Please note that updates to the war list and the declarations here should also be made on Second Unjust War. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 2:50, Primidi, 11 Pluviôse CCXVIII

Stats Edit

Once we've posted the stats for that day, don't go changing them if people DoW afterwards. They'll get added the next day. It doesn't need to be updated every three hours.
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   16:48, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

NpO Rejoins the War Edit

Alright, so now that NpO's back into this thing, how the hell do we want to treat these articles?
At this point, since we seem to have come full circle, I'm thinking that it's easiest if we just merge everything back into one article, treat it as one war, and have a super-long-intense description to try and explain this Cluster@#$%. If we want, we can still have "sub-articles" for describing the various stages or fronts of the war. (ie. keep a more descriptive article for the Polar-\m/ portion, or the TOP-C&G portion, etc.)
Also, I suggest we name the new article The Cluster@#$%. It's definitely the name I'm using from now on.
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   05:45, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

I am sufficiently clueless as to what has exactly gone on. The fact that some alliances have ended up on both sides of the war... yeah, one article would be more confusing in my opinion. I'll leave it to Lol pie to make a decision, though. And since it came up, I still use Winter War. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 2:44, Quartidi, 14 Pluviôse CCXVIII
Is there any centralized place we should be having this discussion?
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   05:56, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
Here's probably best, given the extensiveness of the Second Unjust War talk page. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 2:49, Quartidi, 14 Pluviôse CCXVIII
Just out of curiosity, do you know who has appeared on both sides of this/these conflict(s)? I looked over the major alliances and didn't see anyone that stood out.
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   06:06, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, my bad. It was an old and incorrect edit that had BTA on both. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 2:56, Quartidi, 14 Pluviôse CCXVIII
We can take a more complete look through it tomorrow (I need sleep), but if there's no overlap, perhaps we could just merge everything back into one article?
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   06:15, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking the easiest thing at this stage might be to create an article to serve as an overview for everything we've seen up until now. Call it the First Global War of 2010 unless something better comes along. This article can describe the various phases of the overarching conflict, without delving into too many details about the specifics of combatants (allowing us to avoid the paradox of dual-side alliances).
This super-article could then link to articles describing each phase of the war, shown in the traditional format (ie. an article for Polar-\m/, an article for TOP-C&G, maybe a third article for this phase of the conflict if it's deemed necessary), all tied together through the central super-article hub.
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   06:06, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be an 2nd unjust war part one, and second unjust war part two? I think they're the same war but with a paradigm shift. --Supercoolyellow (talk • contribs) 06:07, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I believe that one could simply merge this article back into the first one, and have sub-articles with descriptions on each phase of the war. The confusion inherent in having alliances on both sides of the war has already been solved by dividing the war columns in the first article into two phases.
However, I do move that the two phases, the "NpO-\m/ War" and the "TOP-C&G War" be renamed simply to "Phase I (or 1)" and "Phase II (or 2)", since both phases have grown to involve many more alliances and blocs than those mentioned in said names.
It guess it can be noted that people on the C&G side of the war have stated that they prefer to call their overall coalition "SuperGrievances" (over "SuperComplaints"). I can't say it's official, as it was mostly a consensus between some on IRC, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Gatherum (talk • contribs) 10:52, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Blocs Edit

Genesis and Ronin (and possibly OSA as well) should be listed as members of Checkmate, not independents. Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)

- A note: RnR went into this war via the LEO bloc, not SF. So it'd be more accurate to list them under LEO. (Tromp) Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)

Probably a good idea, yeah. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 8:72, Nonidi, 19 Pluviôse CCXVIII

Hey guys, just noticed that ML was listed as an independent. We're a member of Duckroll, so I moved ML up to the proper spot. (The Corporal (talk • contribs) 07:23, February 10, 2010 (UTC))

Declaration Update Edit

PS. I'm not copying all those new declarations over to the other article.
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   06:32, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion Edit

This is a different war from the Second Unjust War, although it is linked. I suggest we detach it and make it another war, i.e. remove the "part of the Second Unjust War". Unpronounced (talk • contribs) 13:11, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Really, it's at the very least part of it, and at most the same war altogether. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 8:82, Quintidi, 15 Pluviôse CCXVIII


Someone please put PC and Iunctus under NOIR.

EDIT: Please put AO and TCI under the NOIR banner as well, thanks.

Thanks. Preceding unsigned comment added by Porkpotpie (talk • contribs)

Done.--LordSlade (talk • contribs) 23:22, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Stat date + time Edit

I'm not sure the policy on editting the articles themselves so I'll post it here instead of doing it myself. The date section for the stats are incorrect. +hr means it's that manyhours into the day. -hr means it's that many hours until you reach that day. All of the -h dates need to have an extra day added to them. The declarations from yesterday for example would be -hr feb 4. --Hyperbad (talk • contribs) 06:54, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

No, the dates are accurate how they are. The actual present date of the stats should be used, regardless. The -/+ h only illustrates how many times from the update of that day. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 2:89, Sextidi, 16 Pluviôse CCXVIII
You have it wrong. The date denotes 0 hour (or day) and in this case is update as Gopher says below. Anything from being that time is in negative hours to show that it isn't yet that date or time. Thus since the stats were retrieved on the 3rd, you use the 4th's date. The negative hours with the 4ths date will tell the reader it actually happened that many hours before the date in question.--Hyperbad (talk • contribs) 12:02, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
The way I've been doing it is in relation to Update, on that specific day. ie. Today's stats were taken on February 3rd, 3 hours before Update. Granted, that's a legitimate interpretation as well.
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   07:19, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
If I'm reading you correctly then you're using the update at the tail end of a day to be that days update rather then the new day coming. So the update between the 3rd and the 4th you're assigning to the 3rd. It doesn't work mathematically because when you're on the 3rd you're effectively already using positive numbers. That practice would continue after the date in question. This problem arises with Jan 30th's stats where positive hours are shown first then followed by negative ones. The stats involved makes them in the right order and this fixable by merely changing that date to Jan 31st with negative 3 hours. It gets tricky now after that. I don't know what time you got the next set of stats (with one GATO, etc.). If you record daily stats without waiting for declarations or update it after seeing who else declared. The date and times will still be inconsistent. Of course if I read your post wrong, please do tell. --Hyperbad (talk • contribs) 12:02, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Both ways are correct. The version Gopherbashi's using is as correct as yours. If he wants to continue using that version, that is his prerogative. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 5:03, Sextidi, 16 Pluviôse CCXVIII
Being understood as to what it means by some does not mean it is correct. You're first refering to the time on the day as positive then as negative. It's an inconsistency which does not make sense mathematically and to people who aren't ourselves it will be confusing thus a proper count down to update should be adopted. If you're going to keep it as written however then you may wish to state all negative hours on the wiki itself in the stats area are refering to the update at the end of the day to avoid confusion. It will still be incorrect but at least people will be notified of it an take it into account. --Hyperbad (talk • contribs) 23:29, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
It's not an inconsistency if it's used that way every time it's used, is it? Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 9:79, Sextidi, 16 Pluviôse CCXVIII
If update is the time refered to (thus 0) then refering to it as positive with +1 then later as a -4 makes no sense. There is no update between those times and no room for positive numbers at all if you refer to the update going into Jan 31st as being Jan 30th's update. There in lies an inconsistency. Essentially you're changing the convention with which a countdown is recorded, swapping the roles of positive and negative numbers. While I don't think a wiki is the place to do so, if you're going to despite objections then you at least need to make readers aware of the change of convention and clear up any inconsistencies. Bloody hell I keep forgetting to sign >.> --Hyperbad (talk • contribs) 23:41, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
I get your argument, don't misunderstand that. What I'm saying is that you're asking all articles to be changed to meet your convention. There are no inconsistencies because most article use the format used on this article. There's no need to make people aware of "inconsistencies" that only exist between personal preference and what is used on any given wiki article. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 9:90, Sextidi, 16 Pluviôse CCXVIII
I've since changed my position and reconize the swap of positives nad negatives to merely be a different convention. The inconsistency is not with the number of articles using it but that you're going back and forth between two incompatible conventions. (starting to get ticked, I keep forgetting to sign >.>) --Hyperbad (talk • contribs) 00:00, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Common Defense Treaty Edit

The bloc CDT should be added under the TOP side and include FEAR, UCN, NATO, Invicta and UPN. -- 21:43, February 4, 2010 (UTC)kch674

Dividing DoW links into side Edit

I noticed we did this for Karma but not for this one? 16:29, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't log in first Krunk 16:30, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

I can get to this later today.  Locke   Talk • Alestor    16:42, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

NpO: DoWing on both sides Edit

One of the most surprising twists I've seen: [1]. How should we show this? Maybe Polar should get its own column and this can be a three-way war. --Theamazingdeist (talk • contribs) 06:46, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Second Unjust War#Polar on two sides. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 2:83, Octidi, 18 Pluviôse CCXVIII

NPO joining in? Edit

I think we ought to wait to see the result of NPO's announcement before we add them to the the Super Complaints side. I won't personally remove them though. I'll leave that up to the bigger guns. --Supercoolyllow (talk • contribs) 06:06, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

I thought they were basicly saying they had to keep paying, so enemies of GOD, its not their fault, but if you attack they are protected. Maybe leave them off or put a note or something until they have wars. Kingcjc 09:46, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
Well given what's happened, one way or another our "entry" is going to be mentioned here, it's just how. Personally, I don't think it makes sense to list the Order as a combatant alongside everyone else on the C&G side. We're not declaring any wars or actually going on the offensive (our surrender terms prevent such anyway). However, you could add a footnote regarding the context around our "entry" (I use such a term lightly to) - that is due to the continuation of reparations payments, the Order finds itself having committed an "act of war", but that is still not the same as going to war and blowing stuff up. Also, I'm going to adjust the wording of the link to the Imperial Announcement thread, because the way it sounds makes it seem like we are actively going to war and fighting against everyone who is up against GOD, which isn't really true. -- Imperial Emperor - Talk
Personally, I think they ought to be listed where they are, but a footnote mentioning what you've said in brief wouldn't hurt. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 6:24, Octidi, 28 Pluviôse CCXVIII
Like Imperial Emperor said, there is a difference between an "act of war" and actually being in a "state of war". For example (although I hate to drag RL into this), one could argue that Five British Sailors going 500 yards into Iranian waters was an "act of war", but it nevertheless did not result in a "state of war" between the two nations. If Polaris or the Sith want to respond to this "act of war" by declaring a "state of war" between their two alliances, then we'd have a different ballgame. But they haven't, and we don't.
I have also discussed this situation with LordValleo, a Councillor of the New Pacific Order, who has confirmed that Pacifica is not currently at war.
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   23:18, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gopherbashi, and would advise to remove the NPO off the SG side of this war. (Tromp)

For the time being, I have added a footnote to our mention in the combatants side of things. I have also shrunk our flag down to 30px to signify that we do not consider ourselves truly involved. Personally I still favour removing our mention from the infobox, but have left us in while we decide the best course of action to take. -- Imperial Emperor - Talk

Cross out Hydra, they surrendered two days ago. Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravana (talk • contribs)

Done  Locke   Talk • Alestor    15:36, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Missing declarations Edit

Most/all of the counter declarations that occurred against TOP and IRON on the first night seem to be missing.

MHA, Gremlins, Fark and Sparta are all named at the top of the page but there is no actual link to their DoWs.

Lord Brendan (talk • contribs) 01:12, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

never mind, I didn't realize the timeline had been changed to split the sides.Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Brendan (talk • contribs)

BAPS DoW on NV missing Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)

Added, I think.  Pikachurin   Talk • Contribs   21:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

War Name Edit

I think its time this war is called something other than TOP attacks CnG as its called on the main Wiki page. Mainly because I've see the name cluster!@#$ used more and more on the forums. Its also the top choice in this poll . What is everyone's thoughts? --Supercoolyllow (talk • contribs) 17:13, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's one main problem with "cluster!@#$", and that's that the wiki software cannot use it as a title because of the symbols (and uncensoring it is really just going to provoke more people than will greet it kindly). Furthermore, poll results from the OWF do have a history of not being used on the Wiki for various reasons (though none off the top of my head apply here). Anyway, I'll wait for some other people's input before continuing. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 7:49, Sextidi, 6 Ventôse CCXVIII

War NarrativeEdit

Is it time that we start summarizing the events of the war like most war pages? I wanted to avoid explaining everything to some one who asked me by linking to this page, but there is no explanation of the events of the war as of yet. Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercoolyllow (talk • contribs)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.