King Srqt Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Your sarcastic remarks do little to answer or address in any rational way the issue raised. Fact of the matter is they are still legally bound to you for the next 5 days and as long as they did not pass along any info (which to the best of my knowledge they did not and I would most likely know if they did) any impending war plans that you may have are certainly still relevant to their interest as they are still, at least on paper, your allies for the coming days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) Please refer to my post 4 posts above yours. We haven't been "all good" with our treaties for awhile. My Bad I missed it, I sincerely apologize for that. Still I don't understand the point of requesting classified info 5 mins before bailing. I hope it was used to assess your own security and used internally and hope such remains the case. Obviously, you cannot expect everyone to take your word on it in present environment. Perhaps maybe only time can be the best measure of credibility. Good Luck Nemesis. Edited April 17, 2009 by shahenshah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabonnobar Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Two wrongs do not equal a right."This side" has spent YEARS complaining of the injustices perpetrated by "that side". Then, when some of the same things happen to "that side", "this side" suddenly seems to think they're ok because "That side did it first". No. It's still not ok. A wrong is a wrong, regardless of whether or not you are friends with the perpetrator. THIS! GOD I knew I loved STA. This says in two sentences what has taken me paragraphs (in other fora ) to say. The anti-NPO side is 'evil' "as well", but still try to claim the moral high ground. Sorry, but you fail there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Fact of the matter is they are still legally bound to you for the next 5 days and as long as they did not pass along any info (which to the best of my knowledge they did not and I would most likely know if they did) any impending war plans that you may have are certainly still relevant to their interest as they are still, at least on paper, your allies for the coming days. It would be very funny if they got bashed for being ally or one of the six after trying to sneak out the back door. I doubt it is grounded in reality but it still makes me laugh thinking about it. I feel a paradox forming (not you TOP ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 It would be very funny if they got bashed for being ally or one of the six after trying to sneak out the back door. I doubt it is grounded in reality but it still makes me laugh thinking about it. I would completely support LoSS upholding all their treaties at all times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejarue Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 pfft Far as I'm concerned, treaties that were essentially signed under duress don't count anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) I would completely support LoSS upholding all their treaties at all times. Fair play pfftFar as I'm concerned, treaties that were essentially signed under duress don't count anyway. Interesting take on a legally binding treaty that could create fun and games in the future. The moral compass of the moral high ground crowd seems to have disappeared from some alliances in the last few days. The harassment of GATO, supporting alliances who try and pry information from allies minutes from a treaty cancellation and choosing which treaties are legal or not paints a not so rosy picture of the "moral" side of the world. Edited April 17, 2009 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Reverie Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 The comment you quoted was about requesting private intel after you have decided to cancel, which is not the right thing to do for any side. I don't see how LoSS's enslavement or Polaris' past history are in any way relevant to the classification of this as a mistake and the acceptance of a lesson learned. In my opinion, politely expressing concern over an alliance who asked for intel as they were canceling a treaty, as I have done, is constructive both for LoSS and the community as a whole.Your black and white idea that any criticism of an alliance is tacit support of the perceived opposition is both wrong and insulting. However, the fact that you care deeply for LoSS given your past history with them is reason enough to make you sensitive of any criticisms they might receive and I can't hold it against you too heavily. I refferenced your quote because LoSS has not breached anyone's trust. It was mhawk who brought the war issue to light. Perhaps it was the intel that was the cause of the treaty cancelation and not the other way around. Perhaps, you know, having high level treaties like those you'd expect to be kept in the loop. Only instead you find out alliance plan to roll on yet another offensive war and want to drag you along once the !@#$ hits the fan. LoSS has never been an alliance that picks a fight and they have a DEFEND you allies belief structure. I find it amazing they were able to maintain those treaties as long as they did in spite of tC and 1V's constant waring every few months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itastenice Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 As stated in the OP, all involved parties were informed about the suspension before it was officially anounced, and LoSS is honoring the cancellation period of each respective treaty from the time of this anouncement. What exactly is illegal about that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejarue Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Interesting take on a legally binding treaty that could create fun and games in the future. The moral compass of the moral high ground crowd seems to have disappeared from some alliances in the last few days. The harassment of GATO, supporting alliances who try and pry information from allies minutes from an illegal treaty cancellation and choosing which treaties are legal or not paints a not so rosy picture of the "moral" side of the world. I'm forced to make assumptions about what has happened here. And the conclusion I come to is the suspicion that LoSS didn't like what their "allies" (who they are essentially forced to ally with because of the situation they were in coming out of their surrender) were doing, had a wake-up call, and decided to change their situation. They were in a lose-lose. It didn't matter what they did. They just took the route that would serve them best instead of the route that would continue serving best those that they were previously at the mercy of. Either way someone was going to call them something; choose from cowards, lapdogs, bandwagoners, losers... the list would go on and you know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 I'm forced to make assumptions about what has happened here. If this is the same force that was used against them to sign the six treaties it is truly the most awesome force on Bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Reverie Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 ...minutes from an illegal treaty cancellation Since when was this illegal. You must be getting dizzy trying to spin that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Ratz Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 They were in a lose-lose. It didn't matter what they did. They just took the route that would serve them best instead of the route that would continue serving best those that they were previously at the mercy of. this pretty much sums it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) Since when was this illegal. You must be getting dizzy trying to spin that one. Freudian slip or human error, its been corrected. Thanks for your assistance Edited April 17, 2009 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wu Tang Clan Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Since when was this illegal. You must be getting dizzy trying to spin that one. I agree. There is nothing wrong with this announcement. o/ LoSS (never thought I'd say that one) o/ Black Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 They were in a lose-lose. It didn't matter what they did. They just took the route that would serve them best instead of the route that would continue serving best those that they were previously at the mercy of. This guy gets it. Listen to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jipps Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 I agree. There is nothing wrong with this announcement.o/ LoSS (never thought I'd say that one) o/ Black Yes, because theres nothing wrong with extracting information from an ally right before you cancel. Also nothing wrong with suspending nearly all of your treaties do to 'restructutring' and 15 minutes later signing a treaty with another alliance. Seems to me like someone abused the allies they've had for months and with war on the horizon, decides to switch sides. Technically theres nothing wrong with that, but good luck on every getting trust from anyone LoSS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) Yes, because theres nothing wrong with extracting information from an ally right before you cancel. Also nothing wrong with suspending nearly all of your treaties do to 'restructutring' and 15 minutes later signing a treaty with another alliance.Seems to me like someone abused the allies they've had for months and with war on the horizon, decides to switch sides. Technically theres nothing wrong with that, but good luck on every getting trust from anyone LoSS. Its the brave new moral world you've been hearing about, but first morality needs to be binned to bring about this moral utopia. It will be brought back later...I swear. Edited April 17, 2009 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Yes, because theres nothing wrong with extracting information from an ally right before you cancel. Also nothing wrong with suspending nearly all of your treaties do to 'restructutring' and 15 minutes later signing a treaty with another alliance. Them signing with Nemesis is part of the restructuring. Is that really so hard to comprehend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) Yes, because theres nothing wrong with extracting information from an ally right before you cancel. Also nothing wrong with suspending nearly all of your treaties do to 'restructutring' and 15 minutes later signing a treaty with another alliance.Seems to me like someone abused the allies they've had for months and with war on the horizon, decides to switch sides. Technically theres nothing wrong with that, but good luck on every getting trust from anyone LoSS. Are you all going to ignore the point that LoSS is still tied to TPF for 5 days which is within the time frame of the war according to the intelligence everyone on Planet Bob with a pulse has gotten. How is it that they are not entitled to that info again? Edited April 17, 2009 by KingSrqt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) How is this treaty cancellation at all illegal (they followed the cancellation clause as written in the treaty in a time of peace)? They also shouldn't have had to pry info from anyone first of all they should have been in the loop and second of all they had every right to ask for that info since they are still bound to TPF through that treaty for the next 5 days.Are you all going to ignore the point that LoSS is still tied to TPF for 5 days which is within the time frame of the war according to the intelligence everyone on Planet Bob with a pulse has gotten. How is it that they are not entitled to that info again? http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1422865 Its explained here. Your version is the updated one. Edited April 17, 2009 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1422865Its explained here. Your version is the updated one. You must have edited it while I was reading the post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 You must have edited it while I was reading the post That plan was a year in the making...checkmate :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Yes, because theres nothing wrong with extracting information from an ally right before you cancel. Perhaps the fact that they felt the need to "extract" information in the first place is part of the issue. I don't know about you, but I like to know in advance if my allies are going to war, what date, and with whom and I'll be damned if I have to hunt someone down and request that information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Perhaps the fact that they felt the need to "extract" information in the first place is part of the issue. I don't know about you, but I like to know in advance if my allies are going to war, what date, and with whom and I'll be damned if I have to hunt someone down and request that information. except, you know, they're not planning on going to war with PC, or else mhawk wouldn't have said anything about it on these forums. 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.