Wooble wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: >> FYI: B's war judgement declared ineffective on a technicality. (I was >> trying to appeal it on the grounds that the persons behind it didn't >> discuss it in Agora first, nor use their Agoran roles in executing it.) > > I'd argue that if the Admiral of one entity's navy attacks another > entity, that's an act of war even if it was wholly unauthorized. Of > course, it also turns out that the AotN card was probably destroyed > before the whole incident, and that Walker's part was IMPOSSIBLE due > to another technicality.
I wasn't arguing either way on whether acts of war were committed, only on whether Agora as a whole bears command responsibility for the attempted acts. Arguments either way should start with Rule 2148, which assigns full responsibility and partial authority over foreign relations to the Ambassador (the Admiral, despite eir title, has neither).
