Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Definitional dispute.
Definitional dispute. Sat, 24 November 2012 23:50 Go to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008
Eagle of Fire and myself are currently arguing over the definition of "war" in Stars!.

He claims that it's not "war" to simply "reclaim his own territory" which he claims I've violated with peaceful colonisation.

I claim that it is indeed "war" to shoot down ships and bomb or popdrop planets without permission, regardless of territorial claims.

I may be missing something, so I'd like to hear the Stars! community's definitions of "war". That way, we can sort this out and decide whether we're "at war" or not. Confused


[Updated on: Sat, 24 November 2012 23:50]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Definitional dispute. Sun, 25 November 2012 03:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
craebild is currently offline craebild

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 568
Registered: December 2003
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
I would say that would depend on what kind of treaty you have.

If you have a mutually agreed border and those colonies are in his space according to that treaty, then he would be in his good right to colonize them - Though it would of course have been polite of him to have warned you so you could evacuate all but a couple of hundred colonists before his pop drop arrived. That would have made it cheaper for him to colonize those planets, too.

If you dot not have a treaty specifying those planets as belonging to him, then his attack on your colonies (by pop drop and/or bombing) is an act of war, as is his firing on your ships, unless you have a treaty that allows him to shoot down those ships due to their location and design.

That is my opinion, at least.

It is always good to have treaties with one's neighbours specifying which planets belong to who and what ships it is OK to send through the neighbour's space, that way there are no "misunderstanding" about what is permitted and what would be an act of war.



Med venlig hilsen / Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Christian Ræbild / Christian Raebild

Report message to a moderator

Re: Definitional dispute. Sun, 25 November 2012 09:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
XAPBob is currently offline XAPBob

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012
Apparently early conversations, so not likely to be any treaties thus far.

Particularly since one of the participants has been having email issues (i.e. spam filtering gone bonkers)

Report message to a moderator

Re: Definitional dispute. Sun, 25 November 2012 12:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Marduk is currently offline Marduk

 
Ensign

Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
My personal definition of "at war" is: it is after the year 2400, I am in the same game with another race, and we aren't allied. The war might not currently involve shooting, but that doesn't mean I am not "at war". And really, it is up to you. It takes two to tango, but only one to wage war. If you say you are at war with him, that makes it true.

If you need an excuse, other races/nations/opinions are different; therefore evil and a threat to your existence; therefore must be destroyed (or subjugated, I suppose, though historically that has seldom ended well when applied to sentients). This logic has worked well for the human race for millenia. No reason it would not work as well for the doubtless horrible monsters you represent.



One out of five dentists recommends occasional random executions to keep the peasants cowed and servile.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Definitional dispute. Sun, 25 November 2012 15:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

We have always been at war with Eastasia. Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: Definitional dispute. Sun, 25 November 2012 22:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Altruist is currently offline Altruist

 
Commander

Messages: 1068
Registered: August 2005
Location: Berlin
Marduk wrote on Sun, 25 November 2012 18:59
My personal definition of "at war" is: it is after the year 2400, I am in the same game with another race, and we aren't allied. The war might not currently involve shooting, but that doesn't mean I am not "at war". And really, it is up to you. It takes two to tango, but only one to wage war. If you say you are at war with him, that makes it true.


Same here.

If you look at Stars the other way around... I've heard rumours about some alien life forms out there who believe in a natural state of peace... If both parties don't want war, they will not find a casus belli but a reason to settle the disputes peacefully.

And if that's not the case but one party looks for a casus belli, one will find one.

Every other further discussion is about the diplomacy game some wicked people are so happy to play, sigh, instead of letting the lasers speak for themselves, o joy.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Definitional dispute. Mon, 26 November 2012 04:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
m.a@stars is currently offline m.a@stars

 
Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left
Said dispute must probably be one of the oldest, not only for Stars! but for any lifeforms, ever. Shocked

Marduk wrote on Sun, 25 November 2012 18:59
If you say you are at war with him, that makes it true.

And the rest, as they say, is History. 2 Guns

Altruist wrote on Mon, 26 November 2012 04:14
I've heard rumours about some alien life forms out there who believe in a natural state of peace... If both parties don't want war, they will not find a casus belli

All too frequent also, even if it would seem unlikely in a strategically-minded wargame of galactic conquest and domination such as Stars! Hit over head


[Updated on: Mon, 26 November 2012 04:27]




So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: Definitional dispute. Mon, 26 November 2012 05:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

m.a@stars wrote on Mon, 26 November 2012 01:26

All too frequent also, even if it would seem unlikely in a strategically-minded wargame of galactic conquest and domination such as Stars! Hit over head


There's more than one way to dominate, of course - there's those who outfight, and those who outbuild and outtalk. Both are valid paths.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Definitional dispute. Mon, 26 November 2012 06:59 Go to previous message
Anonymous Coward
War is just a word.
You could say this thread is your latest shot in the war of words you and eagle are having.

It would seem you attempt to prove that you are not at war because his point of view is that it isnt a war.
Maybe you try to stop the "war" before it begins by convincing him it isnt a war?

If he agrees that it isnt a war, then he turns up with warships and troops to land on your colonies & if they shout out "Hey we arent at war remember! Stop now!"

Do you think they will stop?
That should be all the answer you need.

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Looking for Dethdukk
Next Topic: Replacement player needed for Dynamic Duos 4.
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Apr 27 11:40:45 EDT 2024