Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About GearHead

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 04/14/1993

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Missouri, USA

Previous Fields

  • Sanctioned Alliance
  • Nation Name
  • Alliance Name
  • Resource 1
  • Resource 2

Recent Profile Visitors

886 profile views
  1. Before non-chaining treaties was the era of mass cancellations. End result was the same, just different method of achieving it. Arguably the mass cancellation tactic was much more volatile and made bigger waves in the political environment, but as alliances nowadays prefer to keep their friends, even if they end up on the wrong "side," non-chaining clauses have been inserted. imo. ^
  2. If they want respect in their personal lives, then they should consider respecting others' lives first. kthxbai.
  3. Yeah, we'll call it that. Just to make it sound better.
  4. Let me know if any of them live in my area. I'll be happy to give them an "OOC" visit.
  5. That right there just made my day. I applaud your humility to post of your experiences and also your talent to at least not make yourself look like a complete fool in front of everybody else. *cheers* Encore!
  6. Non-chaining is regarding wars caused by a signatory following another treaty. This iFOK/PC thing has nothing to do with anti-chaining clauses. I'll explain. An anti chain clause comes into effect when an ally follows a treaty partner into war, and is counter attacked as a result of this. For argument's sake, we'll consider these treaties as MDPs. So, if you have three alliances: Alliance A, B, and C. Alliance B is allied to both A and C, but Alliance A is not allied to C. Alliance A goes to war for whatever reason. Let's just say this alliance is defending his ally. Alliance A gets counter attacked and Alliance B joins in defense of Alliance A. Now, Alliance C's MDP with Alliance B has an anti chain clause. As a result of this clause, their defense of their ally (B) is regarded as optional because Alliance B is only involved in the war because of treaty chaining (this is where the name of the clause comes from ). So as you can see, this situation does not apply here, as NEW's involvement had nothing to do with any of its other treaty partners - it was completely on its own accord. Now, whether iFOK and PC's claim of NEW's war being aggressive is legit or not, that's a completely different argument that I won't get into. One could even argue that even though their attack on DF was aggressive, PC and iFOK are still required to back them up if counter attacked, since the oA clauses do not specify if the signatories should be obligated to be involved in this situation. There are different viewpoints on it and some would not view what happened as acceptable. This is evident in the fact that FEAR and WFF declared war in defense of NEW, while iFOK and PC sat out due to not wanting to partake in the Aggression clause. Personally, I probably would have called it Aggression too, and told NEW to pay up or shut up, but that may just be me. Edit: Actually, I probably wouldn't have been this harsh, or probably wouldn't be able to weasel out of it either, but I will tell you one thing: I wouldn't sign with an ally so stupid to put me in such a situation in the first place. Hope I helped clear some stuff up.
  7. GearHead


    You're a very neat person who I always thought I should get to know more, Mia. I will say that lurking in #tool without your presence there seems different.
  8. So was his name Rob Holmes by chance?
  9. Actually, he might be serious. I mean, it's completely plausible considering MK and Athens nations refused to trade with NATO nations before NATO moved to Blue... They were smart before, but not anymore.
  10. Well then, Voytek, you're denying facts proven by much more than high school students. And for the record, it was a genuine apology. And I honestly didn't know posting a very unassuming post in a blog would stir up the emotions of somebody. Gosh, I'm naive. Anyways, perhaps I should use a different anology, assuming there is some lack of choice that you seem to imply. There are fat kids, skinny kids, short kids, stupid kids, and even smart kids who get bullied and commit suicide all the time. Do they have a choice about who they are? No. Does it happen? Yes. Do you see people making crusades wearing shirts saying "being fat is cool"? No. Look, just like you, I condemn bullying - of any sort. However, I believe there is a reason schools have authority figures in place who can not only counsel a bully victim but also put sanctions in place in order to punish the offenders and hopefully alleviate the situation. Past that, there are legal authorities who can get involved, because bullying is nearly synonymous with harassment, which is an offense. The world we live in is tough, Voytek. Thankfully in democratic societies such as the USA, there is a way to get help. This help is pointless, though, if it's never used. In conclusion, if you want to make a difference, instead of spending 15 dollars on a T-shirt that you'll wear once and never wear again, lobby your school district or other local representative to initiate an anti-bullying campaign in your local schools. My school has anti-bullying posters all over the place, and even had an event this year speaking out against cyber bullying. Do your local schools do this? I guarantee it'll be worth the effort.
  11. Woah woah woah, it's not time to throw sand yet... Yes, I am one of "Those People" who know that there is no proven gay gene and that it is indeed a choice. Do I discriminate against them for that choice? No. Do I support people bullying them for that choice? No. Would I buy another shirt and wear it for a day for some people who committed suicide? No. Sorry if I offended anybody here. Didn't know it was that easy.
  12. I suppose you'd also be willing to wear black in memoriam of the emos who commit suicide too.
  13. While I really don't agree with wearing purple to school/work because of the suicides of a few gays, this guy is nuts. All he really had to do was contact his boss privately and say it was against his moral values to wear purple in memoriam of a few homosexuals. Instead, he posted it on facebook for all his friends and friends of friends to see, and ended up offending a large number of people. Unnecessary. Yeah, he'll probably lose his job.
  14. Haha, funny story. Thanks for sharing. I'll now think twice before ever thinking about posting a video DoW.
  • Create New...