memoryproblems

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1322676817' post='2857113'] How STA and TPF interpret and act on their treaty is indeed no one else their concern. But then memoryproblems started pointing at how RIA and Polar interpret and act on their treaty, which is hypocritical at best when you are hiding behind a non-chaining clause. [/quote] Do you even know what hypocritical means? Because theres nothing hypocritical about it. On one hand, there is no obligation, simply the option to enter at our discretion. On the other hand, RIA has a clear and obvious [b]obligation[/b]. They signed, sealed and delivered it, and now they aren't owning up to it.

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1322666781' post='2857017'] Oh, I understand what drove you to bring it up, I just think it was a poor strategic decision. Here you are, with a wonderful thread where I'm lazily nudging RIA. I'm Ardus, so guaranteed 10 pages, all of it to be focused on (1) RIA, (2) NpO, (3) MK, and (4) a handful of personal barbs. TPF comes up crosswise and it'd be brushed aside as off-topic. Bringing up the comparisons present in other threads in the first post starts an argument you didn't necessarily have to have and undercut the original goal of the thread, which was concentrating attention to RIA's delay in a single place. I didn't even have to say anything other than "lolRIA"; the original post could have been three paragraphs singing the merits of Spanish Ham with that tacked on at the end and it'd have accomplished the goal after a couple of pages. Oh God, where is my off switch? [/quote] And instead we got 10 pages of absolute crap discussing non-chaining treaties and the usual crowd (CSN, for giving that bafoon Rotavele any government responsiblity) being terrible as usual. My god, what have I screwed up.

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1322663372' post='2856974'] The TPF fellow brought himself up in the first post. Not sure why. [/quote] Was mostly referencing how I've seen on an occasion or two in the past few days comparisons of RIA's wait to [url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/TPF_War]this[/url]

[quote name='SpoiL' timestamp='1322651055' post='2856868'] Everyone and their mother knows that. They just don't admit it because they want to make the best of an inconvenient strategy and it works. [/quote] In the history of forever, everybody has !@#$%*ed about it, and that gives the right to everybody else to !@#$%* about it.

[quote name='Wilhelm the Demented' timestamp='1322650705' post='2856866'] It's the rhetoric that makes the WAPA/Colossus front the only debatable one. When it comes down to it, all that matters is the understanding TPF and STA have on the matter but it can be argued both ways (hence the term "gray area") and that's why I chose to play devil's advocate. [/quote] I simply can't recall ever seeing a treaty read along the lines of "The respective parties are not obliged to offer assistance should either signatory alliance become involved in a conflict via other treaties with other alliances or blocs. Either signatory alliance may offer assistance in such an event but any assistance would be voluntary, [b]unless the attacks were by an alliance who had no obligation to enter the war, in which case assistance is once again mandatory[/b]". If you could provide a treaty that reads like that, I'd be interested in seeing it, but that seems to be in line with what you seem to think a non-chaining treaty means.

[quote name='Wilhelm the Demented' timestamp='1322649908' post='2856856'] I think a lack of personal choice and actual strategy stifles the imagination and makes the game boring and mechanical. We all have our perspectives, though. [/quote] I've been trying to grasp your perspective, and I still don't understand your view about non-chaining treaties. I think the vast majority of people would see it along the lines of, if the reason your getting attacked is because you attacked somebody else, thats the sort of deal that a non-chaining treaty deals with. I don't think many people try to overthink it as I believe you are doing, and try to differentiate conflicts based on if they were attacked by somebody on a MD or an oA or whatever. My interpretation of a non-chaining treaty is rather simple, if somebody else attacks you [b]because[/b] you attacked somebody else, non-chaining clauses would apply. I frankly don't think it matters what type of treaties somebody else used to attack you. These things have gotten much more complex from the days when if you attacked somebody else you were the aggressor, and if you got attacked by somebody else, you were the defender. The onset of rhetoric about how doing the things that caused you to be attacked making you the aggressor and so on has just made things too hard to follow sometimes.

[quote name='Wilhelm the Demented' timestamp='1322648002' post='2856834'] See, if you had comprehended it the first time he made that assertion you wouldn't have had to bring up that non-chaining clause a hundred times. If that is the view you share then that is the view you share but, if I were you, I'd make sure to clear this issue with the current government of STA before you go on about believing. [/quote] The communications that occur between the respective governments of TPF and STA are private and I have no interest to discuss them here, other then to say that I believe the two fully understand the other's position, and that assistance will be provided in a variety of forms.

[quote name='Wilhelm the Demented' timestamp='1322646292' post='2856822'] Let me help you out: He's asserting that the declarations of war issued by WAPA and Colossus count as new, aggressive actions, thereby placing them outside of the jurisdiction of the non-chaining clause. Which means you are legally obligated to defend the STA against those alliances should it be requested. If you agree with that and state that the STA has not requested it then you thereby must provide RIA and Polar with the same sovereignty over the execution of their treaty or you are being hypocritical. If you disagree then I can only assume it's based on the legal nature of WAPA and Colossus' entry but, if I am not mistaken, they must have executed the oA clause of the AZTEC treaty in order to declare because they have no other treaty obligations that necessitate their entry (and I use[i] necessitate[/i] liberally here). Either that or you disagree that they count as new actions and instead count as part of the on-going conflict but, if that is the case, then you are wondering in to a gray area and treaties don't allow for gray areas unless they [i]explicitly[/i] allow for gray areas (which goes against the entire concept of "gray area"). Needless to say, I eagerly await your presentation of the [i]These Wars Legally Count as Aggression but we Think They're Part of the Original Conflict so we Still Won't Defend our Allies[/i] clause in your treaty. Then it's apparent that RIA holds the farmer's market in a higher regard than IRON. [/quote] It is the view of TPF that the term "conflict" in the Hell Freezes Over treaty refers to a war as a whole. I believe that is an understanding shared between the two signatories of said treaty.

[quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1322643335' post='2856810'] So, the only time you would defend STA is if a war started and they were the one's being attacked? At any other point such as the current situation STA would be involved in a war. STA never does anything to be attacked out of the blue. So you will never go to war for STA? I am confused as to how you view your treaty with STA. Don't think of this as me being combative. I am trying to understand why you would not defend STA against Colossus or WAPA. By your logic then, you will not enter the war at all at any point since the war has already started and ANY alliance that enters would be involving itself in the war via other treaties. The only exception being if other treaties you hold have different language regarding chaining. [/quote] Well as a matter of fact, that is actually exactly how non-chaining treaties work. I'll quote the relevant portion of the Hell Freezes Over treaty, [quote] The respective parties are not obliged to offer assistance should either signatory alliance become involved in a conflict via other treaties with other alliances or blocs. Either signatory alliance may offer assistance in such an event but any assistance would be voluntary.[/quote] It works both way in every non-chaining treaty. For example, TPF holds a MDoAP treaty with NPO and we hold an MDoAP with BAPS. If NPO was to be directly attacked, we would be obligated to defend them, however BAPS would be under no obligation to defend us if we were countered. It would be at their discretion. Without non-chaining clauses, one could make the argument that MDoAP treaties are usually the same as MDAP treaties, meaning that when you are inevitably countered that any MDoAPs that are chaining are activated, meaning those partners would be obligated to support you. That was fine in the old days, but it has come to be accepted that if I sign an treaty with Alliance B who has an MDoAP with Alliance C, I'm not de facto signing with Alliance C as a result of that single treaty. Although besides all that, there is more to the issue then that, which I shall not discuss publicly. The only people to whom TPF needs to answer to regarding the fashion the treaty is honored is STA. STA is the type of people who would not put up with !@#$%^&*, and I think if they did feel seriously aggrieved, our relationship would cease to continue.

[quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1322641853' post='2856788'] STA being hit by GLOF...fine STA should expect any of IRON's MDP+ partners to hit them. It all comes down to how people view treaties and chaining and all that. My view is that if STA requests assistance, then you are obligated to hit Colossus or WAPA for their direct hit on STA. I am interested in knowing why you or anyone feels my view is wrong or why you or anyone reading interprets the situation differently. [/quote] Because that is the way the treaty is written. Done, end of story, thats all there is to it. It's kind of generally accepted that's how things work. If you want to change that, then i'ts you who needs to prove why it should be otherwise. [quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1322641984' post='2856791'] Bahahaha, So TPF is waiting to get chained in another way so they can finally win. Thank god I got to personally nuke many of your nations in PB-NpO while riding the Athens train [/quote] I think you would have plenty of experience on chaining in to win. Anybody who has followed TPF knows how we operate and what our values are. Seriously, remember that comment about how I said you weren't the brightest crayon in the box? Have you not been paying attention during the last few wars? Don't worry though, sooner or later your going to get your face stomped in the ground. How I hope it's us who does it to you.

[quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1322641339' post='2856782'] [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=96987"]And the same goes for your MDoAP too.[/url] [/quote] Its been a long known fact that you weren't the brightest crayon in the box, but I've got to ask, are you really that dense, or are you just acting? You could read the comments I made on the last page, or you could read the last paragraph of Article IV of the treaty that you have linked.

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1322640203' post='2856767'] Yawn, in that case seeing SF and XX are both non chaining.. guess R&R will be sitting back with a drink watching the world blow up around us You don't wanna fight on Polars side, fair enough. You use your non chaining clause like many people do to wimp out, no problem. But don't even try to pretend you're better then RIA. RIA can't attack IRON and putting them on TOP makes very little sense especially since you just shown the way for no one going in with RIA, because well we all have non chaining treaties with them. [/quote] Its funny to watch you attempt to e-lawyer RIA out of a [b]treaty obligation.[/b] P.S. I don't need to pretend that I am a college student, or that I am a man, for those are things that I actually am. likewise, we don't need to pretend that we are better then RIA.

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1322634529' post='2856663'] Dude, your ally just got attacked. Making target lists? Didn't think so, now go back to your corner and shush. [/quote] Our treaty partner, unlike RIA's, was not attacked directly, they were attacked as a result of their entry into the war. Our treaty with STA has provisions which very clearly outlines our obligations in such a situation. I'm not going to sit here and talk about TPF's decision to or not defend STA without an obligation to, we made our feelings clear to STA prior to the beginning of the war, and we have told them that we would provide as much assistance as we could during and following the war in a variety of ways. I will sit here and tell you that TPF honors our obligations. RIA's been saying rather frequently lately that they do as well, even if it means they've got to be on both sides of a war. Being on two sides of a war doesn't mean much when you really don't have your heart in one of them and get to win in the bigger picture. I don't care what RIA has done in the past, for if they do not own up to their obligations in the present, then for the present, they are nothing but liars and cowards. Should they expect history to show otherwise, they need to prove it, not just tell us about it.

[quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1322633732' post='2856639'] I'm sure RIA will !@#$ their pants upon reading this and immediately jump in. [/quote] Sounds like the appropriate reaction...

And before RIA et. al. wants to compare this to how it took TOP a week to get declarations to come in the TPF war, know that the two situations aren't even comparable (for obvious reasons, if you think about it, but you guys never do.) I don't know what you guys are working on or what you think you've got up your sleeves, but find your nuts and get on with it.

Somebody ought to just roll your ass for this. Terrible, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Disappointing to see our fine allies in STA hit, I wish them the best in their efforts in this conflict.

Whoa, is my count right, 18 nukes thwarted in a row? Where are the people who say that SDIs really only thwart 50% of nukes to reply to this.

[quote name='ChimpMasterFlash' timestamp='1322609298' post='2856156'] Grub I'm curious... After Polar is destroyed, what alliance will you join? [/quote] Whichever alliance is responsible for Polar's destruction, perhaps?

Congrats. Hi Kata, rawr.

The Holyone, founder of the NAAC. Not a household name, but his contributions had a big impact. AirMe, I think it sometimes gets forgotten that AirMe was NAAC protector for multiple terms, in the middle of which was GW2 (in which, If i recall, he pushed for no nukes.)

I'm thinking that when it comes time for me to become involved, I'm going to do a 3 parter. One of these days Pow, right in the kisser Straight to the moon.

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1322467850' post='2854668'] [img]http://i.imgur.com/OKLqv.png[/img] Now in better quality and with two of the best cartoons on now! [/quote] You should do one of Doofensmirtz (with NpO written on him) where he's like "Oh hi Perry the Platypus, what are you doing with that nuclear missile?"

So simple, so beautiful. How I despise that about it.

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' timestamp='1322280155' post='2851380'] If we're going to be fair about this, you should put mhawk's name on it if you're calling the treaty Elysium. [/quote] Its supposed to be on there, but JudgeX isn't as sharp as he was when he was young. Also, great to see.