Icewolf
-
Posts
6,113 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Icewolf
-
-
But the point would be that, knowing this, they still didn't cancel the MDP that called for them to aid NG. Personally, that's what I would've done.
"Sorry, guys. But the Mutual Defence part of this treaty places us in conflict with our closest allies. We need to downgrade or cancel."Simples.
Sorry guys, but as you know this is a non-chaining treaty and we will not be taking up the option to support you in the next war, you cool with that?-conversation had quite a while ago.
-
As a former diplomat to NPO I am sad to see this announcement, just as I was sad when we cancelled our MDP with you. Friends cannot always march together and it shows great maturity on your side that you recognise that and can accept it without bitterness.
-
They don't owe you that explanation.Experience is largely irrelevant, what validates any view point is its ability to stand up to rebuttal, what disappoints me the most is the failure of the standing council to explain how its recent decisions are in the best interest of IRON. In failing to offer this rational they have simply failed to contest the validity of my view point at all. Manifested, this type of negligence results in extremely poor decisions and that is why we have this thread.
-
Did I criticise Non-Grata's actions last war? No. But it seems like there is some guilt over the DBDC-would you like to let it out?We were the only reason why you guys weren't countered by TOP/MK/GOONS and the rest of Umbrella's allies you ungrateful fuck. With that being said, DBDC was a Umbrella splinter and YOU GUYS attacked Umbrella. Just because they had their own attention whoring DoE doesn't mean they weren't a Umbrella splinter.
-
Its an undefined term in a treaty. We could debate back and forth how to interpret it but the bottom line is that there is a direct causal link between Non-Grata's actions that were in obedience to another treaty and this result, and we also worked to stop this war. Non-Grata chose then to continue military action effectively insisting that IRON join its side. That cannot possibly be within the spirit of the treaty.VE does not have a treaty with TOP; the only treaty they had was this one, which was only an ODoAP and was subsequently cancelled. LoSS does not have a treaty with TOP either. The only alliance that NG has attacked is TOP; VE and LoSS may have attacked NG because of NG's attack on TOP, but it was certainly not due to treaty obligations. They just wanted to attack them; the reasons are irrelevant here because they weren't treaty obligations, and treaty obligations are the only things that matter as far as non-chaining clauses go. Thus, it falls to NG to make a request for military assistance, which they did, and which IRON refused to honor. I'm not sure it can be much clearer than that; it just is what is: a violation of a treaty. Maybe NG is partially at fault, but it wasn't NG that violated the treaty, it was IRON.
And he left months ago after making a total bollocks up of the end of his term.To be fair to Rush (and I can't believe I've actually uttered those words :P ), MCRABT is not just another former member, he's the longest serving President in the history of IRON. He may be in NG now, but that position more than qualifies him to comment authoritatively.
-
The conversation in the IRON embassy stated that it was a full withdrawal without hitting Non-Grata or a direct ally of Non-Grata again. Without wishing to go and drag quotes of a private forum, Non-Grata's response was that was unacceptable to you as they would still hit other parts of your coalition.Stop lying. LoSS agreed to end it's conflict with NG. There was absolutely no deal reached, nor offered, on a full pullout with no reengagement. Why on earth would we let LoSS peace out with us only to declare on NSO? On NPO? No sane alliance leadership would accept that deal and you know it.
Have you bothered to read the relevant treaty? Of the many things that can be said about it, detail is not the word that springs to mind. I appreciate that you want to paint me in the worst light possible but accusing me of lying for pointing out that a treaty, which doesn't provide a definition for any of its key clauses, is not written in any detail is taking that to desperate extremes.Wtf are you talking about. Treaty's are written in EXTENSIVE detail. They are worded very clearly for a reason so there can be no ambiguity about situations such as this. Again. Stop lying.
This entire war arises out of Non-Grata's treaty with NSO. So how is it to go against the spirit to state that it means IRON does not remain obliged to defend Non-Grata from the result of the activation of that treaty?Yes, it is definitely a non-chaining treaty, but non-chaining doesn't mean there are no obligations once a war breaks out. They mean that obligations under a particular treaty become optional when they arise out of obligations from another, separate treaty; there can still be obligations under treaties with non-chaining clauses when they don't arise in this way. For example, in this case, since LoSS didn't have to attack NG, and for that matter, neither did VE, there are no separate treaty obligations at work here, just an attack, plain and simple. Thus, IRON is obligated to defend NG against LoSS upon the request of NG; in the logs, NG requested, and IRON refused to honor said request, ergo a violation of the treaty occurred.
For those interested, the current text of the IRON-NG MnDoAP can be found here. The text says that the treaty is non-chaining, although it doesn't specify further on that front, but to interpret a non-chaining clause in the way some in this thread have interpreted them would go against both the spirit and the very point behind non-chaining clauses. They're intended to prevent alliances from being bound by treaties which they didn't sign (through their obligations to one of the signatories), they're not intended to make MDP treaties optional. There are still plenty of circumstances in which defense is mandatory even in treaties with non-chaining clauses, and these circumstances are one of them.
We were in opposite coalitions last war after Non-Grata made a similar determination regarding its treaty obligations. The standard procedure is to reach a mutual understanding about how this thing is going to go down and get on with life.Furthermore, there are intel sharing obligations in treaties. So, IRON's mere presence in the coalition is a huge conflict in and of itself. IRON must have violated that portion of the treaty with NG as well. If they did honor that portion, then they violated the trust placed in them with the coalition, which is also awful. IRON should not have joined the coalition in the first place. If they hadn't this war would probably not be happening right now, because no one would know that IRON wasn't supportive of NG and lots of people are afraid of IRON.
-
Ok, so I've been reading through all this, and what it comes down to for me is that IRON did in fact very clearly violate their treaty with NG. Did they some good reasons for doing so? Perhaps. Could both NG and IRON have done a better job of communicating and working through their differences and issues to avoid this eventual violation? Maybe. Would an affirmative answer to either or both of those two questions change the fact that IRON violated the treaty? No.
All this boils down to IRON violating their treaty with NG. The rest is just spin, excuses, and justifications; some of that can be persuasive, but none of it can change the fact of the violation. In a court, all that spin might change the sentencing, but it wouldn't change the verdict. What each individual and alliance takes away from that is their own prerogative.
Well first point to this is at it is a non-chaining treaty. Ok I know its not on the wiki (all thats there is an outdated ODP which was later upgraded-oops by some of the standards declared in this thread I guess it doesn't exist?) but it states clearly that it is no chaining. Non-Grata know that it is non-chaining, and they also know that if effectively renders it an Optional treaty when they go to war on the basis of a treaty with another alliance and are attacked on that basis. They are informed that IRON will not elect to enter on an optional treaty in this war several months ago.
As for Loss, these standards of treaty existing debates are not something I have ever seen raised in the last two years so I really struggle to see how it can be said there is a community consensus on it. Cybernations treaties are not written to any level of detail (something that should change in my opinion) but it is heavily a matter of opinion as to whether the treaty is valid or not, and I suspect those that are screaming hardest that it is not valid would rapidly change their views if the situation was reversed.Be that as it may LoSS was immediately prepared to pull out of the war. It had agreed to leave both Non-Grata and Non-Grata's allies out of the war. What advantage is there then in IRON entering? We are told that it isn't fair to let them go off and attack other members of the coalition and Non-Grata won't do that to its other coalition members. Fair enough. But IRON is not attached to this coalition. We are not obliged politically or treatywise to those other members of the coalition. Their defence is not a reason for IRON to enter into the conflict. Non-Grata's decision to continue the war is based on its involvement in the conflict to which we only hold ODP obligations towards, and can be effectively characterised as acting in defence of their other treaty ties. I do not see how it can possibly be within the spirit of a treaty that is expressly non-chaining to say that IRON must fight for that coalitions entire defence for the entire war and must immediately commit all its resources to that coalition.
-
It would be manifestly unfair to allow you to reverse the purchase for two reasons;
-Firstly it would allow you to have hidden your warchest out of reach of spy attacks and ground attacks for the period. This is unfair on the nation you are at war with as cash lost in these attacks is calculated on the basis of cash held in hand.
-Secondly, your spies are present as a force in being. It is possible that people have decided not to carry out attacks due to the presence of spies in your nation. To then hand back the cash to you would be unfair on nations that allocated resources on the basis of how you had spent your money.
In future you should always use the confirm transaction or calculate totals button before clicking perform. -
No. Mostly because you should be bringing your nation up to 3999.999 as your first priority.
-
You will wait at minimum ten days to start this war so I at least have my MP.
Surely you want 30 days. In the age of SDI an MP without a nuclear stockpile has limited affect.
-
My initial thoughts on this union is that IRON better have stocked up on a metric shit-ton of beer and ale because keeping us Vikings and now FARKers in our natural state of semi-drunkenness isnt going to be cheap :P
Hopefully you will get a volume discount at BevMo......oh and dont skimp out on the munchies either!
Congrats you guys, just dont be too naughty over in that corner.......Id hate to see you give ol Mrs. MacGillicuddy heart failure! ;)
Damn-we only have an Imperial Short ton of beer in stock. We are lost.
-
What begins with T, ends with T and has T in it?
When you answer this riddle, you will know what you are.
Terrifically Intelligent
Why thank you kind sir.
-
Lots of Beer and happiness goes with this
-
Two reasonable alliances sign a reasonable treaty.
-
Diving into the wiki's I noticed something that doesn't seemt o have come up so far.
Short wars.
Great War I-16 Days
Great War II-5 days for the League, just under a month for LUE
Great War III-5 days short of one month
Unjust War-14 days (not including GOONland Resistance)
War of the Coalition-1 Month
Comparatively
Equilibrium War-2 Months 9 days (considered by many at the time to be suprisingly short)
Dave War-6 Days short of two months
Grudge War-5 days short of three months
Granted there are various wars in the past Longer than this-the Karma war reached three months and there were various resistance movements such as the VietFAN war that lasted longer, but I simply cannot conceive of a major war even being fully declared within two weeks let alone a surrender of the major powers within a month.
-
Interesting read, but the assumptions don't add up. Yes the idea of a protected reserve under the guise of disbandment makes sense, but the motives don't. You are right that MK would not weaken its stance if it were to continue existing. Which is exactly what this war would do. Your belief that they do not know how this war will go is wrong. Look at the ingrediants;
You have a bunch of people not well liked in the CN Community and a war that is outright picking on the weakest people to attack. Do you know how many people in CN want an unprotected bully to kick after years of wars of realpolitik? The idea that it could be done without counter is quite simply not one that can be maintained. As is the idea that TOP or others could then come in to back up MK at any point. Without formal treaty TOP gets regarded as the attacker so anyone who can can e-lawyer out. Guess when people most likely e-lawyer out? When someone performs an offensive act to defend a bully. So MK in any likely scenario end up burning a bunch of NS fighting a neutral alliance. Not going to happen if they plan to regroup.
-
quit something, indeed!
Yeah....I suppose they should have thrown away all their political capital limiting their involvement and then disbanded within a few months.
-
This is just...hilariously uninformed.
IRON fought VE last war. Compared to a great many (including many of those that shout the loudest about people not giving 110%) they were quite something.
-
Your bills are calculated on a daily basis. If you don't pay, then the next day you have to pay for two days. In your case it has not been paid for 12 days so you have to pay for 12 days of bills.
Fortunately for you bills are calculated on the basis of todays bill multiplied by the number of days since you last paid. So if you reduce today's bill, your bills for all the previous days is reduced as well. To reduce the bill I would suggest decommissioning your cruise missiles and tanks as they are not needed in peace time for a nation your size. On top of that sell 70.5 infastrucuture levels as suggested. The daily bill per level of infastructure increases at levels over 1000 (know in this game as an infra jump) so reducing to just under 1000 will save you a substantial amount of money.
EDIT: Further I would suggest that you contact the economics team of the alliance you are a member of. They will be able to help you more than those on this forum.
-
I think stage 2 is more important than is given here, and has far more of a role to play. Stage 3 cannot exist without stage 2 and is entirely dependent on it. Those that dismiss the political game tend to be the ones to get burned very quickly Because the hatred and motivations are born at stage 2 and in the way that alliances conduct themselves does have a very real consequence. Every alliance is broadly democratic in that it needs its members more than its members need it. An alliance that is wronged by another will struggle to keep its members if it shrugs that off for political expedience. If an alliance wants power it has to be willing to fight to the end. If the members say no, then that will not happen.
No Alliance is immune to this. The game is not immune to it. Anyone who tried to play stage 3 without also playing stage 2 will die. Quickly. Those that scheme and flop around the treaty web cuddling whoever seems to be convenient at the time are not those that have made it to the top level of power. They tend to be the ones who most loudly advocate themselves as the true wheelers and dealers of the game, whilst generally being the middle ranked and most easily manipulated by those who have built a stronger foundation of genuine relationships and a genuine cause and aim.
-
Lets see these PMs. Take a screenshot, blank out the sender, and the post them here.
-
You are indeed right that every superpower will fall. Every major CN power has at some point been defeated. There are those that with enough determination today that could harm us a great deal.
However, the basic truth is this. You are not one of those people.
As for somehow hurting us by making us respond, I do not understand the logic. We could have just left this all to be dismissed by those here. And if you look carefully, it was. No one sided with you. No one suggested that we had a case to answer. No one was even the slightest bit concerned about our conduct and no one called on IRON to do anything. They did unanimously come out to laugh at you.
If you have exposed this hidden weakness (that is apparently obvious to you from a brief encounter but not to the many many alliances we deal with everyday). then where is the salvating wolf pack baying at our door to destroy us?
If you want to know why we respond to you, it is because we are bored. Nothing major is happening right now. The world is relatively at peace. Storm clouds are gathering in the distance, but they are not on our doorstep right now. If and when the next storm breaks rest assured you will be totally forgotten. When the nuclear war breaks lose, the few soldiers you kill here and there will be a nothing when a hundred thousand soldiers can die in a second. -
Dear sir
You keep talking about arrogance. Well I will admit that IRON does have a slight tendency to be slightly arrogant. Not as badly as some out there, but arrogance does creep in sometimes. It is not a trait to be proud off but it is there. Ultimately a long history, a proud history, the position as one of the largest and most powerful forces on the planet does tend to give a certain spring in ones step that can in certain lights and a arena's be seen as a strut. Perhaps as such an alliance with such a history we should take more care to be humble but we are but men, and like all men we have our weaknesses. Victory after victory in war, awesome economic growth and a steady maintenance of a role of power and influence does tend to colour ones vision of ourselves. It is a weakness that many here suffer.
However, there is one arrogance above all. One of unbelievable gall. Ours is born of being an alliance of hundreds of nations, of over 12 million NS, of having a nuclear arsenal of thousands, of having millions of soldiers under arms, thousands of ships, and billions upon billions in financial reserves to plow into our endeavors.
Your arrogance? Is born out of the belief that you can overcome that.At the end of the day, everyone has their weakness. Ours is fairly minor. Yours is fatal and will destroy you and your alliance.
-
I did not pretend anything I was gonna join them, then i read some there garbage on there site i was looking for something perhaps better as other offers was sent. They wrote and threaten me if i did not drop. They could just asked and I would have denounced my nation from them. So i seen no problem with it. I did not know anything about ghosting and that was never my intention. I don't care what game it is, If im provoked into war i go all out. They provoked now im calling them.out and i wont rest till i get a country to nuke them. Trust me im gonna find someone willing to. They can avoid this from happening by publically apologizing and admitting they are in the wrong and paying for all damages done and never contacting me again! They have less then 24 hours to do so or ill make a sizable donation to a nation thatt has the ability to launch a thermal nuclear attack against there leading brass and it might be more then just one nation. Oh and also i want the director of recruiting kicked from IRON on his own so i can donate to a nation to destroy him along with the three nations who are attacking me now. Thats my terms for peace!
You have someone offering you a way out of this. Franz Ferdinand is a member of the alliance Non-Grata. They are a sound alliance. Franz is a reasonable member of that alliance. If you want to walk away with any kind of dignity or any kind of nation go and talk to him and let him help you.
Ultimately, you are new here. You do not know how things work. IRON has been kicking around for well over half a decade. We do know how things work. The idea that you will defeat us militarily is just not based any form of reality of the mechanics of this game.
Go and take his help. IRON will not agree to those terms. You are basically declaring perpetual war if those are you're only terms. If you want any kind of end, please go and talk to him.
Blogs (of the CN variety)
in Open World RP
Posted
There is one niche that blogs fill, and that is discussing things that can be construed both IC and OOC. Alliance announcement s are IC and the OWF is not allowed to have IC debates. If you have a topic for debate that has both elements (say conduct that is both poor IC and OOC) or discussing how an OOC action (such as suggestion box things) impacts on someones IC character, it is a useful place to have those discussions without ending up getting a warn.
For me my blogs are generally things that I regard as more academic and less suited for rough and tumble debate-the AA and OWF are more like a news site, whereas blogs tend to be more like an academic journal.