Jump to content
  • entries
    44
  • comments
    637
  • views
    24,050

Hey there, R&R.


Haflinger

699 views

Once upon a time, you guys signed a treaty with IRON.

The relevant sections follow.

Preamble:

We, the alliances of R&R and the Independent Republic of Orange Nations (hereby referred to as IRON), sign this pact in essence of orange unification, friendship, and stronger bonds of faith through security, defense, intelligence, and finance.

Article I: Mutual Defense

A declaration on one signatory through military means is considered an attack on both signatories. A 24 hour notice will be given to the other signatory alliance to respond to the aid of the defending alliance. This does not chain to outside MDPs which are only linked to one signatory and not the other.

Grämlins attacked one signatory, not citing any outside MDPs. Your treaty is activated, and you have no conflicting obligations to any other parties. Going to do something about it?

53 Comments


Recommended Comments



Schatt, for the last time. I'm a mid-level government member in Invicta's Finance department.

If you think that makes me somehow responsible for all Invicta actions, you are sorely mistaken.

Link to comment

Schattenmann spoke, and lo! it was.

So which AA was I supposed to use in my cute retort, something other than the author's? Let's all put our logic hats on--what, you don't have one? Ok, you can borrow mine.

Link to comment

Your "argument" is "hurfdurf I'm in ur wiki interpretin' ur treeteez" You get a response in kind: "hurfdurf, whatcha gonna do about it?" Have you started interpreting the Codex for tomorrow's blog? Gremlins and IRON have been at war for weeks; you know that if they were going to do something about it, it's already been done, or that they're just not going to do something about it. IRON played chicken and ran their hotrod into a brick wall like a bunch of hootin'-hollerin' rednecks on a Saturday night in June. You had your pick of like 400 threads to lay this one down, but, ah! magic! there's nothing to stop you from "repeat blogs."

And, grow up and get over the ad hominem silver bullet (you wish). It doesn't work, especially when it doesn't apply. Your reply was dumb, it overlooked the simple, so-easy-a-toddler-can-do-it format of my reply. Sorry you missed out.

Link to comment

Gramlins engaged IRON in defence of an ally. Going by past precedent, such counter-declarations are not generally an automatic trigger for MDP's.

Grem actions since then do not particularly change that. I do not really believe anyone in IRON regards RnR as being in violation of their agreement.

Link to comment

What I find interesting is that the treaty doesn't have a "You started it, you're on your own" clause. Talk about poor wording.

Beyond that, I do believe Woody has made the only point that matters. Speculation is fun and all -- and let's face it, it makes up the bulk of the posts on the OWF -- but this is for other folks to talk about.

In the spirit of your entry, however:

"Does Invicta have a treaty with IRON or DAWN? If so, why isn't Invicta speaking to the alliances you surrendered to in order to seek a revision of your terms? If not, why don't you sign one and then speak to said alliances?"

Acta Non Verba and all that....

Link to comment

What I find interesting is that the treaty doesn't have a "You started it, you're on your own" clause. Talk about poor wording.

Well for the sake of the truth, IRON didn't attack Gramlins, Gramlins attacked IRON without any treaty obligation to do so.

Link to comment

Gremlins attacked IRON in defense of MK (an alliance which IRON hit without a treaty to do so either so don't start that). R&R was on the other side of the war. IRON knew this when they purposely sided against R&R and her allies. It's not R&R's fault that IRON joined the side aiming to destroy or bloody R&R and CnG.

You know as well as anyone else that sometimes alliances have to choose between sides. R&R chose the side their bloc and friends were in. IRON joined the side opposite of that. R&R doesn't have to bail IRON out because their side lost.

Now please, go away Invicta.

Let me illustrate this in a different way for you so that maybe you understand, Haflinger.

*IRON declares their intent to help bloody/destroy SF (R&R), ignoring their treaty with R&R to go a treaty-less route against them

*IRON loses

*IRON wants R&R's help achieving nicer peace terms than they're currently getting.

And quite frankly, it's not our fault that your side abandoned one on the field. Stop trying to throw the blame for your cowardy actions onto us.

Well for the sake of the truth, IRON didn't attack Gramlins, Gramlins attacked IRON without any treaty obligation to do so.

And IRON attacked the SF side instead of what they were obligated to do (defend it). So why should R&R bail them out when their "friends" left them on the battlefield?

Link to comment

R&R entered the war through their own choice too. Allies and friends should still be allies and friends even if they end up on opposite sides of other people's political wars.

Perhaps they should not be fighting for IRON, but I hope they are doing something.

And yeah, calling them out in public is probably not the way to get them to do so.

Link to comment

blah blah blah blah im trying to call out RnR who is clearly making their efforts to help out IRON blah blah blah

YOU TERRIBLE PEOPLE RNR HOW COULD YOU TRY TO RESOLVE IT DIPLOMATICALLY AND NOT GO TO WAR BECAUSE HAFLINGER TELLS YOU TO??

Seriously, stop. RnR isn't a bad alliance, and they are trying to help IRON. Til I see someone from IRON government state RnR isn't trying to help them, I will believe what I have been informed which is RnR is trying to help diplomatically. Let them resolve their own issues, as I hope both parties are capable of doing. Your nonsense doesn't matter, and no one agrees with it of any importance. You have bigwoody and BJ both telling you (who support IRON, to be clear) that you are wrong to do this, so why on earth would you think something like this would accomplish anything except you getting more negative attention?

Link to comment

Well for the sake of the truth, IRON didn't attack Gramlins, Gramlins attacked IRON without any treaty obligation to do so.

Oh, I know. I was commenting on the actual treaty itself, not trying to apply it to this situation.

Link to comment

Gremlins attacked IRON in defense of MK (an alliance which IRON hit without a treaty to do so either so don't start that). R&R was on the other side of the war. IRON knew this when they purposely sided against R&R and her allies. It's not R&R's fault that IRON joined the side aiming to destroy or bloody R&R and CnG.

You know as well as anyone else that sometimes alliances have to choose between sides. R&R chose the side their bloc and friends were in. IRON joined the side opposite of that. R&R doesn't have to bail IRON out because their side lost.

Now please, go away Invicta.

Let me illustrate this in a different way for you so that maybe you understand, Haflinger.

*IRON declares their intent to help bloody/destroy SF (R&R), ignoring their treaty with R&R to go a treaty-less route against them

*IRON loses

*IRON wants R&R's help achieving nicer peace terms than they're currently getting.

And quite frankly, it's not our fault that your side abandoned one on the field. Stop trying to throw the blame for your cowardy actions onto us.

And IRON attacked the SF side instead of what they were obligated to do (defend it). So why should R&R bail them out when their "friends" left them on the battlefield?

IRON declared against CnG not SF. thus, you whole "IRON declares their intent to help bloody/destroy SF (R&R)" bit is utter bs. in fact, IRON should have declared on FARK who is in SF but did not.

Link to comment

IRON declared against CnG not SF. thus, you whole "IRON declares their intent to help bloody/destroy SF (R&R)" bit is utter bs. in fact, IRON should have declared on FARK who is in SF but did not.

Wrong. They declared with TOP, and TOP said their intention was to bloody CnG AND SF.

Edit: Ohhhh I can't wait until I go rogue, Haflinger :)

Link to comment

Wrong. They declared with TOP, and TOP said their intention was to bloody CnG AND SF.

Edit: Ohhhh I can't wait until I go rogue, Haflinger :)

He's right on the point that IRON should have declared on SF signatories Fark or GOD who attacked NSO. They didn't really have any obligations to defend SF at all. Not attacking SF or using one of the other numerous available treaty lines is one of the reasons why IRON is where it is today.

Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...