WarriorConcept

For his ability to single handedly defeat a whole alliance. The thread in question can be found here: http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/...c=57894&hl=

All of that is why I'd trust those alliances a lot less after they broke those treaties, but I get what you're saying and still believe that an automatic voting option automatically makes it an ODP. I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree there. edit: Same to hayzell, I don't mind agreeing to disagree.

Good thing they clarified it as the thread went on

I don't believe I follow what you're arguing. Most alliances don't have to debate on upholding their treaty just have to mobilize and then attack and more commonly formally declare war on the forums. I believe your alliance is the only one with this system in place where every MDP treaty is essentially treated as an ODP because you have a formal system to vote on it.

When the alliance is attacked without launching the war first? I can understand if you have to talk about whether the CB is say spying and your treaty says they don't allow it, but I wouldn't think it'd take a vote for that seeing as how you already agreed to the conditions when you signed the treaty and would know right away whether they are met.

It wasn't a contradiction at all if you read it properly, but whatever you say.

You're being vague here. When it's an offensive war of course they'd have to vote. When it's in defense and following their treaty there should be no vote. The voting was held when they agreed to sign their treaty.

That is exactly what I'm arguing to an extent. Because there is a vote automatically means you're giving yourself the option to not follow through with the treaty. Hence why it's essentially an optional treaty.

Have you ever been in all your ally's IRC channels?

I did acknowledge your bit about sovereign rights, I even said: I'm sorry that you saw that response as a "no u" but really we're arguing facts now and I don't see how else to argue that with you when you don't acknowledge the fact that voting on whether to uphold a treaty automatically classifies it as being optional. I'm glad that you claim you would activate the defenses clauses if it was even for a terrible cause, but then why have to vote on it? That implicitly gives you the option to ignore it making it optional.

Well, that's your own opinion. I suppose you don't like visiting #mushroom and others as well, but because that affects your sensibilities doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't be allowed to joke when we want. And well I've pointed out the lack of a contradiction to you and others several times in this thread, so I'd recommend actually reading this whole thing before making an uniformed opinion as you just have.

You really just admitted all your treaties are ODPs as you guys vote upon whether to uphold them each and every time. While I respect your right to have your membership decide if it's a worthy cause to fight or not, the fact that you need those discussions and voting at all automatically makes your treaty an ODP whether you recognize it as one or not.

If it is a defensive war and the opposing side has a valid CB, you will defend with them no matter what and not have to vote on it? Is that answer is no then it is an ODP.

I think you're misunderstanding. Visitors should be forewarned that it is what goes on in their channels. However foreign officials when requesting a formal discussion being met with that is not tolerated and that is what the apology was for.

I believe it's been clarified that's exactly what it was for. edit: the insulting

If all your treaties and whether you uphold them or not depend on the CB you might as well call them all ODPs. Also I remember a certain bloc I was in with you where we rolled as a group, no matter though

Good luck and nice theme.

If the war pans out the way that I've been notified it will, I don't think there's a need. Regardless I don't think there would be a need for that anyway.

I don't think alliances want to make choices during any war between 2 "sides" when and if they come up. Doing so is generally degrading to their reputation and leaves them with a fleeting sense of resentment from the side that they didn't help.

Congratulations on your growth guys.

Considering the numbers involved on both sides for this conflict, peace mode is the best tactic available for them in the overall strategy of the whole war.

I disagree about how "half-assed" this is having talked to them about it. You're entitled to your opinion however.

Will do, but that's why we have the application procedure to double check

We only would have aided after you applied for help. There was no threat from wF and I had already put your application on hold regardless before they contacted me because you engaged in offensive wars which automatically makes you ineligible for aid and or membership.

Thanks for coming to me in regards to his situation when he applied. It was good talking to you guys.