Jump to content

Tygaland

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,820

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Tygaland

  1. Tygaland
    Do you even read what you post? Thankfully the NPO is never called in in a hostage situation. NPO: "Job done guys! Both dead" Police Command: "Err, what? Both...you killed the hostage?" NPO: "No. We just shot the bad guy" Police Command: "You said two are dead...who else was killed?" NPO: "Oh, yeah we shot the hostage because they were standing next to the bad guy..." Police Command: "..." NPO: "We didn't go out of our way to shoot them, they were just in the way..." Police Command: "So, it was one shot and it ricocheted and hit the hostage? Or did the hostage attacked you?" NPO: "Nah, they didn't do anything, we went up and put a bullet in the back of their head" Police Command: "FFS..." NPO: "I can haz commendation nao?"
  2. Tygaland
    Nah, we got this. :P
  3. Tygaland
    I can't say I have seen anyone from the STA take offense. On the contrary, we fully expected what has happened.
  4. Tygaland
    The rest of what?
  5. Tygaland
    Happy to do what we can!
  6. Tygaland
    If more join us then that is great. If not then so be it.
  7. Tygaland
    Siberian Tiger Alliance Declaration The Siberian Tiger Alliance has long prided itself on standing by her allies through good times and bad. In recent days our good friends at The Phoenix Federation were pre-emptively attacked by a bloc calling itself Oculus. Such actions are sadly commonplace in the modern Cyberverse but one alliance alone showed a treachery which is even shocking by those standards. The New Pacific Order attacked The Phoenix Federation as part of this coalition despite The Phoenix Federation being a loyal ally to the New Pacific Order for many years over which The Phoenix Federation stood by the New Pacific Order in good times and bad and burned many times in defense of their ally. Again, this is bad enough but to attack such an alliance in order to obtain "more targets" for their war on MI6 makes their actions even more disgraceful. It is because of this that the Siberian Tiger Alliance declares war on the New Pacific Order in defence of her allies, The Phoenix Federation. Fight well Tigers! Za Sibir'! Crown Prince Mishka of Tygaland Supreme Chancellor of the Siberian Tiger Alliance High Priest and Grand Arbiter of the Cybernations Church of Moralism
  8. Tygaland
    You have said all that needs to be said. Treachery may win power briefly but it will never win respect. Fight well, good friends!
  9. Tygaland
    I was only responding to what you actually said. You said lose which is quite clear in its meaning so don't get upset with me for your poor choice of words.
  10. Tygaland
    It makes the difference I referred to in my last reply to you. It states your main concern is losing not so much the alliances you are chained to in that war. As I said, it implies that you would chain in on the winning side for the same alliances you profess to loathe.
  11. Tygaland
    Yes, I didn't really get onto the topic of situations where your ally specifically requested you do not activate the treaty because it never really came up. If my ally asked we not assist them then I would honour that request. I understand there is a lot of diplomatic subtlety, there always has been to some extent. Most of the subtlety is to manipulate wars and some of the subtlety is about a subtle as a sledgehammer but it is there. I think the word or value of a treaty is no longer held in any regard. They can be dismissed, ignored or twisted to a shape they were never meant to hold in order to justify or facilitate a certain action at a certain time. Ghost-chains being one of the more obvious manifestations of this. But, I realise I'm old-fashioned so am content to sit back and watch as the "new ways" roll on across the Cyberverse with a sentimental eye to the past when a treaty was an agreement between two alliances that genuinely swore to uphold that treaty rather than it being a cog in a larger machine.
  12. Tygaland
    The word you used was "lose", not "burn". It is pretty clear what lose means. It is obvious my use of the term "declining" is referring to declining to assist not declining to enact the non-chaining clause. The reasons I posted were some valid reasons for enacting the non-chaining clause. Avoiding defeat was the one example I provided as a non-valid reason for enacting the non-chaining clause. That may be one reason but you emphasised "lose" in your initial comments which lends me to conclude you'd be happy to chain in on the winning side regardless of who your friend's friends are. Upgrading to chaining removed all the other possibilities which may lead an alliance to want to activate the non-chaining clause. Saying that if I do not agree with you then the non-chaining clause is useless is incorrect. Correct, when I sign a defensive treaty with another alliance my default setting is to defend them when they are in need. The non-chaining aspect comes in when something else occurs that may mean we, as an alliance, will not defend that ally. I mentioned a couple of scenarios earlier and there are probably more. If you let a new ally know that you won't defend them if they are going to lose and they are OK with that then no problem. I can't fathom ever agreeing to such a treaty but then again I'm not mainstream. When the STA and TPF signed a treaty we both specified at the time that if the STA went in defending NpO or the TPF went in defending the NPO then neither party was obligated to defend the other. As of now those treaties between the STA and NpO and TPF and the NPO no longer exist so it doesn't come into consideration anymore. The reason I raise this is because I'm perfectly fine with these agreements before the treaty is agreed and signed.
  13. Tygaland
    I didn't misunderstand you at all. You clearly stated that you would not defend an ally with whom you held a non-chaining defense treaty if that ally was on the losing side of the war. No, I meant what I said. Why a non-chaining clause would be activated. Not activating a non-chaining clause would be when you would go to war to assist an ally despite that ally going to war via another treaty. That is, chaining in. As for the mainstream thing it is probably more a reflection of how low standards have sunk that your policy is "mainstream" than anything else, Granted some of the reasons could equally apply to a chaining defense treaty but if you sign chaining defense treaties then you should do due diligence and make sure that those reasons would not occur or would only occur in the most unlikely of circumstances. Where you and I differ is that a treaty between my alliance is more than just the clauses on the treaty itself. It is a sign of friendship and respect as well as a defensive treaty. You, on the other hand, treat them much differently and see them more as something to enact when it suits you and ignore when it doesn't. But that is just me and my non-mainstream crazy-talk. There is nothing in what I said that makes an optional clause mandatory. What I said bases itself on the fact that the alliance you signed the treaty with has enough respect for you that they would exercise that option only in situations where their hands were tied. I never claimed it did. Ironic you dismiss my comments as "misunderstanding" your argument then proceed to misrepresent my argument in the same reply. As for not lasting long as a leader, I'll leave that up to others to decide. I have lead my alliance for over 7 years so I'm not sure how much longer I have to go to be a long-lasting leader. Perhaps someone like yourself who is switched-on with the mainstream can let me know. I'll just sit over here in my rocking chair relaxing and remembering better times when a treaty meant more than a collection of clauses and a bunch of e-lawyers looking to weasel out of the treaty when the excrement and fan collided.
  14. Tygaland
    It won't be for long. I just read a couple of posts where someone from an alliance that pre-emptively hit an old ally "because we needed targets" said that they never wanted TPF to be harmed (despite their own alliance declaring war on TPF for not reason at all) and then blaming MI6 for holding TPF hostage despite MI6 saying they were not going to request assistance from TPF or any other ally. It is this kind an aneurism-inducing double-think nonsense that makes me wonder why I read anything posted here at all. Does the person posting this guff actually believe it? I mean, I'm up with propaganda and twisting the truth to try and make something unpalatable seem palatable but this...wow. And just a minor correction, I have a Y-chromosome. :P
  15. Tygaland
    Thanks for that cutting insight. I particularly love your decree that any outrage is "faux". Of course no one could possibly be genuinely angry that an alliance decided to pre-emptively attack a former ally who had burned for them many times for the reason "we needed more targets". Anyway, I am sure you got an Oculus elephant stamp for your savage risposte.
  16. Tygaland
    Hahahahaha! Thanks man, I needed good laugh to start the day.
  17. Tygaland
    Then you don't sound like very good allies to me.
  18. Tygaland
    I don't really determine who my friends are by how popular they are with the "powers that be". If you or your alliance wants to forfeit all agency and have "the powers that be" decide who you can and cannot be allied to then that is your choice to make. If allies decide whether to defend my alliance based on whether we are on the winning side or not then they aren't very good allies in my opinion. There are a number of valid reasons why a non-chaining clause might be activated. Other treaty obligations, your ally may already be at war on the opposing side so unable to assist you or you may be at war with their other allies so they sit the war out to name but a few reasons. But declining because you don't want to be on the losing side isn't one I'd consider to be valid at all. Just my opinion, of course.
  19. Tygaland
    Yeah, his ODN badge was misleading.
  20. Tygaland
    Your point about non-chaining treaties stands and I agree with you as the treaty between the STA and ODN is non-chaining. So, any defence of the STA by the ODN would be voluntary and not mandated by treaty if we are drawn into a war via another treaty. With respect to "toxic allies" we are allied to you and TPF neither of which I consider to be "toxic". I am not aware of any reason why TPF would have been pre-emptively hit that would make me consider them "toxic". But to go further, we defend all our allies. If we considered an alliance to be "toxic" we would not hold a treaty with them. Of course, what constitutes "toxic" is completely subjective as there are many alliances I consider to be toxic with plenty of allies.
  21. Tygaland
    There truly is no limit to their genius.
  22. Tygaland
    I don't see why you needed to edit my words. I figured the "aggressive war" part was implied when speaking of a pre-emptive attack. As I'm not connected with Oculus at all I cannot speak as to whether they have any other targets in mind.
  23. Tygaland
    An ally being pre-emptively hit. Hmmm, its a puzzler.
  24. Tygaland
    I spy with my little eye something beginning with T.
  25. Tygaland
    Good, I hate soup.
×
×
  • Create New...