TailsK
Sep 29 2009, 07:37 PM
What's this? Two military treaties in one day? Makes you wonder what's going on...
QUOTE
THE GOOD GAME, GOOD LIFE PACT- Preamble
Tetris discovered this alliance that claimed it was both Epic and the "good-life" alliance. Tetris was all, "OMGWTFBBQ" because everyone knows that Tetris is Epic and anyone in the alliance has a good life. After having a nice sit down chat about this problem with Epicurean, we discovered we are in fact both Epic and have good lives! As such, we bring you this sexiness.
- Friendship
Through friendship, the Epicurean and Tetris are able to put pen to paper in the form of a treaty. the signatories and the members of their respective alliances will treat each other kindly, with dignity and respect.
- Non-Aggression
Tetris and Epicurean agree to not attack, spy on, or show any other form of aggression towards each other.
- Intelligence
Signatories agree to share any information pertaining to the security of each others' alliance and allies. Signatories will inform each other of any military action they plan to take, within a reasonable time frame, before such action takes place.
- Aid
If one signatory happens to find itself in a financially needy situation, they may ask the other signatory for assistance. If the need of said signatory is found to be significant, the other is required to assist if possible.
- Optional Defense
Should a signatory find themselves in a defensive war, the other signatory is recommended, but not required, to assist. Assistance may include, but is not limited to, fiscal aid, in-game spying or a declaration of war. Military assistance will be at the discretion of the signatory who has been attacked. The signatory who has been attacked may elect not to accept assistance.
- Optional Aggression
If a signatory is planning to attack another alliance, said signatory may request assistance from the other in the form of fiscal or military aid, in-game spying, or a declaration of war. The other signatory is encouraged, but not required, to assist in the war and may decline or only partially fulfill the request.
- Cancellation
This treaty may be canceled by either signatory with a minimum of 72 hours notice. If the signatories agree, the cancellation period may be waived.
Signed,
For Epicurean:TailsK, Emperor
Mongrel, Successor
Catronos, Minister of Internal Affairs
23451njnj, Minister of Economics
For Tetris:USMC123, Game Developer
Logan, Programmer of Foreign Matters
Kean, Programmer of Internal Matters
Granat, Programmer of Game Patent
USMC123
Sep 29 2009, 07:38 PM
Glad to finally get this signed!

Epic
TheTrooper
Sep 29 2009, 07:39 PM
o/ Epicurean
o/ Tetris

USMC123
HisK Owns You
Sep 29 2009, 07:39 PM
o/ TailsK
Shakyr
Sep 29 2009, 07:39 PM
Looking to start a war soon, Tails?

Congrats

EDIT: Was told I forgot the hails ... my bad

o/ Epicurean
o/ Tetris
TailsK
Sep 29 2009, 07:40 PM
QUOTE (HisK Owns You @ Sep 30 2009, 11:39 AM)

o/ TailsK

Brotherly love!
Schattenmann
Sep 29 2009, 07:42 PM
That's a nice grouping there.
TailsK
Sep 29 2009, 07:42 PM
QUOTE (Shakyr @ Sep 30 2009, 11:39 AM)

Looking to start a war soon, Tails?

Congrats

Of course not!
Selindryl
Sep 29 2009, 07:42 PM
o/ Epic

Tails
General Scian
Sep 29 2009, 07:43 PM
Very nice! Congrats!
Amos Malachi
Sep 29 2009, 07:43 PM
Congrats Tetris and Epicurean. It is always good to see friends come together
Mongrel
Sep 29 2009, 07:44 PM
I don't think I can possibly hail Tetris and USMC enough.
So we'll have to settle with 3

's a snap and a circle!
SonOfHoward
Sep 29 2009, 07:45 PM
wow tons of epic today!
Rudolph Heiderich
Sep 29 2009, 07:46 PM
QUOTE (Schattenmann @ Sep 29 2009, 09:42 PM)

That's a nice grouping there.
I agree with this. Congrats to both parties on this
o/ Epic
o/ Tetris
o/ Mindless Hailing for two Military treaties in one day
Systemfailure
Sep 29 2009, 09:17 PM
o/ EPIC
o/ TETRIS
Oh Hai there USMC, i got to lvl 20 in marathon mode, i like to think its because of this treaty
Bob Ilyani
Sep 29 2009, 09:27 PM
Ooh, I like Tetris. A friend of Tetris must be a good person. Congrats to both of you.
Alfred von Tirpitz
Sep 29 2009, 09:43 PM
You know you lot could have just comeback home and been together anyways.

Congratulations guys.
keenu
Sep 30 2009, 12:42 AM
Way to go EPIC for signing such an EPIC treaty with some an awesome alliance. o/
heggo
Sep 30 2009, 12:51 AM
Oh look, another treaty in which your wording exposes that you're still not Epicurean at all. You've utterly failed to embody even so much as but a reflection of the asceticism which characterizes real Epicureanism.
Systemfailure
Sep 30 2009, 01:18 AM
QUOTE (heggo @ Sep 30 2009, 06:51 AM)

Look at me BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
hmm yes i understand what you mean exactly.
o/ Epicurean
o/ tetris
o/ AvT i c wat u did thar
USMC123
Sep 30 2009, 02:14 AM
QUOTE (heggo @ Sep 29 2009, 11:51 PM)

Oh look, another treaty in which your wording exposes that you're still not Epicurean at all. You've utterly failed to embody even so much as but a reflection of the asceticism which characterizes real Epicureanism.
Cool Story bro.
I guess NSO follows all the laws of the Sith, as well as every other themed alliance.
R3nowned
Sep 30 2009, 02:36 AM
sexy treaty, I like it o/
Bob Janova
Sep 30 2009, 05:16 AM
lol optional everything. I thought we'd got away from pointless treaties (well ok, it's a NAP).
Logan
Sep 30 2009, 08:36 AM
QUOTE (Bob Janova @ Sep 30 2009, 04:16 AM)

lol optional everything. I thought we'd got away from pointless treaties (well ok, it's a NAP).
Well as you know Epicurean is in Ragnablok, which restricts the protectorate alliances from signing certain treaties. Its only as optional as the alliances who signed it intend it to be. I know honoring ODP's might be foreign to you, but bear with us.
Also glad this finally got signed. Though GOD sniped the first announcement D:
heggo
Sep 30 2009, 09:33 AM
QUOTE (USMC123 @ Sep 30 2009, 03:14 AM)

I guess NSO follows all the laws of the Sith, as well as every other themed alliance.
It's not a matter of "They tried and came close enough," it's a matter of "They literally are advocating the opposite of what Epicurus did."
pezstar
Sep 30 2009, 09:47 AM
QUOTE (Bob Janova @ Sep 30 2009, 07:16 AM)

lol optional everything. I thought we'd got away from pointless treaties (well ok, it's a NAP).
Yeah. Aside from the NAP aspect of it, the treaty already existed with the basic principles of sovereignty. But now I feel like a jerk, because you know they are just so proud of that OADP.
HurricaneLOL
Sep 30 2009, 11:37 AM
optional treaties are optional.
o/ NSO
o/ Bel Air
goldielax25
Sep 30 2009, 11:37 AM
i like epicurean, i like tetris, therefore i like this news
USMC123
Sep 30 2009, 01:18 PM
QUOTE (pezstar @ Sep 30 2009, 08:47 AM)

Yeah. Aside from the NAP aspect of it, the treaty already existed with the basic principles of sovereignty. But now I feel like a jerk, because you know they are just so proud of that OADP.
Yes, since alliances attack to defend (or attack with) other alliances without a treaty.

As was said, this was the highest level treaty we can sign because Epicurean is in Ragnablok. It would have been an MDoAP had Epicurean been allowed.
Mongrel
Sep 30 2009, 04:36 PM
QUOTE (heggo @ Sep 30 2009, 11:33 AM)

It's not a matter of "They tried and came close enough," it's a matter of "They literally are advocating the opposite of what Epicurus did."
And we're doing it all for you to get your panties in a knot.
Systemfailure
Sep 30 2009, 06:05 PM
QUOTE (Mongrel @ Sep 30 2009, 11:36 PM)

And we're doing it all for you to get your panties in a knot.

we actually only signed this treaty to bait NSO, but keep it on the down low
o/ Coloured Blocks
o/ Epic Win
TailsK
Sep 30 2009, 06:17 PM
QUOTE (heggo @ Oct 1 2009, 01:33 AM)

It's not a matter of "They tried and came close enough," it's a matter of "They literally are advocating the opposite of what Epicurus did."
I love his reasoning:
QUOTE
[10:05:30] <+Heggo[NSO]> the only way for your alliance at all to live up to the works of epicurus
[10:05:37] <+Heggo[NSO]> is for your nations over 50k or so
[10:05:43] <+Heggo[NSO]> to sell infrastructure and tech
If it bothers you so much, do something about it
heggo
Sep 30 2009, 06:41 PM
QUOTE (USMC123 @ Sep 30 2009, 02:18 PM)

Yes, since alliances attack to defend (or attack with) other alliances without a treaty.

Moldavi Doctrine.
And Tailsy, my friend, someday. Someday. Note that my solution is logical though: being a proper Epicurean ascetic would require abandoning your wealth.
TailsK
Sep 30 2009, 07:16 PM
QUOTE (heggo @ Oct 1 2009, 10:41 AM)

Moldavi Doctrine.
And Tailsy, my friend, someday. Someday. Note that my solution is logical though: being a proper Epicurean ascetic would require abandoning your wealth.
We play the game to have fun and enjoy the experience. Part of said experience, and part of the fun for us, is nation growth. Using your own argument, you could say that our nations should have zero infrastructure and zero technology, because we don't *need* any of that to enjoy the game. But then you wouldn't be enjoying the game
Mongrel
Sep 30 2009, 07:17 PM
Oh I see he's really a Pacifican at heart. This reminds me of the many who used to dictate neutrality to us when we were greenies. Only this one is even funnier to watch.
Hegemon Rob
Sep 30 2009, 07:26 PM
congrats you guys. Epic and tetris are both very good alliances.
heggo
Sep 30 2009, 07:42 PM
QUOTE (TailsK @ Sep 30 2009, 08:16 PM)

We play the game to have fun and enjoy the experience. Part of said experience, and part of the fun for us, is nation growth. Using your own argument, you could say that our nations should have zero infrastructure and zero technology, because we don't *need* any of that to enjoy the game.
Look, the ultimate point is that Epicurus argued that growth (okay, actually wealth and any form of luxury - a term which he defined quite loosely - that might complicate your life) isn't fun. You can't be Epicurean and think that growth is fun because growth is the acquisition of wealth and luxury.
TailsK
Sep 30 2009, 07:45 PM
QUOTE (heggo @ Oct 1 2009, 11:42 AM)

Look, the ultimate point is that Epicurus argued that growth (okay, actually wealth and any form of luxury - a term which he defined quite loosely - that might complicate your life) isn't fun. You can't be Epicurean and think that growth is fun because growth is the acquisition of wealth and luxury.
That's the ultimate point? I thought the ultimate point was happiness.
Salmia
Sep 30 2009, 07:52 PM
This grouping definitely makes sense to me.

Good luck to both parties involved.

UMSC
Mongrel
Sep 30 2009, 07:55 PM
QUOTE (heggo @ Sep 30 2009, 09:42 PM)

Look, the ultimate point is that Epicurus argued that growth (okay, actually wealth and any form of luxury - a term which he defined quite loosely - that might complicate your life) isn't fun. You can't be Epicurean and think that growth is fun because growth is the acquisition of wealth and luxury.
The second time you've drawn vague lines about Epicurus' philosophy. Where exactly in Epicurus' writings do you see a reference to the maximum amount of imaginary wealth that disqualifies you as a disciple of Epicureanism?
I suppose the fatal flaw of our alliance is taking on the name of a real philosphy as opposed to yours, which origninated from a story written for pre-pubescent children where the only real ideals you have to stick to is that of being the "Bad guy".
heggo
Sep 30 2009, 07:56 PM
He was a Hedonist, but he also declared that the only way to access happiness was through what amounted to asceticism. In fact, he didn't really even advocate happiness or fun. He advocated merely the absence of pain and suffering, a difficult to translate term that comes kinda close to tranquility.
Edit:
QUOTE (Mongrel @ Sep 30 2009, 08:55 PM)

The second time you've drawn vague lines about Epicurus' philosophy. Where exactly in Epicurus' writings do you see a reference to the maximum amount of imaginary wealth that disqualifies you as a disciple of Epicureanism?
I suppose the fatal flaw of our alliance is taking on the name of a real philosphy[sic] as opposed to yours, which origninated[sic] from a story written for pre-pubescent children where the only real ideals you have to stick to is that of being the "Bad guy".
There's no bright line, but a reasonability test shows that if you declare your aim is growth, have 70k+ nations, and advocate living it up for the fun of it, you probably don't meet the standards of a disciple.
Also, insulting me doesn't help you: note that I am the one here teaching you what you already should know. If the transitive property holds...
TailsK
Sep 30 2009, 07:57 PM
QUOTE (Mongrel @ Oct 1 2009, 11:55 AM)

I suppose the fatal flaw of our alliance is taking on the name of a real philosphy as opposed to yours, which origninated from a story written for pre-pubescent children where the only real ideals you have to stick to is that of being the "Bad guy".
Careful Mongrel... He'll get his lightsaber out! He really does have one!
TailsK
Sep 30 2009, 08:03 PM
QUOTE (heggo @ Oct 1 2009, 11:56 AM)

note that I am the one here teaching you what you already should know.
You mean attempt to troll?
Mongrel
Sep 30 2009, 08:03 PM
QUOTE (heggo @ Sep 30 2009, 09:56 PM)

He was a Hedonist, but he also declared that the only way to access happiness was through what amounted to asceticism.
Edit:
There's no bright line, but a reasonability test shows that if you declare your aim is growth, have 70k+ nations, and advocate living it up, you probably don't meet the standards of a disciple.
Insulting me doesn't help you: note that I am the one here teaching you what you already should know.
Once again it's all blurry lines. I'm sorry I didn't realize I was in a class here, I'm gonna head on down to the office and drop this one so I can get my money back, this guy teaching here is obviously an idiot.
heggo
Sep 30 2009, 08:07 PM
Y'all haven't actually read any of the works of your namesake have you? Or did you find it to be too "blurry" and give up before you realized he was more than just a conventional hedonist?
Salmia
Sep 30 2009, 08:16 PM
You know I am loving that someone is trying to dictate how another alliance applies a theme or philosophy to their own alliance. My own alliance is based off a theme that I have never read the books of yet I am the HoFA of my own alliance. Each alliance decides how it impacts what they do and to what extent.
It is not up to you to decide how a chosen name impacts how they grow or how they do things. Just because they chose a particular name doesn't mean they follow it 100% to the word. It is up to them how it shapes their alliance and how much impact it has. Some people take it more seriously than others but it is not really your choice to demand that they follow your strict guidelines. Other alliances are based off many themes but you don't see them all taking it to heart 100%. That is their choice and you can choose to criticize an alliance for it but it is not you that makes their policy and it is rather silly to demand that they follow your strict hopes for a theme.
After all, it is their alliance, not yours.
Joe Stupid
Sep 30 2009, 08:17 PM
I hate both alliances and wish to see them fail.
Mongrel
Sep 30 2009, 08:17 PM
Hi there heggo, in case you haven't noticed, you are the only one who cares about your arguments.
I suggest you visit your doctor and ask them to increase the dosage of your medication, it's obvious that the effectiveness is wearing off.
Oh Yes I should add I look forward to your next edited reply.
tl;dr --- Ooooooooh you have me sooooooo upset.
heggo
Sep 30 2009, 08:22 PM
QUOTE (Salmia @ Sep 30 2009, 09:16 PM)

It is not up to you to decide how a chosen name impacts how they grow or how they do things. Just because they chose a particular name doesn't mean they follow it 100% to the word.... Some people take it more seriously than others but it is not really your choice to demand that they follow your strict guidelines. ... That is their choice and you can choose to criticize an alliance for it but it is not you that makes their policy and it is rather silly to demand that they follow your strict hopes for a theme.
After all, it is their alliance, not yours.
It may be their alliance, but Epicurus belongs to everybody now. You can't just take a philosophy, turn its intent pi radians, and then call it the same thing. To clarify, it's not a matter of failing to follow something to the letter, of someone just barely missing the 100% mark. It's a matter of someone getting roughly zero percent of what makes Epicurus unique.
In short, I will not (argumentatively, anyway) permit you to take relativism to its absurd conclusion: that obvious untruths and inaccuracies should be accepted because maybe that's just how other people think the world is.
Logan
Sep 30 2009, 08:22 PM
In Tetris we dress up in cardboard boxes that resemble tetrominoes and jump off buildings in attempt to make neat stacks of bodies. That's how seriously we take our theme.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.