Omniscient1
-
Posts
7,233 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Omniscient1
-
-
Good luck to my allies in IRON. STA has always been annoying fucks with some sort of messiah complex. It's very amusing to watch the emotions fly over this though. Never change Planet Bob.
-
Maybe he should make some blog posts to increase his reputation
I hear discussing pink elephants will do it, but what do I know? I'm just a little teapot short but stout. -
Good luck to our allies in Sengoku.
-
Christ you draw the most silly parallels. Lets get 2 facts straight. 1st they didnt use an ODP. 2nd... no treaty of any kind existed. Pretend like those are not the facts all you want. Nobody was asking for reps.. they simply asked for no re-entry. NG, apparently, were simply expected to take nothing.Everything has cause and effect. LoSS gave a giant middle finger to IRON (as did the entire coalition on the other side when they enabled this to happen).. the Einstein's in IRON are just too dumb to see it.
1. Yes they did. Unless you're arguing ODPs and ODAPS are mutually exclusive.
2. What is a treaty if not an agreement between two parties to assist each other in some way?
3. Anything NG offered likely got lost in the same stupid question being repeated every three seconds.
I don't think the middle finger has been missed, but this has blown up way out if proportion. Of course, every war something does. IRON acted in a rational way. I'm not sure how they can be faulted. -
You say with a straight face that white peace (and there was not a no re-entry... it was a "we wont attack NG again this war") is an acceptable closure to the way LoSS entered? They should have gotten off without giving up a thing? Is that really how you keep the well-being of your allies ? "Ok guys, you have take enough pot shots at our ally, just stop now, ok? We will hug and make up."
What should they pay 40k tech? You literally sound like Goose and Liz defending that. "The way DT entered and you just want us to peace them out! How dare LoSS use an ODP to attack NG!". -
I made destroying you my solemn vow? Son, you are not worth my time. In addition, your reputation is pretty well destroyed.
Oh did you forget your vow? That's good. I was starting to think it was just a clever facade to throw me off my game. Enjoy the war Rush, and bring that 4k NS guy who Jgoods used to threaten me with all the time out of peacemode. It'd be a fitting thing to do after his move to a land beyond where admin resides. -
Yes, I joined a small group to attack a much bigger group. What a coward I am!To accuse IRON of being cowards is correct, as you are not defending your ally in NG, who was hit without any prior-known treaty by LoSS. Hell, you wouldn't even help negotiate a peace where LoSS couldn't re-enter the war.
Since apparently the situation is public now:
You can not negotiate a peace for someone who refuses to accept it. I begrudgingly like NG, but damn that was the worse negotiation logs I've seen since Peggy Sue tried to get into a war with GOONS. It was abundantly clear that NG was attempting to use the situation in order to draw IRON into a war with LoSS. That was the exact opposite if what gathering in that room was for. That's not NG's fault, because I would have done the same, but those logs are a running joke now. -
Thanks for bringing the dragons over and enjoy the frey!
You as well man. -
I think I had Cornball in the No. 2 slot by then but I simply can't recall.
Ok, well I liked the way you handled that honestly, although I know there were people pretty angry at the whole deal. Of course, you'll always have people for you and against you no matter what you do, so Kudos. -
That was me. It was the NpO/FIST war.
Yes indeed, I was almost certain it was Corny though for some reason. Oh well. -
What a joke. Not much that can be said besides that.
Breaking news: GATO comments on another alliance's cowardice. Join in at 11 for "Sun warns that stoves can be dangerously hot"!lollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll iron.
you shoulda just pretended you were out of own.
also im preety sure ve has won this war based on politics
Anyway, Argent have fought on the same side as IRON since post-Karma. It's a pleasure of doing it once again friends. Much love <3 -
roll omni o/
The joy of getting to declare on and gettting the surrender of Rush's alliance (once they get out of peacemode), after he made a solemn vow to make destroying me his one goal is the sweetest thing I could ask for. Quite honestly, I don't care much anymore, but this is still a nice Christmas gift. -
STA and NADC share a mutual ally in UPN. What are you trying to insinuate?
It's usually polite not to attack allies of allies especially if you don't want conflict with that ally. Of course, if you don't give a shit about that ally then go ahead and hit their allies.
At this point that's about dead like chivalry, but I remember Corny canceling on Sponge back pre-WotC for it. I'm sure there are tons more cases. TIO-Athens, iirc UMB and MK got into it over the MHA hit, RoK and Polar got into it over the \m/ hit iirc. My memory is bad now though. -
Interestingly, this is the only treaty text I can find:
The non-chaining clause wouldn't apply even if VE and LoSS really do have a treaty. I'm going to present an analysis of the situation that takes the specific alliances out of it, it's just a general scenario, and it could happen with any alliances; hopefully this will take the emotions out of the current situation.
It goes like this: we have 6 alliances, A, B, C, D, E, and F. Alliance A has an M-level treaty (with a non-chaining clause) with Alliance B, and Alliance B has an M-level treaty (also with a non-chaining clause) with Alliance C. Alliance D, which has no treaty with any of the previous three alliances, attacks Alliance C. Alliance B, per the terms of their treaty with Alliance C, attacks Alliance D. Alliance A is not required to also attack alliance D because of the non-chaining clause in their treaty with Alliance B. Alliance E, which has an M-level treaty with Alliance D, attacks Alliance B in retaliation; Alliance A is also not required to attack Alliance E because Alliance E is only attacking because of a treaty with Alliance D, which would only have been activated in this way because of Alliance B's attack on Alliance D, and thus Alliance A not attacking is again covered by the non-chaining clause. Now Alliance F, which holds no treaty with any of the other alliances, attacks Alliance B. In this case, Alliance A would be required to attack Alliance F per the terms of their treaty (assuming Alliance B requests such assistance) with Alliance B because the non-chaining clause doesn't apply here. No treaty of Alliance B with a third party made it necessary for Alliance F to attack Alliance B; Alliance F attacked Alliance B because they wanted to, there was no treaty either requiring or encouraging it.
That's the only way I can see to interpret a non-chaining clause, particularly one that has been left ambiguous, because the above scenario is functionally equivalent to one in which we have 3 alliances, A, B, and F. Alliance F attacks Alliance B, requiring Alliance A to attack Alliance F (also assuming Alliance B requests such assistance); this scenario is one in which everyone would agree Alliance A is required to attack Alliance F. An argument has been made in this thread that these two scenarios are not equivalent because Alliance F is on the same side as Alliances D and E and thus Alliance F is motivated by Alliance B's attacks on Alliances D and E in attacking Alliance B. However this cannot be because if it is then any treaty can have an exception based merely on the motivations of third parties, which would, in effect, allow any alliance to legitimately excuse themselves from any obligation whenever they want. Maybe we want this, but if we're going to live in a world with treaties, then we actually need to follow them, and that isn't what following them looks like. We can't have our cake and eat it too.
So really unless this is the un-upgraded version and the treaty was actually re-written (I belive this began as an ODP so that's likely) your post is irrelevant.Article IV: Sharing Might and Armour
There are times when it will be needed to lend a hammer or a shield forged from this treaty. If one signatory decides they need assistance it is encouraged, however the other can accept or deny without foul.
Anyway, done with the thread.I hope IRON and NG good luck with their situation. As always IRON we got your backs no matter what. -
Sure, but what makes you think IRON was not honest with NG. Hell, the logs are literally them being blunt as hell with honesty.NG was honest with IRON about what NG was doing. This is where I'm trying to draw the line in the difference. I've already acknowledged there's no difference in the backroom politicking. Honesty between signed allies shouldn't be tempered and weighed against politicking though. That's what the intelligence clause is all about.IRON flat out worked with the other coalition, and maintained a relationship with NG to the affect of keeping them in-line while they also worked with TOP-Polar (and Fark) to step in on us. Again, Fark being the oA here. IRON turns it's back on NG because it won't "chain in" to defend. But it chained on with Fark's OPTIONAL AGGRESSION.There's a lot of spaghetti strings through the discussion thread here, but that's what it comes together as.
No, IRON did not turn their back on NG. People work with treaty partners on opposite sides all the time. Hell, last war NG done it. It's a non-issue. -
Fark had nothing to do with it till they came along on an oA with Polar against NSO.
Oh come on. That is one hell of a double standard. Plotting against NSO means you are by extention plotting against NG, but plotting against Polar doesn't mean you're plotting against FARK? Just get out of this Rayvon, you're smarter than this.
Again, I hope IRON and NG fix their roblems and move forward from here on out, but this entire thread is riddled with half truths and misconceptions. -
Back it up a step though.This is IRON saying "don't go that road, it won't end well" as they've been apart of chats. These chats were in rebuttal to finding out about plotting against Polar.A few things to look at:IRON treaties
A notable lack of Polar here, a notable lack of anyone on the 'other side' of the war UNTIL the war actually started from Polar hitting NSO.Polar treaties
No IRON here.TOP treaties
No IRON here.FARK treatieshttp://i.imgur.com/RndCyPp.pngNo IRON here.If this entire war was due to "NSO plotting against NpO" then there's absolutely no obligated reason for IRON to not stand by her word. IRON made the choice to go to that side knowing they were only retaliating against the planning against Polar.There's a few lines missing between the last few months, and the start of this war.
FARK and IRON are allies. I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. You're going to have to say it without all the pictures or something. As I said IRON has tried helping NG, somewhat, with the LoSS thing, but it was rejected. I'm not making excuses 100% for IRON, but it's certainly not a one direction problem. -
Do nothing is fine...its what they did that was the problem. Had they done nothing...hell with it but that's not what they did right?
No they did do something. They tried to get LoSS peaced out with NG, which was rejected by NG. So they certainly did "something" while maintaining their commitments to everyone involved. I can't say it was a perfect decision, but it was certainly better than refusing to help because an alliance they never had a run in with was on that side. -
It's not very complicated. I in no way would want to be associated with a coalition who decided to pull that kind of stunt to hit one of my allies. I would have taken my ball to the other side real quick. It's not only LoSS. VE decided it would be a good idea to be the patsy for LoSS' shenanigans. IRON should be dominating both of them for that shit. They invented a treaty to dogpile your ally for fucks sake.....and you're really ok with that?
You of all people really shouldn't be talking about how bad it is to leave allies on the battlefield and do nothing no matter who else is on that side.
Anyway, I can't envy IRON or NG right now. I've experienced both sides of situations like this and it's not fun for anyone. -
Yeah, if there was ever a reason to abandon a side it was because of how LoSS decided to conjure a treaty to hit IRON solely for the purpose of being able to be on the other side. They basically hit NG unprovoked with no treaty though they want to claim they have one. That IRON would decline that activation is about as pathetic as it gets. If you're wondering I haven't cared for LoSS in a long long time and have wished the treaty gone for just as long. Years by now. They had sympathizers in GATO until this pathetic stunt. I hope I finally get that cancellation. Do the right thing IRON. Roll those little shits.
To be fair, it's far more complicated than that given one of IRON's treaty partners were already on that front, and .....other things. I'm with you though. That was pretty patheticLoSS. -
Best thing about this thread is seeing MCRABT post again. I've missed you man. Don't be a stranger.
Anyway, IRON are great people and good allies. I have no idea about their private relationship with NG, but I hope they both remain friends after this war. Begrudgingly I've began to see NG as a better alliance than what I used to consider them. Too bad I think they still have terrible opinions of me.
Anyway, people for years have been attacking the way we do treaties. They whine that you have to have a treaty to join a war, they whine when you don't honor ODPs even when they are optional, they whine when you invoke non-chaining clauses. It's pretty obvious at this point treaties are basically fluid guidelines, and that has just as much to do with theculture of people claiming they don't need legal justifications to act as it does with people not honoring treaties. Pretty pathetic state, but we've all contributed it to this problem. -
I hope everyone but Cata and Stefano gets obliterated. Good luck DoD.
-
Smurf, you're hitting my friends that's not cool.
-
Good luck to all my friends in ODN. Good luck to any friends left in CCC, though I think they have all retired to different places.
Welcome to the Naughty Corner STA
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
Not going to lie Chimey, if you shit on me on the OWF and then asked me to declare on another target I'd likely tell you to go to hell. IRON always have been loyal to their allies and coalitions to a fault though.
Anyway, have fun IRON. STA has always been annoying.