotiations.

So you're saying that if Ixion went to Celestia, killed a cherub, and left, you'd punish him; but if he went to Celestia, ran around evading the defenders, and then left it'd be fine with you?

*nod* What can you say when someone just says, "We don't like you. Punish your people for looking at us wrong, or we'll make war."

There has to be a spectrum between alliance and war. You can't specify that ANYTHING you don't like is an act of war. To risk an IRL analogy, you don't kill someone for stealing a piece of candy. The only thing that should concern us is if our members are actually making war without our consent. Continually killing angels would count. Killing one angel, getting killed in return, and never doing it again might not. Trespassing most definitely would not.

Politics and negotiation with Celest is turning into, "We'll threaten war if you do anything we don't like," which is retarded. We eventually just ignore and put up with raids, because there is nothing else we can do if we don't want to jump whenever you tell us to.


It depends. Would you come to us and say, "Hey, Ixion is being a dick, can you tell him to knock it off?" We'd probably tell him to stop in that case. If you said, "We'll declare war if he's not disfavoured or kicked out," we'd tell you to go screw yourself.

If he was actually killing them, it's more than an annoyance, and he'd probably be punished if he did it enough, unless we actually wanted to fight with you. One cherub is pushing it a bit, since if it's just that one time, it's no big deal, but it's hardly ever just one and done, so that's not really an accurate scenario. It'd be much more likely it'd be someone like me that killed one cherub, got totally owned, and never did it again.

In any treaty, attacking a loyal of the city or any mob in an area we protect is going to count as an attack and is going to have to be punished by Serenwilde, so you'll either have to swallow your pride and accept that or just suck up your complaints and deal with our raids.

Celest and Glomdoring had no problem agreeing to that in our treaty. I'm not sure what your deal is.

Nor did we have any problem agreeing that enemied members aren't allowed in each other's territory: "Enemies should be told to remain out of Glomdoring territory, enemies of Celest remain out of Celest's." (The Inner Sea is considered part of Celest's territories for the treaty.)

utter BS

Trespassing is not an attack, and there is no possible way to convince me otherwise. It's not my call though, so try to convince the Moonhart Circle.

I'm fine with an attack counting as an attack. What I'm trying to say is that you can't lump everything into "act of war". There are varying degrees of attack, and treating them all the same makes you look like a rabid warmonger.

Also, we don't have a treaty with you. The policy that was passed doesn't even mention Celest.

"Glomdoring does it, why can't you?" is pretty flimsy. There's also the fact that Celest and Serenwilde both enemied loads of people as precautionary measures for the war. Also, nothing would be stopping you from just declaring every Seren an enemy to keep them out of the Inner Sea.

The comparison between Faethorn and the Inner Sea is flawed if only for the fact that we have to share Faethorn and you have no competition for the Inner Sea. I do think though that both orgs have about as much claim over those territories, which is to say, none.

Uh. No. No, you would not. Nor have you ever.

*shrug* I'm not in charge of that. I would, if we wanted pleasant relations. If we didn't care, we obviously wouldn't.

This treaty is bullshit. The vast majority of the Commune vote for the war to continue, and then the leaders surrender. Wtf?

Trying to decide if Shorlen is quitting Serenwilde for Magnagora or not...

We didn't surrender, goddammit! Can no one read? This should have passed with or without a war with Celest. It's not about Celest, it's about people not being jackasses and screwing all of us. It formally points out that you have a responsibility to be a prick only to the extent that you can be personally responsible for it.

Also, that referendum was crap. I voted against the treaty, but have no urge to see the war continue. I voted against it because it treated angels and demons differently, which I'm very much against.

Right, sorry, I forgot, we didn't surrender, we just gave them EVERYTHING THEY ASKED FOR IN THEIR TERMS OF SURRENDER. There's a huge difference between the two.

They are also the exact same terms as the ultimatum.

Half of those are ridiculous, and we're looking into it, if Nejii's post is any indication. The war is NEVER going to end if we let anyone who wants kill whatever they want. If we really want, though, we can just stay at war, in which case this policy prevents NOTHING.

It should have been passed before this even happened, long ago, so we could avoid this bullshit.

Its not a surrender if only for the fact that the war is still on and doesn't look to be going away anytime soon at all.

Yeah, Shorlen's been fuming about that for a while now.


Yet, if I raided Celestia right now, I'd be disfavoured, right?

Why do people want this war to continue? One side wins for a bit, then the other side wins for a bit. There is no end in sight. This is far, far better in every way them simply accepting a treaty with them that would morph into an alliance, given time, since we'd have pro-Celest laws written into the Leaves.

That said, Anarias is right. If Celest keeps the ludicrous terms, the war isn't over.