The Crimson King
-
Posts
256 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by The Crimson King
-
-
The fingerpointing in this thread is actually pretty funny.
The ONLY reason CD is back in this war is because MK and Umb decided to hit a few nations in NSO's mid ranges that cycled out of PM onto a few goons targets. Had MK or Umb decided to post a DoW when they claim they initially considered themselves at war rather than expecting people to mindread, guess what....CD would still be out of the war....had MK and Umb decided to not engage targets they were not at war with officially...guess what...CD would still be out of the war. Had MK and Umb just decided to post a blanket DOW on everyone a month ago the first time this issue arose...you guess it...CD would still be out of the war.
But instead here we are 6 weeks later still arguing over what does and does not constitute an act of war, who gets to define it, when it starts, and various other mind numbing e-lawyer hot topics, which all could have been easily avoided with a simple one line post by those declaring war saying they are actually declaring war. IF you decide to you want to be "edgy" and declare on anyone and everyone whenever you want without telling anyone, expect grey areas like this to be popping up.
[quote name='potato' timestamp='1299521493' post='2655561']
Umbrella DID sign the surrender terms. And they see it as a breach, as Xavii and Roq pointed out.
[/quote]
Which makes it even worse than. What you are saying here, and Roq is so proudly trumpeting, is that he signed terms with an alliance allied to someone engaged on the front Umb was fighting.....allowed a term in the surrender document that will give that alliance the right to declare on anyone who hit their treaty partners down the line....and then went out and started attacking a treaty partner of the that alliance with whom they have never been at war with up to that point.
So Umb was dumb enough to start attacking NSO with full knowledge of the terms CD had, and still did not take the 10 seconds to post a DoW, thus allowing CD's re-entry into the conflict through the same terms they drafted to keep them out. I appreciate the fact they keep pointing this out for everyone. -
[quote name='Daikos' timestamp='1299184879' post='2651430']
Please try to keep up. When you have all of your upper tier cowering in peace mode and are fighting alliances with a large upper tier (Umbrella AVG NS: 80k for example) it becomse impossible for them to produce offensiev wars since hurr durr there are no targets in range.
[/quote]
UMb ans has nothing to do with it. There is a pool on nations in range on both sides that are capable of declaring wars on each other. Those stats reflect the total ammt of active wars currently going on within that pool of nations. It did not state how many wars are outgoing or incoming by aa. Just how many wars each aa is engaged in. This totals the wars for this side. If you did the same stats for the other side, and added them up, you would wind up with the same number.
It is a simple sum of wars and it is an equation by which side A has to equate to side B. -
[quote name='Daikos' timestamp='1299170571' post='2651193']
Nothing like pointing out just how pathetic your coalition is. To think that some of you actually claim to be winning.
[/quote]
Obviously you put zero thought into this gem of a post.
That is the number of wars we are actively involved in both incoming and outgoing. Therefore what ever you think this says about our coalition, it says the exact same thing about the other side, since this is a contained conflict with everyone fighting each other. -
Most I had this war in one night was 10. Got hit on the 11th
-
Congrats to the newly appointed government members
-
[quote name='Greev' timestamp='1298993760' post='2648124']
Will they emit it?
[/quote]
Eye no KNOT..... -
I am not sure what the OP thinks they are proving here. I sense you think you are on to something juicy but really you offered up nothing aside from the fact that NSO would have entered for STA if NPO was not preempted (something which was already known) and that TPF was requested to sit out by STA originally (again something everyone knew).
IF the point was to show everyone that I was banging the drum for 4 days prior to the preempt that one was going to happen then you succeeded marvelously.
IF on the other hand you are trying to prove that NPO was going to get into the war by showing that people wanted to keep them out of the war, then I would have to question how that logic works.
Also as it has been pointed out in a thread apparently about npo/nso/polar/tpf you have logs of one ruler (Myself) containing all of 4 lines saying I told NPO to get ready for a preemptive strike, which also matches up to why they started beefing up on mil and heading to PM. So unless you got something from the other 3 emperors or something further from myself all you really managed to show was that I cautioned allies against a preempt before it happened, which is why NSO did not enter for STA.
Bravo? -
I seriously cannot believe peace mode is still being argued......
-
[quote name='Hidraca' timestamp='1297618101' post='2631233']
What language did I use to indicate that?
Usually when a nation applies to an Alliance the alliance asks the nation, Do you have any enemies?
If the nation is responsible they'll say yes. Said Alliance would then come to the offended party and ask the nature of the offence. I would say that if both the new Alliance and the offensive nation act respectfully in talks then both parties have nothing to worry about.
Also as an aside, If we notice an EoG member moved to an alliance without telling them his status. We will take it on ourselves to speak with the new alliance. Again depending on how respectful this process is both parties can get a favorable outcome.
[/quote]
Except in the situation we are discussing the ruler in question was not on the EoG list and was in an alliance already.
You still put him on the EoG list (for talking smack on the forums) and are now claiming that he is open to attacks
Now granted, first off this serves zero purpose because you are already at war with NPO, so why you felt the need to single out an individual member to say he is open for attacks is beyond me, since it is a given since you are at war with his alliance.
On the other hand this does say that he will be open to attacks even after his alliance peaces out this conflict (whenever that may be) unless he complies with further terms separate of those from his alliance, simply because he is speaking out in a time of war against the alliance that actually attacked his aa. This is what everyone is commenting on here.
So yes, your reply regarding how alliance should not accept EoG members is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand -
Let the Lord of Chaos Rule
o/ -
[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1297458402' post='2629612']
You know what, nevermind, welcome back to the EoG list.
[/quote]
Did you really just say you are placing a member in good standing of an alliance on the EoG list for something they said on the OWF.
I believe brilliant political move would aptly apply here. -
[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1297407796' post='2629078']
Your "top 200" statistic is flawed because they had more in peace mode at ranges smaller than that, in the top 50, top 100, etc.
[/quote]
They had 136 nations above 50k on the 25th. They have 52 now. As a percentage base naturally they had more as they went up (when you have one nation over 150k and he goes to PM it is easy to say ...look they have 100% over 150k in pm), I already agreed on this point. I am not sure why we are arguing it.
[quote]
The [i]intent[/i] was to send them to peace.
[/quote]
Their intent was also to sit out of the war, but that did not stop you from declaring on them and starting this war in the first place.
[quote]
One half fighting involuntarily doesn't excuse the other half.
So not fighting because you're at a disadvantage isn't cowardice now? Running away from a fight is now "common sense"? I'm sorry if I disagree with that. And I don't think that's something that TPF would disagree with as well.
[/quote]
Nice try at spinning that but that is not even close to what I have been arguing in this thread. What I have said (and just about everyone agrees with except you) is that the nations are there right now for strategic reasons. That is a portion of the battlefield that they (we) cannot legitimately control at this time, so they are focusing their efforts on that which they can. They have no pressing need to release those forces from PM at this time. If there is no pressure driving the top tier from pm then they would either need something to change strategically for them to release the troops or they would need some sort of pressure from the enemy to yield the ground. As of right now the strategic outlook on that front has not changed, and the attempt that you have come up with to get them to yield the ground and send their troops into a suicide charge basically amounts to a 5 year old sticking their tongue out and yelling "na na na na na you are a wussy"
So yes, ignoring your "callout" is most certainly common sense. -
[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1297399230' post='2628895']
The percentage in peace mode got higher as you went, they had more than that at the top ranks.
[/quote]
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. I assume you mean that they had more nations in the top half of the aa in pm, which again is to be expected. Not sure why this is a revelation.
[quote]
More would have gotten to peace if we hadn't stopped the flight to peace mode short with our declaration.
[/quote]
What the hell does this have to do with anything? There are a lot of things they may have done if you did not declare on them when you did, but guess what, none of them have any bearing on this conversation since you did actually declare on them.
[quote]
"Only" keeping 50% of your high tier nations in peace mode is still cowardly.
[/quote]
when that top 50% contains 35 k nations who already got a round of war in, no it does not.
You are the only person aside from the OP in this thread legitimately trying to play the coward card. See now here is the thing if they had started the war then realized they were not going to win and ran to PM you may have an argument. But you attacked them with a vastly outnumbered and superior upper tier, failed to set up the op in a fashion that kept them from getting to PM, and are now crying over your screw up. They are in a position where they hold no advantage in that range, thus why you are so eager to get them out in the open. What you are basically saying here is "Hey guys, once you drop PM we will take a minumum of 3 nations with substantially higher NS and tech levels and jump you cause we know you can't defend yourselves there....wait...you don't want to walk headlong into that....pfft cowards" Refusing to toss their upper tier on the fire for your entertainment after you started the war is simple common sense. -
[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1297397688' post='2628867']
Yup.
How on earth is a pre-emptive strike cowardly?
Staying in peace mode is an effective (and accepted) strategy if you are using it for tactical reasons in a war. For example to use it as a reprieve to get out of anarchy and rebuild your nuclear stockpile and so you are ready to launch attacks and staggers when you get out. That isn't cowardly, and it's a common strategy. Using it as a way to avoid war entirely with no intention to ever come out until after the war is over IS cowardly. Y'all are doing the latter.
[/quote]
Quit being obtuse, you know damn well that their top 80 (or whatever number we are going for this war) are only the top 80 because the other nations that were there got beat down. They had less that 50% of their top 200 in PM when the war started. Over 100 nations in their top 3rd have taken a beating already. The number 80 nation in pm that you are calling out here is at 38k ns. Sorry but the cry to grab your torch and pitchforks and root out the NPO top tier for their crimes holds no weight here.
And yes, holding back banks is also something that has been commonplace for a long period of time. Now we can debate the concept of using "bank nations" in this day and age, but regardless the idea of holding back a certain number of cash rich nations to help rebuild an aa after a long and drawn out conflict is not a new concept, nor is it cowardly. It is simple common sense. -
[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1297396387' post='2628835']
Most of those nations hit peace mode BEFORE we declared. We moved up our declaration because of it, as lots of NPO were hitting peace.
[/quote]
Thus why I said:
[quote]
So the fact that there are 80 nations you want out of PM simply shows that there are either 80 nations you failed to do anything with in your initial blitz [b]or your opsec was not good enough before you hit, and NPO was tipped off and had time to get people to PM.[/b]
[/quote]
The point still stands, those nations are there due to your failure. -
[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1297384799' post='2628530']
If they think that we are going to let them get peace with all these people in peace mode they are sorely mistaken.
[/quote]
Then perhaps you should not have let them get to PM in the first place.
See that is the amazing thing about callouts like this. These nations are obviously not in perpetual peace mode, they went there because of this war.
Now in Karma you tried this argument because NPO entered the war first, and had the ability to set itself with PM however it saw fit before any counter was declared. In this situation you guys had the not only a statistical advantage in the upper tiers, but you also had the element of surprise. So the fact that there are 80 nations you want out of PM simply shows that there are either 80 nations you failed to do anything with in your initial blitz or your opsec was not good enough before you hit, and NPO was tipped off and had time to get people to PM.
Either way, those nations are there because of your failure. -
[quote name='xoindotnler' timestamp='1297371842' post='2628271']
Oh hey this again.
[/quote]
Actually, while I can see that on the face of it this it appears to be another attempt by someone to champion the totally discredited stance that the use of PM is not the widely accepted strategy most reasonable people consider it to be, but is in fact the move of a coward, it really is oh so much more.
The problem is that for the argument to have weight, it would require that the central premise of the OP, that NPO is hiding their top tiers while their allies burn, is actually correct. But as has already been pointed out ad nauseum in other threads, their allies are also in PM in the same ranges.
So one would have to question exactly who the OP wants NPO to come of PM to defend, since no one is getting hit in the the top tier that they are calling them cowardly for hiding in.
Because they managed to overlook this simple fact, the OP in fact makes your standard "lolpeacemode" thread look like fine literature in comparison to what is presented here. -
[quote name='denkimon' timestamp='1297347302' post='2627942']
good to know that when 12 alliances declare on us, it's only PART of 12 alliances that declare on us. As in, the PART you need to use in your mathematical garbage. I mean really? You really believe this? How long did you spend contriving this utter crap?
Well anyway my (personal anecdote of wartime domination / peace mode joke / 12 v 1 reminder) completely neutralizes your argument. Also Schatt sucks.
[/quote]
This is the best you can come up with? This basically reads, well someone is calling us on the BS we are throwing around and using the numbers we threw out there to do so...quick...denounce common sense as mathematical garbage.
Congrats you also have the ability to count to 12.
By that same logic you are using, a situation where 30 aa's with 2 members a piece declared on goons would also be cause for GOONS to cry curbstomp, and post a thread on how you will not be disbanding in the face of this onslaught. You starting to see why the number of aa's that hit you has no bearing to the question at hand yet? -
[quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1297353550' post='2628003']
Lets sum this up as its like 10 days old.
Some MCXA members were pissed that Valhalla and TPF didnt defend us.
TPF's Response: "You didnt defend us in the current war"
Even though the Doomhouse front didnt exist when we entered. Then your get mad we didnt defend you in Doomhouse-NPO. What goes around comes around. Not only that TPF should respect that our terms were that we not to enter in any of the war fronts for the remainder of the war. Honestly ive lost all respect for TPF, they only care to shield Pacifica now. I once would of loved to call TPF a good friend but I cant really comment on that now.
[color="#FF0000"][center]All opinions are those of my own.[/center][/color]
[/quote]
Nice try, but not even close.
TPF is in no way upset that you are "not defending us" in this war. Our concerns about your entry and exit from this war were voiced to your trium, and they know where they lie.
As far as why your membership was pissed, that sounds like something they need to take up with the existing trium then, because obviously they are not getting anything close to the entire story regarding the communication we had with you in regards to this war. So I haven't the slightest idea where the "TPF is upset we did not defend them" is coming from. We told your gov, on the night you notified us you were entering, that we had intel that we/NPO were going to be pre-empted shortly. At that point it was clear that we would be on separate paths and fronts in this war.
Our concern was not with your choice of allies to defend but rather the strategic implication of the targets you chose. I provided SCY with my opinion, told him it was just that, and he can take it or leave it. He chose to leave it and that is fine. But you guys knew the deal going in. I laid out the exact counter that I though was going to happen if you went in (you would get countered by the majority of CnG, specifically ODN) and that you would have little to no back up support on that front because MK and co were going to pre empt NPO. Your response was that you did not care, you felt that your entry would force surrenders from a specific list of aa's on the other side, and that you had more than enough firepower to take on ODN and co for a long time should they counter.
The exact situation you wound up in was discussed as an extreme high probability with your trium prior to your entry. All I can do as an ally is provide you with my take of what I feel would transpire given the choices you were making. The situation was outlined clearly for your gov, and they knew the risks going in, and the back-up they would have available. They also understood that NPO being hit would obviously draw us to defend our direct MADP partner rather than chaining in onto a front where you entered on an ODP bloc, and told us point blank that you would not be requesting assistance from any allies.
This is not an "I told you post", it is simply clearing this up since you seem hell bent on dragging this out on the owf. Our concerns around your departure from this war had nothing to do with a non re-entry clause or anything of the sort there either and again your Tri is informed about what our concerns were there as well.
You wound up in the situation you did because of the choices of your government, who knew damn well the lay of the land before they made the decision for MCXA to enter and what they were walking into. If you are unhappy with the outcome of the war, then I suppose you have two choices. You can either come out here and blame everyone around you (which is what you are doing in this thread) or you can get the facts and properly inform your membership of what transpired, analyze where your mistakes were made, and realize that the reason you wound up in the situation you did was because of yourselves and no one else. That may actually get you on the track to fixing whatever issues you see with the outcome of this war. Once again, this is simply my advice, and you are free to take it or leave it.
Edit for spelling -
[quote name='mattski133' timestamp='1297313739' post='2627691']
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. It's common knowledge your side put most or all of their 30k nations and above into peace mode. That is basically a fixed number. In fact, since GOONS came out swinging, our number is the one most likely to have risen by the 17 or so nations that got knocked into that range.
As far as declaring on NPO, you're going to say we can't count our wars against them, despite 45%, yes 45% using your own figure, of all wars against NPO were from GOONS? It doesn't matter at all that NPO couldn't declare on us. We still had hundreds of war slots engaged when the Hopeless Coalition got on its feet and attacked.
How many slots does it take to successfully stagger in the 30k and lower range? Probably 3 bro. At least 2. Which would be somewhere around 500-750 declarations against. I don't think you quite got there.
EDIT: and our lower ranks are more active than our upper ranks, really, to say that any GOONS nation is inactive is sort of wrong. we're no legion.
[/quote]
Way to go, you missed the point completely.
See what was once again being argued is that you were somehow "piled on". This has been a common theme in the GOON sympathy cry since you were countered.
Now obviously if you are claiming that you were piled on that means, by definition, you feel that a disproportionate number of nations declared on you compared to the slots you have open or nations in the ranges targeted. See it does not matter if we targeted the entire aa, or just 35 k or 45 k or whatever. If you want to claim that you are being piled on it means that in whatever range we declared we would have committed a vastly larger ammt of nations than what you had available in that range.
So the question once again comes back to one of simple math. There is obviously a benchmark somewhere as far as number of nations counter declaring on you that we have somehow surpassed thus taking this out of the realm of a counter and into the realm of a curbstomp or pile-on or whatever other terms you plan on using.
Obviously you are aware that your nation count in the ranges we targeted vastly outnumbers that of most aa's, and that there would need to a "pool" of aa's required ot hit that range, so your argument that you got countered by 12 aa's is useless (To illustrate this point...if 20 aa's the size of Sanitarium declared on you would it be a curb-stomp...of course not). So therefore the number of aa's is a straw man in relation to the argument that you are making. The real question is how many nation would you consider overkill to counter 270 nations with 100% of their slots open given the considerations I outlined in the first post.
Once you provide that answer, which will define the point where a counter changed to a pile on in your eyes, then we can compare it to what was actually sent against you to see if your claims you are being piled on are correct.
It is really not that hard a concept to grasp. Actually, by your own statement that we failed to provide enough nations to counter all of your guys, you are in fact proving the point that you are not being piled on like your alliance keeps claiming it is
As far as your activity levels I was not commenting on goons at all. In fact it is quite the opposite. When mounting a counter we would have to assume 100% activity levels for your nations since it is impossible for us to know which are and are not active, therefore we need to hit everyone (which subsequently raises the number of total nations we need). On the other hand WE need to consider the activity levels of the nations we would be sending in and compensate the gross figure for an inactivity level so that we net the correct ammt of nations for the counter. -
[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1297274921' post='2627113']
The numbers here don't back your claim. The combined lower ranks of the 13 we're at war with outnumber our own.
And we wouldn't have it any other way.
EDIT: The numbers of those at 30k NS and below (an informal benchmark):
GOONS: 273
NPO: 429
Legion: 240
NSO: 81
TPF: 71
ASU: 68
NAC: 44
TLR: 38
Invicta: 33
Olympus: 33
CoJ: 17
Sanitarium: 9
64Digits: 7
COMBINED: 1070
1070 to 273, or about 4 to 1.
You were saying?
[/quote]
I have been waiting for your side to toss some sort of erroneous numbers out like this for a while and I am surprised it took this long.
Now lets look at what actually did happen with the wars declared on you shall we.
First off the numbers you are using are current, after most people are through a few rounds of wars. Sorry but it does not work that way. You have to go back to the day the wars were declared. Obviously there are a hell of a lot more nations below 30 k now then there were 2 weeks ago.
2nd, you decided to declare on NPO, not the other way around. SO you do not get to then use their low tier numbers in a defense of you getting bandwaggoned. You had a real simple way of not being at war with the 400 + NPO nations in the low tiers, just don't declare on them. THis logic is also beyond mundane since it also does not consider that MK and FAN also hit NPO in these ranges, they were in mass anarchy, and could not counter you. So by the same logic Legion is currently engaged in an even one on one battle with goons (240 vs 260 nations) and there was no reason whatsoever to call in CnG (or perhaps CnG is also guilty of piling on?) So sorry the 400+ nations in NPO don't get to be added to your attempted claims of a pile on.
Now lets back up to when you actually hit NPO.
I had started to break these numbers down in another thread but just to recap, GOONS had 287 nations at the time they hit NPO, approx 270 were under 45 k NS. GOONS accounted for nearly 45% of active wars on NPO 36 hrs after the initial decs came down. Out of those 810 available war slots on those nations NPO had filled a total of 7. That is a lot of damn slots left to fill in a tight ns range.
Now I asked the question earlier of exactly how many nations one would think they need to counter GOONS and fill those slots in order to provide a successful counter while also taking into consideration things such as activity levels in the lower tiers (since smaller nations are less active), irrelevant nations (the 20 day inactive 3ns nations on both sides), and keeping a sufficeint reserve in PM to cover staggers and the like down the line.
I have still yet to get an answer to this.
What I have heard is a lot of people with the uncanny ability to count to 12, and while I do congratulate most of you on this impressive feat, it does not prove that you were unfairly countered or "piled on".
If you want to go back and look at the above scenario and then provide me with what you think would actually constitute a "pile on" in the terms of number of nations attacking you in the context I outlined rather than simply counting the aa's that countered you then perhaps we can see if your argument about being piled on holds any weight. -
[quote name='Timeline' timestamp='1297298278' post='2627436']
didnt know this was post your dead
[img]http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/9679/thedeady.jpg[/img]
Still don't see the point.
anyway on to the real question at hand We talked to UINE before we talked to ODN and Co about peace, but you was not to know that and then again it isn't as if you know much anyway, I do like how TPF who refuse to act on a MDoAP comes out and tries to belittle MCXA who went to war for their allies, now before you run off at the mouth about how TPF went to war for NPO, that was your reason for not entering the war when requested to do so by your MDoAP partner MCXA.
Now lets look at it this way shall we, what if TPF had honoured the MDoAP, and eased the pressure off MCXA, what if Valhalla had honoured their treaty also.
Sure we left the battle field and UINE stayed but that was their choice also when we left the battle field, UINE was been hit by Athens someone we was not at war with, in fact we was at war with two alliance that was at war with UINE that was ODN and INT, everyone else joined the war to hit MCXA or had hit alliances that had already peace out.
Bottom line at least we entered the VE-NpO war and did what was right by our allies and not sit by and watch them burn, but trusted me I am not going to have any sleepless nights over seeing TPF burn as they watched us burn.
just to point out, if UINE asked us to stay we would have, but once attack a treaty with MCXA means we will fight to ZI for you if it improves the chance of winning, treaty with TPF means they sit and watch you burn as they bath NPO
[/quote]
You really don't have a damn clue what you are talking about.
If you want to drag this out on the OWF we can do so, but out of respect for a a long standing relationship with a lot of your gov both past and present I would first suggest you go to SCY and get copies of all the logs he has with comversations with both myself and mhawk leading up to your entry (especially the ones where YOU were the ones to specifically tell us you would not be requesting our back-up in this war at all) and the ones revolving around your departure from it.
There are certain claims you are repeatedly making that are plainly false. Some of them have nothing to do with TPF so I will leave them be for now. In regards to TPF sitting by and watching you burn, regardless of what you may think or may have been told, you never requested our assistance on this front and specifically made a point to tell us that you would not be requiring or requesting any assistance regardless of counters before you even entered the war.
SO if you care to explain how TPF "hung you out to dry" when it was you guys who specifically told us you would not be requesting assistance prior to entry and never asked for any assistance in the approx 2 days you were at war before NPO got hit, I would be real interested in hearing it.
Edit: typo -
[quote name='Lord Levistus' timestamp='1297060316' post='2623654']
Ok, I guess i really hit a nerve with TOOL.
You're allowed to believe whatever you want to believe, but maybe your perspective is skewed because you don't want to think ill about a supposed friend. Maybe you've bought into this great awe inspiring game breaking strat that will magically unfold and rescue NPO from the clutches of evil. Maybe some of what you've been told is a crock. Maybe I do have a fair amount of information at hand about what is actually going on. Maybe I understand what a Pyrrhic Victory is. Maybe you should lighten up and let tPF defend herself.
You should read a little slower next time. TOOL would of course fight in the name of tPF. I am in no way saying that TOOL would DoW for NPO. However, the efforts being put forth by tPF's allies would be for the sake of NPO, tPF is just a go between. Of course, should you drop most of your str into hippy also and continue to pile into GOONS you'd prove me wrong. Should tPF come out of hippy enmasse, and not piece meal, and actually take the hits with their allies, I'll be proven wrong.
I'd love to be wrong. It's because ML is burning that I'm making these posts. I lay some of the blame on ML, of course, they still had to press the button, but they wouldn't have done so without tPF trying to bring them in.
One other thing, I've never used the "We aren't doing this for the reasons you think. Don't presume to know the relationship between Valhalla and our allies." line. Not that it's ever stopped anyone from making assumptions about what others are doing. That's why we're all here, right?
[/quote]
You honestly have no idea what you are talking about, and the amount of ignorance toward topics you claim to know so much about is astounding to say the least.
I am not sure how much easier to spell this out for you but lets try this. When NPO got hit we went to ALL of our allies and explained to them we would be entering in their defense as is standard practice in these situations. All allies were told their help would be appreciated should we be countered, but we would in no shape or form try to force anyone into a war they did not want to enter. And guess what...that was all it took. There was no arm twisting, no coercing, no evil mind implants in the dark to get them to swear allegiance to big brother. They agreed to help because we hold long term bonds with these alliances and as shocking as this may be to you, they are our friends, we are honored to call them allies, and we show them the respect that comes with that. They did not need to see a map of the treaty web, run numbers for sides, or have a some back room pow wow to decide who they were fighting for, the same way they know that TPF would not need to see those things either if any of them came under duress in the future.. This does not make them mindless, this does not mean that TPF is somehow pulling their strings, or any other drivel that is in your post, and if you can't understand that then honestly I have no idea how you define friendships in this realm. -
[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1297015314' post='2622317']
You can interpret chains and oA's however you want it seems, but there is nothing as concrete as deciding not to activate when your MDoAP ally is hit. Unless, of course, Legion fully accepts VE's rationale that VE is fighting the defensive war, in which case we agree with them for not oA'ing in with Polar like their other allies did.
[/quote]
Actually if you noticed I have not commented in this entire thread about the legalities or interpretations of anyone's treaties. What I was however pointing out was the simple double standard in play in Sardonic's post where he can claim no one has the right to tell others how to interpret their treaties and at the same time start a war over Legion not interpreting its Polar treaty the way you all wanted them to (and thus bringing in NPO via more standard means).
As to why Legion did not activate with Polar that, in the end, is between Polar and Legion and you are just as free as any other members of the peanut gallery to speculate. However if one takes a stance that any third party attempting to tell another aa how and when they should activate a treaty is "pathetic", one should also assume that same person would be loathe to sign their name to the document I quoted given that it does just that.
Homefront Declaration of Existence
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
[quote name='potato' timestamp='1299526585' post='2655662']
No. What I said is that Umbrella signed those terms. In good faith. And certainly didn't expect CD (or anyone else for that matter) to try and wiggle their way into a war using the worst e-lawyering ever. But feel free to misread everything: I don't want to be the one to stop you from extrapolating.
[/quote]
In good faith that what?....they would hit a treaty partner of CD whom they had no previous wars with up until this point, and CD would sit back and ignore the clause that they wrote allowing them back into the conflict in this exact instance?