murtibing
-
Posts
260 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by murtibing
-
-
Wait, are you literally letting SNX know of your cancellation through the OWF?
Even if that were the case - then so what?
-
So - if I understand correctly - this is an optional military treaty between VE and NPO being posed as a flowery press communique after a diplomatic meeting? Why is entering into a military treaty being called "normalization of relations"? "Normalization of relations" implies that relations went from hostile to normal.
-
Another cycle of elections have concluded and TOP has a new government.
Who is eligible to vote in these elections? And why was previous government ousted?
-
Of course you would. You are focused on your immediate risk/reward calculations with no thought whatsoever for the longer term, or the planet as a whole.
This is what everyone does. And the result is our current environmental catastrophe. Unaligned or unprotected nations in war mode? It's been months since such a thing has been sighted where I live, and the last time it happened they were in PM on page refresh
I raided many unaligneds in the middle tier. I see no reason to be opposed to sanctioning unaligneds on principle. I never tried to get any of my raid targets sanctioned though. Even if they redeclared on me (happened two times so far).
Come on, tell me with a straight face you think the unaligned are overpowered and civilization would end if we quit sanctioning them constantly. I'm ready for a good laugh.
That wasn't my point. Of course an unaligned nation versus connected alliance isn't overpowered. Still some alliances would like them sanctioned. If you were senator and your ally or friendly alliance would like sanction against some unaligned - would you refuse and upset your ally? Or alliance you want to have good relations with?
But change is hostage to that simple individual risk/reward calculation that tells the typical senator just to do whatever the aligned ask, because however despised and insignificant an alliance, it could still conceivably make trouble for you, but what's that little unaligned nation who's already in anarchy from a 3:1 "raid" and is about to get sanctioned going to ever be able to do to you?I wouldn't accept request from every "aligned". There is number of alliances whose request I would deny. Not because I care about unaligneds - but because I don't care about these alliances (or outright don't like them).
BTW, I don't think anybody uses sanctions in raids. Perhpas sanctions are sometimes used when raid target hit someone else from raider's AA. But I haven't heard of anybody using sanctions against original raid target even when they fight back.
-
I think when sanction requests are made, a team announcement should be made where the nations of the team color and Senators can discuss the validity of the sanction, with at least a 24 hour gap between posting and the sanction being placed. Where facts can be brought to light. Where the nation accused of being a rogue can explain their case if they are on the color. There needs to be a process to it, not just where some Senator places a sanction just because they are asked without checking into the circumstances.
I don't see need for such proceedings. It looks to me like shifting the responsibilty for the placed sanctions onto the team as whole. The only ones who senator may need to consult is his alliance leadership, depending on senator's position in his own alliance and on alliance rules regarding decision making.
Generally speaking, if I were a senator and someone requested sanctions against a nation which can be attacked with impunity (unaligned or unprotected alliance) and request was made by ally or friendly alliance - I would most likely grant that request.
-
It depends on the situation really. We have never used sanctions in real wars as a weapon. But if you are talking about us dealing with pesky rogues and micros we will use any leverage we have to make life miserable for people.
We have no obligation to help GOONS in achiving that goal. Especially since you tried to "make life miserable for" SPATR predecessor alliance (i.e. MONGOLS).
Sanctions can be used to hurt your enemies but they hurt others indiscriminately in the process. This is why we have a long tradition of severely limiting their use (and implied in that is of course a tradition of similar antiquity of people flaunting norms when they think they can get away with it as well, of course.)
So yes in a sense I am personally against sanctions entirely, I think they are very nearly always a bad choice on a number of levels, but I was careful NOT to put that into LP-CN and it is NOT LP-CN policy to oppose sanctions in general.
Only sanctions levied on Brown against LP-CN members who are on Brown and voting for the LP-CN candidate would be of concern to the LP-CN. The goal is not to enforce our standards on all of CN, or even a single color, it is only to give our members a space in which they can exist with some protection against being molested in this fashion.
Thanks for explanation. I agree that sanctions hurt others as well, not only the sanctioned person. Like when CubaQuerida sanctioned Lord Hitchcock who was at that time trading with one of SPATR members. That being said a loss of one trade is a minor concern when compared to being fully sanctioned.
Man if I was a senator and got sanctioned twice and attacked on my color sphere, I'd be sanctioning everybody
In Methrage's position, I would definitely sanction nations from the Three Permille Coalition.
-
It definitely makes sense for a small group that was often target of a sanctions to gather at one team and elect their own senator so he can lift those sanctions.
However reading Libertarian Party manifesto, I'm under impression that you are against sanctions in general. I don't agree with that. Sanctions can be used to hurt one's enemies. For example we (SPATR) have used sanctions when fighting for senate control. We have also used sanctions against some of the seven members whose memebership in SPATR was rescinded as the result of January Trials. These sanctions were graciously lifted though.
The only mistaken sanctions which we ever placed were two sanctions requested by alliance called GOONS. They requested sanctions against two members of alliance called Animalz. Our senator initially granted their request, but it was later resolved that SPATR has no stake in war between GOONS and Animalz and therefore sanctions were promptly lifted. (The story is a bit more complicated, because those nations were initially sanctioned by someone else and then other senator - but not Bones - lifted the sanctions. And then GOONS for some reason contacted our senator, i.e. Bones).
-
If you're trying to insinuate that a massive chain of treaties be activated in a war that's not declared (see: small scale raid), I'm afraid you don't have a grasp of how things work. A multi-alliance response to the likes of Cuba would result in a full scale war at worst, at best a tense crisis with a quick but unsatisfying resolution for all parties.
This isn't micro politics or fringe-Polarsphere. This is the big leagues, and you don't just go around starting first page slugging match global wars on a whim with no strategic plan. That's not even touching on the fact that TPF and their friends can build a coalition and use that CB whenever they want now, barring an unadvertised resolution deal between DBDC and TPF.
That's why I said "it is possible".
My remark was more general, not only relating to this particular situation. Besides: cascading treaties not necessarily lead to the global war. In top tier, even to deal with single rogue, an alliance may need a lot of cascading treaties (depending on the rogue stats and what alliance would be attacked).
-
NPO isn't the world police. They don't have to intervene to protect other alliances' sovereignty unless required by treaty.
I agree. In the past I raided a few unprotected alliances. I definitely wouldn't like anyone to became "world police" and meddle in my raids.
That being said when alliance which has treaties - like TPF for example - is attacked, it is possible that not only direct allies will come to their defence. The cascading treaties might bring unexpected alliances to the fight. Assuming that TPF has any military treaties left. Perhaps TPF's other allies also tactfully cancelled beforehand? -
That treaty has been cancelled for months.
My apologies then.
You should update your wiki page in that case. I assumed your wiki page is up to date (I thought that in such large alliance as NPO there will be someone to update the wiki page).
NPO, only doing what is right when forced to by an active treaty.
Since they are not allied anymore, NPO defending TPF would be neither right nor wrong.
You do know their treaty had been downgraded at that point correct?
Turns out it was cancelled, so we both didn't have up to date info.
It's interesting what happened to other TPF's treaties though...
-
-
NPO. Powerful alliance, but never takes advantage. Have you ever heard of Pacifica Sphere? Could be gooder.
NPO didn't even defend their long time ally TPF against an attack. I'm refering to the recent situation (about two weeks ago) when TPF was attacked by two nations from DBDC and one nation from "So Uh Bored" alliance. And NPO didn't even defend TPF against two nation "So Uh Bored" AA. Despite the fact that NPO has about 20 nations in range.
-
-
Doom Squad, The Sovereign Order (with The Crimson Army), Rouge Legion Etrangere Ane, NADC on one side.
On the other side it is Monsters Inc and Confederatio Aesir.
TSC is the only alliance no longer fighting as they agreed terms with Monsters Inc independently.
If you are correct, this gives rise to a question: why did nations from The Sovereign Order accept peace with nations from Monsters Inc? Was that a trick or they don't know that war is still ongoing?
-
Considering the fact that Dark Templar has treaty with DBDC, isn't DT-DK treaty redundant? For this reason I was not a big fan of SPATR entering into treaty with DS (predecessor of DK).
-
I don't see why Methrage candidacy for brown team senate is such a problem for the alliances which constitute the BC bloc. They already control majority of senate seats which allows them to vote on the proposals in such a way as to favour their members.
That being said, if they want to prevent Methrage from being elected, attacking only Methrege is not likely to accomplish that goal. They will need to attack or at least intimidate his voters as well. It seems that some of the alliances backing up Methrage are the same alliances that were previously forced off the pink team for the same reason (for trying to elect their own candidate). So the alliances assembled in the BC bloc should try the same approach that worked on pink, i.e. intimidating the voters with the dployment of nuclear weapons.
-
Since the topic of Unknown Smurf's reparations to Doom Kingdom has been brought up in this thread, I would like to explain on thing. Unkown Smurf has made a donation deal with one of the memebers of Swash Plates and Tail Rotors. In exchange for donation our memeber is paying the half of the amount of tech reparations to Doom Kingdom on behalf of Unknown Smurf.
I'm explaining this because our member has labeled the aid offers simply as "Reps" which might lead some to belive that SPATR is paying reps to Doom Kingdom. Which is not the case.
-
Ius ad bellum is a pink team alliance.
I pointed this out as early as February (a few months before Ius ad bellum came into existance):
For the future reference: Ius ad bellum is a pink team alliance as well.
-
The amazing thing about being cancelled several times by SPATR is we have never held a treaty with SPATR.
In the 2D Treaty Web thread however you said that...
DBDC ODoAP missing with SPATR, GRE, and Sengoku.
That was about the first treaty, which was dissolved in January this year.
Now about the other one...
Even that last travesty of written word that was posted, nobody in DBDC had seen it, talked about it, or agreed to it.
It was Bones who provided your signatures and posted the treaty. I (and others in SPATR) assumed that he has presented it to DBDC Leadership and that you agreed.
Why has nobody from DBDC alerted us that you think that treaty is invalid? If it was true that the treaty was invalid, we would have retracted the announcement and apologized.
It is also worth noting that Cuba posted in the thread in which that treaty was announced and he didn't raise any objections.
-
I was certain this had been cancelled, I guess this is just to make sure it was cancelled for good.
What are you relating to? Cancellation of treaties (just like entering into treaties) requires unanimous resolution by the Leadrship of SPATR. A motion to cancel this treaty was presented for deliberation on 5th May. The motion achived unaniomous support, as required by the customary Rule of Unanimity (customary, because SPATR doesn't have a written charter). And thus the treaty was cancelled today by issuing statement of such intent as required by the Article VII of the treaty.
-
Isn't this like the third time this been cancelled
No. It is second time when military treaty between SPATR and DBDC is cancelled. (Strictly speaking, the first time it was immediate dissolution without cancellation period).
-
Notification of Cancellation
Swash Plates And Tail Rotors hereby issues to the alliance DOOMBIRD DOOMCAVE the notification of cancellation of the Treaty of Reciprocity in Military Assistance between DOOMBIRD DOOMCAVE and Swash Plates And Tail Rotors involving Doom Squad.
In accordance with the Article VII of the aforementioned treaty, the 72 hours cancellation period commences upon posting of this announcement. When this period elapses the treaty will be thus fully dissolved.
As resolved by the Leadership of Swash Plates And Tail Rotors,
Signed,
Untouchable - The Boss, Security Council Member
Sgt Gus - Main Rotor Blade, Security Council Member
Fasser - Berserker Brigade, Security Council Member
Zxcsd - Wing Man, Security Council Member
Murtibing - Grand Inquisiteur, Security Council Member -
Like Untouchable said, SPATR supports our allies in Kaskus. Badlands also supports Kaskus.
-
Swash Plates And Tail Rotors: 46.0k tech received
Thank you for these statistics. Good to know that SPATR is doing quite well compared to other alliances with similar membership numbers.
-
I just know earlier this war, I had around 20k tech, and my opponent had around 10k tech, and he had more troops than I did, and I still had over 60% odds on him.
This was the case because both you and your opponent were below the amount of tech at which tech bonus to GA odds is capped. I have 46k tech atm and if I would be fighting a nation having 36k tech, my tech wouldn't give me any adavntage to GA odds, since both me and my opponent would have the same (maximum) tech bonus to GA odds.
-
You're not seeing what should be readily apparent, to further assist you, look at GPA's anarchy statistics, and then the military(soldier count) of their top 30 or so.
I know that GPA top tier is mostly either turtling or in peace mode. I have posted about this myself in this thread in response to the post made by the rebel.
The point of my post (that one to which you responded) was that GPA top tier is less powerfull then the WTF top tier was before the current war. The fact that GPA top tier is turtling desn't change this. Actually, it makes it easier to attack them, as the turtling nations are either in anarchy or they can be anarchied immediately, reducing GPA ability to make counters (to mitigate this they keep reserves in peace mode all the time). Of course by turtling they deny possible attackers any direct profit (except XP) - but this doesn't make them stronger.
Stabbing allies right in the back
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
This announcement reminded me about my first war. Long, long time ago I was on one-man AA too and I was attacked by one nation from "Pirates of the Parrot Order" as well. I didn't aid their enemies or anything like that. PPO member attacked simply because my AA was unprotected (as was explained to me by their leader). After that their leader tried to recruit me, but of course I refused. My nation was still quite new and unprepared for war back then...