Morphine Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 You have it on record that we would honor it. But please for the interest of making this whole conversation worth it, give me 3 examples of Junka destabilizing the brown sphere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Layton Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 3 minutes ago, Morphine said: You have it on record that we would honor it. But please for the interest of making this whole conversation worth it, give me 3 examples of Junka destabilizing the brown sphere? Even better, name one thing that VG has done to Monsters Inc directly. I can name several they've done to us: - Crapping up our recruitment thread where they threatened us with war - Getting involved in our peaceful negotiations with Atlas, offering to be their mercenaries - Actively soliciting our treaty partners to drop us and declare us as enemies - Disparaging VG in this and several other threads on the OWF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Is Monsters Inc a brown team alliance? I thought Meth was savior of brown? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hitchcock Posted July 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) Monsters Inc has always shared a nuetral feelings towards VG, minus a couple post war heckles, for good fun. This does concern me, however, VG attempting to sign an NAP so that Junka has no accountability for his aggressiveness towards m inc and our friends? Edited July 1, 2016 by Lord Hitchcock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Layton Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 4 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said: Is Monsters Inc a brown team alliance? I thought Meth was savior of brown? Don't be ridiculous. I am everyone's Lord and Saviour, including theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galerion Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 3 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said: Monsters Inc has always shared a nuetral feelings towards VG, minus a couple post war heckles, for good fun. This does concern me, however, VG attempting to sign an NAP so that Junka has no accountability for his aggressiveness towards m inc and our friends? Please back up your claims of Junka/SNX acting aggressively, just saying it doesn't make it true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 12 minutes ago, Galerion said: Please back up your claims of Junka/SNX acting aggressively, just saying it doesn't make it true. That question is a microagression, LH is now triggered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Everyone knows SNX is a Yellow alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Hardin Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Now kids, let's play nice Hardin For Senate Sanction Lord Hitchock 2016! Jack, ignoring LH is your best play. Trying to argue with him will only escalate things, and I only have 3 billion left, I would rather waste it on nations that can outdamage me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Layton Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 5 minutes ago, President Hardin said: Now kids, let's play nice Hardin For Senate Sanction Lord Hitchock 2016! Jack, ignoring LH is your best play. Trying to argue with him will only escalate things, and I only have 3 billion left, I would rather waste it on nations that can outdamage me I respect you a lot, Hardin. And you know personally that I am a man of my word. I'm not arguing here. My offer of an NAP is legitimate (I'm hereby recognizing it as such) and I vow not to break it. What do you say? I'm extending my end of the olive branch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hitchcock Posted July 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 2 hours ago, Jack Layton said: I respect you a lot, Hardin. And you know personally that I am a man of my word. I'm not arguing here. My offer of an NAP is legitimate (I'm hereby recognizing it as such) and I vow not to break it. What do you say? I'm extending my end of the olive branch. I will accept this 'olive branch' in good faith... On the condition that if Junka continues to jeopardize Brown sphere stability than you wash your hands of him. Deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphine Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said: I will accept this 'olive branch' in good faith... On the condition that if Junka continues to jeopardize Brown sphere stability than you wash your hands of him. Deal? And who would make that determination that he is jeopardizing brown stability? You? Me? Oculus? I'll be honest, I am not going to cancel a treaty with our good friends over at SNX because of your determinations. If we feel he is destabilizing brown then it can be considered but I don't see him destabilizing brown at this point in time. Edited July 1, 2016 by Morphine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hitchcock Posted July 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Morphine said: And who would make that determination that he is jeopardizing brown stability? You? Me? Oculus? I'll be honest, I am not going to cancel a treaty with our good friends over at SNX because of your determinations. If we feel he is destabilizing brown then it can be considered but I don't see him destabilizing brown at this point in time. And we will arms race for insured stability Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Hardin Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 3 hours ago, Jack Layton said: I respect you a lot, Hardin. And you know personally that I am a man of my word. I'm not arguing here. My offer of an NAP is legitimate (I'm hereby recognizing it as such) and I vow not to break it. What do you say? I'm extending my end of the olive branch. You act like Hitchcock listens to me I say let's leave each other be, micro drama is stupid Your treaty with snx is concerning to monsters inc, but I think everyone could work together for a safer brown. build a wall and don't let anyone in! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphine Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 1 minute ago, Lord Hitchcock said: And we will arms race for insured stability Your asking us to cancel with our treaty partner because you determined he's causing instability. Now as I've said, if you can prove he's causing instability then fine we will discuss that but until then, it's an unfair expectation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hitchcock Posted July 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 15 minutes ago, Morphine said: Your asking us to cancel with our treaty partner because you determined he's causing instability. Now as I've said, if you can prove he's causing instability then fine we will discuss that but until then, it's an unfair expectation I did not ask that, re-read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 25 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said: I did not ask that, re-read. Or maybe you could stop sticking your nose in our affairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphine Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 Okay your asking us to do that in the future if he continues to cause instability. My question is who determines that he's causing instability? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RightHonorable Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 32 minutes ago, Morphine said: Okay your asking us to do that in the future if he continues to cause instability. My question is who determines that he's causing instability? Him of course, and anything that SNX does that isn't bending to his whim is causing instability on brown . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 Is Brown instability a bad thing? At a fundamental level, stability for the sake of stability becomes inherently at odds with freedom and libertarian values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 Despite my fundamental misgivings on the very nature of the discussion, I will humbly propose @James Spanier as the independent of both sides arbiter of all micro drama contained within, and as the sole determinant of what constitutes brown instability and the cause thereof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Spanier Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 The Constable is here to restore order. Who done it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Layton Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 (edited) If SNX does any of the aforementioned acts in the stated NAP treaty I listed earlier to Monsters Inc. or any of its treaty partners, I will drop them. I say this because I am confident they are not instigating anything. That's how "causing instability" will be determined. That's declaring war, spy attacks, out-of-game espionage, or aiding whoever they may be fighting (that does not include standard tech deals). In summary: Non-Aggression Pact Between Monsters Inc and the Varangian Guard Both alliances agree to refrain from aggressive action towards each other, specifically in terms of military attacks, spy attacks, espionage on each others' forums, AA, IRC, and membership, aiding each others' enemies during wartime (not including standard tech deals), and declaring war on each others' treaty partners. Any of the above actions by either alliance will be considered a violation of this treaty and entitles the other to respond aggressively. Notice must be provided 72 hours in advance to Jack Layton and Lord Hitchcock respectively before this treaty can be effectively canceled. This treaty only comes into effect when both Monsters Inc. and the Varangian Guard have signed it. In addendum: If SNX commits any of the aforementioned acts to Monsters Inc or its treaty partners, Varangian Guard agrees to drop them as treaty partners as soon as they are made aware of these acts. Likewise, if LPC commits any of the aforementioned acts to VG or its treaty partners, Monsters Inc agrees to disassociate with them. Deal? Edited July 2, 2016 by Jack Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hitchcock Posted July 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 31 minutes ago, Jack Layton said: If SNX does any of the aforementioned acts in the stated NAP treaty I listed earlier to Monsters Inc. or any of its treaty partners, I will drop them. I say this because I am confident they are not instigating anything. That's how "causing instability" will be determined. That's declaring war, spy attacks, out-of-game espionage, or aiding whoever they may be fighting (that does not include standard tech deals). In summary: Non-Aggression Pact Between Monsters Inc and the Varangian Guard Both alliances agree to refrain from aggressive action towards each other, specifically in terms of military attacks, spy attacks, espionage on each others' forums, AA, IRC, and membership, aiding each others' enemies during wartime (not including standard tech deals), and declaring war on each others' treaty partners. Any of the above actions by either alliance will be considered a violation of this treaty and entitles the other to respond aggressively. Notice must be provided 72 hours in advance to Jack Layton and Lord Hitchcock respectively before this treaty can be effectively canceled. This treaty only comes into effect when both Monsters Inc. and the Varangian Guard have signed it. In addendum: If SNX commits any of the aforementioned acts to Monsters Inc or its treaty partners, Varangian Guard agrees to drop them as treaty partners as soon as they are made aware of these acts. Likewise, if LPC commits any of the aforementioned acts to VG or its treaty partners, Monsters Inc agrees to disassociate with them. Deal? Deal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 even the micros suck at drama these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.