Kevin Cash
-
Posts
206 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Kevin Cash
-
-
highlighted interesting partsA. In the event that one of us comes under attack, the other shall provide all possible assistance. An attack on one shall be considered an attack on the other. Assistance is defined as military, economic, intelligence, diplomatic, and all other forms of aid possible to provide. In the event this clause conflicts with other agreements, each of us agrees that, except for the Mobius Accords, this agreement shall take precedence.B. Should one of us engage in offensive warfare, the other shall have the option, but not the obligation, to provide military, economic, intelligence, diplomatic, or any other form of aid.
C. Notice of offensive military action by one must be given to the other no less than 24 hours prior to the commencement of hostilities. This time period will be used for the consideration of whether to undertake supportive offensive action.
D. One of us will not engage in, encourage or support offensive military action against any alliance which the other is obligated by treaty to defend. If we learn of potential attack, we will actively enourage our treaty partners not to attack the treaty partner of the other.
E. If one of us is involved in war or a situation which could lead to war, it is the duty of other to offer diplomatic aid toward the peaceful resolution of the situation, should such help be requested.
first read section a and section b. mha was not obligated to attack ov, however, when other alliances attacked npo, mha was to consider them as an attack on itself. i see no line in section a which absolves mha of this responsibility.
some will argue that npo violated section c; this, now that i have the text in front of me, is obviously false; it is obvious that the npo was not extending a hand out for assistance with ov, and thus it was unnecessary, perhaps unintelligent but nonetheless unnecessary for them to grant 24 hours notification for the purposes of mha considering whether or not to opt in on the aggression portion of the treaty.
most importantly, note the first bolded section of the treaty, which stats that this agreement supersedes all other agreements other than the continuum.
other parts of the treaty not quoted here make mention that npo and mha shared an 'eternal friendship,' yet, mha did not afford npo the trust they deserved and instead chose to assume the worst in their so-called friend.
mha violated this treaty on multiple angles; there is no imaginary clause that lets thm skirt around their duties, and it is clear that an 'attack on [npo] is considered an attack on [mha]' and as such when, for example, god attacked npo, they also attacked mha, or at least this treaty would have provided for such.
thank you whoever it was that posted the link; i myself learned something new about how deep the levels of treachery within karma actually go.
-
npo didnt ask their friends to commit a crime, they asked they asked them merely and in general terms 'help us.'If you and a friend agree that you'll stick together and help each other out, then that friend gets in big trouble with the police and asks you to outright lie in court for him, would you do it? I for one, won't. Sometimes your obligations aren't as clear cut and non-chaining clauses are there for these circumstances. Plus, this way your friend learns his lesson and is made the better for it.if i had a friend on trial for, even murder lets say, and it was far too early to figure out for myself exactly what happened, you'd bet i would defend him, and i wouldnt regret that decision no matter what the situation turned out to be in the end. thats the thing about friends, youre supposed to trust them. it is obvious that a number of alliances were so distrusting of their 'friends' that they were willing to assume the worst of them. that, to me, is despicable.
-
wait, they were all engaged in the war when og was attacked? what?and all Citadel alliances were engaged.also see my prior comments on this idea of 'non-chaining treaties.'
-
I wonder how many on the Karma side participated in the "many" obviously NPO-led atrocities that happened. Further, I wonder how they came to hold those views and why they get a free pass besides the obvious answer of "well we couldn't win without them, so who cares."
Finally, why is there now such a groundswell of opposition? Apparently, the NPO has been doing this for years and no one did anything until now. There would appare to be two conclusions that can be reached. Either everyone cared for their infra far too much to bother or they were confused as to what constitutes "good" and "bad" behavior.
its rather obvious i think that they're simply using this as an excuse to rally people to the cause, when really its just a power play by the few in control of karma
why do you think they get in such a panic when you point out their obvious and numerous hypocrisies?
-
I fail to see how indirectly supporting attacks during peace negotiations, or fighting a war based on a CB that could only have been procured through the same CB they were railing against, is against the codex.
its not against the codex.
however, what is, and what disgusts me, is that they left their friends in old guard to get pounded. i dont know why so many people think treaties contain invisible clauses that state 'if you dont agree with x event that happened outside the parties to this treaty you can ignore your obligations"
-
'non-chaining' is just a term used by cowards who dont want to honor their obligations to their friendsMHA's treaty with NPO is non-chaining and they had no obligation to support NPO's aggression. Read the actual treaty texts before saying "people aren't honoring their treaties!!" -
you are a slow one arent you?So why was this never a problem for NPO before GPA was #1?do you know what the word 'coincidence' means? these issues were running long before gpa was a few points above npo in the rankings... this notion you have that npo went on red alert the instant gpa peeked over them in the rankings as if its the only thing in the world they were worried about, well, it makes you look foolish.
-
No, it isn't actually. Cite an example and explain, please.
see raji's post below yours:
"NPO wasnt on the losing side if people honored their treaties... MHA/Sparta/co all have MADPs with NPO "
to add to his point, citadel failed to defend og when og was attacked, instead following gremlins when gremlins decided that an odp with fark was worth more than the codex.
further points of interest are the absurd notion that npo ever gave a damn about being the number one alliance in terms of score (they were far more concerned with maintaining their role as the core of the treaty web), the omission of many of gpas screw ups in the days leading up to that war, and claiming that npo broke their agreement with fan (although it was a dick move on npos part, fan did technically break the word of the agreement long before npo decided to act on it)
you can, of course, choose to ignore the facts if it suits your ends, but note that it makes you look rather silly
-
fact: moo screwed up royally by assuming talks were over, and assumed that this had been communicated to ov on account that ov had not made further attempts at communication with the npo when moo's internet connection crapped out. was it stupid on his part? very. does it mean he is some evil !@#$%^& who lies about peace to attack people when their guard is down? absolutely not. it was an honest, albeit extraordinarily stupid, mistake.They have treaties with the other side too.I'm sorry, but attacking during peace talks is a huge deal breaker. I don't care if I hold a treaty with you, you are scum and that's what you get.
-
its called a self fulfilling prophecy. so many of you claim that npo has to be wiped off the map, that npo has no choice but to take an aggressive stance simply to protect their very existence.Had NPO conducted itself honorably and treated others with respect it would not have had anything to fear.
Respect can be earned or it can be forced. NPO chose the low road and created the animosity towards it.
one could argue it is the other way around, that npo ultimately made unfounded fears come true... but i think that is unlikely, as people have been trying to take them down since the beginning of cn, simply because they were always at the top.
it is therefore impossible to fault npo as they were simply defending their right to exist, it is people like you who drove them to the lengths they went, who instilled their fears that they had to commit such acts to defend their right to exist... as it would turn out, their fears were accurate and they are more than justified in their course.
or you could keep spewing the mindless propaganda that npo are bad guys who do bad things for the sake of being bad with no further motivation... your choice i suppose
-
op is filled with so many distortions of the truth i am having difficulty responding
its a viable strategy i suppose....
-
i think what we have here is the first case of an alliance hopping on the bandwagon after already being involved on a different front.
id be willing to ignore it if it werent for the fact that youre so quick to service yourself by making it look like this is a fight over any sort of morality. new is in defending their friends while you are bandwagoning... if anyone has the moral high ground it is new.
watching all the karmites hailing this bandwagoning is no real shocker, after some of the other !@#$ theyve supported
-
so did sparta, so did fok, so did gremlins, so did top, so did mha, so did a lot of other alliances now fighting for 'karma.' they all 'enabled' npo. why are they not also being punished?It's not about you personally or about Elysium. TPF held a treaty with NPO before and after the NoCB war and was part of the machine enabling them, you can't redirect every complaint about TPF by bringing up a dead alliance. -
As a foot soldier of Karma (what a lame name that is), I oppose mercy for the enemy. I want to see these alliances broken and butchered. Especially NPO. Eternal-ZI for all of the IOs and trolls and disband the alliance.
the irony is that it is people with your extreme mentality that validated npos fears and caused them to act the way they did
when ov conspired with blackstone, it is this mentality which affirms their fears that they were defending their very right to exist
-
those i listed 'converted' within a week of this war, some after it began, one still holds a treaty to npo. go back no more than a month and the figure easily doubles if not triples. since one of the recurring arguments from the karma side is that it takes time to convert (and thus allowing karma to conveniently ignore any and all recent honorable actions by the so-called 'hegemony' side), it seems silly that these 'newly enlightened' folks are allowed to get off scot free, does it not?As for those alliances, Im sure they will get their just desserts if what you say is true. However, this whole going back thing doesnt appeal to me. The farther we go back in time, the less applicable the arguments are. People change and so do alliances. Some maybe just recently, or maybe not at all. I truly hope that all those alliances listed have seen the folly in their old ways and never return to them. For now I fight on the same side as them, but in the future I may very well be against them. What really gets me going is when people try to paint all the alliances fighting on the karma side with the same brush when it is not true. We have a common enemy at the moment, that is all. -
it will, but probably not against those actually responsible, much like npo has become a scapegoat for a lot of the bad stuff that happened in that warLook Margrave, I have no beef with former UJP members. Some are really good folks, and they were then too.But the UJP *alliances* as alliances had been begging for a thrashing for a long time before that point. I spent way too much time dealing with them to forget what they were, and if the war hadnt ended so quickly and so poorly I probably would have left my own alliance to fight against them then.
Obviously you arent going to agree with my perspective, any more than I am going to with yours, but understand that just as you have a right to try and propound your view I have the same right to my own.
I dont think you will disagree with the core of my point in bringing UJP up though - the disbandment of those alliances, in the end, merely resulted in a lot of former UJP members with every reason to carry a grudge dispersed through alliances all across the planet, which was one of several converging factors leading to the abrupt loss of station the NPO is now experiencing. Imposing the same kind of terms again is likely to lead to the same outcome, no?
-
youre supposed to declare on whoever of your allies is first attacked; if allies on both sides enter at the same time, you declare neutrality.LOLYa we could have fought with \M/ and betrayed are allies on the the other side. No mater what we did some one would have been mad at nato. And scream we betrayed them.
We had 3 mdp with alliance in the UJP and 5 mdp with the other side. 5 is more than 3 so we went, were most of are treaties were.
because if you dont enter when youre first supposed to and wait until your allies wind up on the other side, standing with them doesnt mean jack !@#$, and bringing it up later is a logically invalid defense, as they would have all been on the same side had you any sense of honor.
i havent recently read the exact timeline of events in that war, but im pretty sure \m/ was in there early.
-
sparta, mha, fark, gremlins, top, the rest of citadel (minus og), and of course who can forget our favorite alliance odnI stand before you today amazed.As yet another member of the Coalition of Cowards receives an easy, merciful peace, I am stunned to think that within the last few weeks the cries for blood that rang from the heart of the Cyberverse seem to have ended abruptly. I recall with perfect clarity the howls that erupted once the CoC decided to jump ship, only to be shamed back into the conflict by Doctor Fresh of MXCA. I recall the promises of destruction, before and after their decision that Shame>Infra. I saw many notable and influential people declare that these cowards and traitors would be justly punished for their crimes.
I see now nothing but easy peace and pats on the head. Is this how you will reward Oath-Breakers and Cowards, Karma? Are you truly so blinded by idealism that you do not see that these people have betrayed their kindred and in doing so forfeited their right to stand equally amongst the community of nations? I implore you to look at the future you create by rewarding the Cowards such easy peaces!
Karma, you are creating our next war already by leaving these alliances virtually untouched. Instead of finishing this off once and for all you have already composed a chain of events that damn us to face this Coalition of liars and cowards again, because you do not wish to have the "dishonorable behavior" of Pacifica associated with your name? I ask you, what matters most? A Temporary Perception of a small group (Because I know it to be fact from many conversations in IRC that most of the footsoldiers of Karma want harsher terms) that Karma is "Replacing the Hedgemony"? Or doing what is right and ending this once and for all? Stop this foolish and idealistic action. You have already manufactured the next Great Conflict out of the fabric of these White Peace's, do not intensify that coming conflict with even one more easy surrender from Anyone who cowardly and traitorously abandoned their brothers in a time of crisis. Do not be fooled by their sweet words and their easy-to-make promises. Destroy their power, erase their political capital, and end once and for all the stench of their cowardice among the Family of Nations.
No False Peace. No Turning Back.
Destroy them.
these people ignored their obligations as well
the only difference is they didnt make up for their mistake by later entering to atone for their mistake, each of them ignored their obligations to the so-called 'hegemony' side until the treaties on the karma side finally chained their way up to them so they could betray those who lifted them to the level they are at now (with the exception of the optional defense network who simply jump ship every time a big war comes their way)
may i ask, margrave, what sort of punishment you have in mind for these people, who are arguably worse that those who atoned (ie admitted) for their mistake by entering anyway?
or are they somehow justified because this thread only exists for you to rage at the other side for being 'evil' or whatever the hell it is you actually believe, and this is merely a convenient cover for your true feelings?
i also enjoyed the part were you raged at the fact that innocent alliances who merely honored their word got white peace. what crime are these alliances guilty of, a number of them small protectorates who, ignorant of global politics, are entering to defend the only friends they know. seriously, the op makes you look like the biggest fool if one only takes a minute to read between the lines, but then, that was alwas who you really were, right, margrave?
(in before ad-hominem attacks)
-
mha? sparta? fok? top? all of these alliances you just said are no better than npo (only listing the most recent cancellations right before this big war went down, though there are many others on the karma side going further back)By maintaining treaties with alliances such as that, you are in fact no better then them. By having a military treaty with them you are supporting and empowering them in their actions. It doesnt matter what you say, or what pictures people try to paint of your alliance. [...] the treaties you maintain paint the picture for you, and for the rest of us. -
Due to your complete lack of evidence, perspective, and common sense, I am inclined to write off everything that you say. If you could provide any of the aforementioned qualities to your arguments, it might mean that you weren't simply trolling senselessly. Of course, that might be asking for too much.(that other thread is what some would call 'evidence' but feel free to ignore the facts)
:slowclap:
-
Sure, but sometimes that is just counterproductive.
Look at MK, had they "kept their pride" and went down like FAN they wouldn't be able to rebuild and give NPO a taste of their own medicine today.
the cowards always come up with a clever excuse dont they? mk went in that war expecting to be wiped out, id hardly make that comparison
dont soil mks name, there one of a handful on the karma side who have honor (even if archon was a total dick to npo in those negotiations
) -
Apparently you missed this post:
But by all means please continue you baseless trolling, don't let "facts" get in your way.
1) youre asking me to believe ctb, a gov member of poison clan... i dont see why i should, given that i am, you know, accusing him and his alliance of dishonesty among other crimes. though i suppose he was rather upfront about using rad as leverage to extort tsi...
2) even if they were having internal issues, a white peace would have granted them time to, possibly, sort out their difficulties. instead it is clear tfo was intent on extorting tp as they had later extorted tsi in the other thread (that other thread is what some would call 'evidence' but feel free to ignore the facts), leaving tp, in its severely weakened state, no choice but to disband
sue me for putting 2 and 2 together
-
I mean really, is everything our fault to you? We weren't even in the negotiations.
yes because tpf is the bane of existence and you stole pcs lunch money once so anyone who associates with you is scum who deserve to be extorted and/or killed off
-
in before someone claims this is just a show
(congrats on peace guys
)
)
Why what went around is not coming around
in Open World RP
Posted