Joe Kremlin
-
Posts
1,052 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Joe Kremlin
-
-
I always really liked FAN, so it's great to see them surviving this ordeal. And also congrats to NPO on their victory and their mercy.
-
Too many people getting upset over this... like every FAN thread.
Just shows that mpol knows how to make an announcement like few others.
-
Disappointing that the war had to end on a note like this, but good job not tolerating crap like that.
-
Hail Viridia!
Good luck
-
I'm not really a fan of GnR, but good work. Maybe include all signatories of WUT if you're remembering what they accomplished.
-
But man. It's why we fight. You don't want to know?
Nope. I just want to know why the other side is jerks.
-
The hatred is what makes the game interesting. The only thing I'm not looking forward to propaganda-wise is the obligatory crappy wall of text titled "Why We Fight" that seems to show up every war.
-
Well, ex VE wouldn't only hold a grudge against GGA... and they are technically fighting for NpO.
But it is a kind of funny quasi coincidence that borders (?) on irony (?).
-
Again... we are treading into the whole "war needs to be legalized by e-paper digi documents" territory.
For as many problems as FAN had/has... honestly this is one area the rest of the world should take note. You fight for who you want to fight for, you defend who you want to defend, and you tell the rest of the world to $%&@ off. Your friends are your friends and you don't need legal e-paper digi-documents to say that...
But alas, after 1.5+ years of doing things the way they have been done, I doubt many CN alliances will follow FAN's footsteps, which is sad. Not everything they did/do was/is wrong.
GATO isn't using this argument, though. They are saying that any treaty they sign can basically serve as anything, which gives them the whole legalization thing.
-
No, not really. Beyond the both of alliances agreeing on something the treaty serves no real purpose. As long as we both agree that it's perfectly fine to assist one another then it's perfectly fine to assist one another. Period.
It doesn't render the treaty useless at all, it renders it malleable.
It becomes a problem though when you hold more than one treaty. If someone signs something with you knowing you only have a PIAT with someone, but then that PIAT is applied as an MADP, it could get messy.
-
It would, and it can, if one sees it as a MADP and the other does not.
Once both acknowledge it's been upgraded, does it really matter?
I think so. What you're basically saying is that you don't need a valid CB through treaty to go to war as long as the two people agree to fight. This is fine by me since I pretty much agree with diskord on it, but at the same time you don't have a "legal" CB. I just think the logic you're using renders treaties pointless.
-
If we see it as a MADP, and they see it as a MADP, then it's a MADP.
Is there some problem? It's still a normal ol' PIAT, what's the issue?
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having an MADP vs having a PIAT?
GGA-FAN Peace
in Alliance Politics
Posted
Congrats GGA. Way to survive FAN.