Announcement from The Order of the Paradox

[Timberland]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1303293663' post='2694506']
I don't mean it as insult to TOP, but you are a powerful alliance, so anything you do in any war makes a big difference. I just think you guys chose to align yourselves on the wrong side, but its not like you can't fix your FA to not support alliances seeking the destruction of others for fun, as you've done in the past when you've disagreed with the actions of allies. Their side would still have a big advantage had TOP not gotten involved, but your powerful piece of their arsenal, which adds a lot to their strength and the odds their opponents face.
[/quote]

Meth, You being a previous long time ally of TOP should know how we do business. Even though I'm the GC of TOP. I don't get to make the decision of what FA path we in TOP follow, our members do that. Obviously all of our 140+ members in TOP cannot be wrong, if they chose where we're headed or who we choose to align ourselves with. Yes our members decide who they'd like to get closer to in the future also.

edit: our instead of are

Edited April 20, 2011 by Timberland

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Flonker' timestamp='1303277086' post='2694374']
Me & Blue were in ONOS way the hell back in the day, pre-Ivan.
[/quote]
Yes, I am aware. It's still a weird thing to say to your enemy.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Khyber' timestamp='1303177195' post='2693001']
For the record, DR had no intention of entering the war, except for ML. You think Valhalla, BAPS and TORN who are not allied to TOP would not have joined the war if they wanted to? How in the world did you come to that understanding you posted above?
[/quote]
Not wanting to enter a war to defend the NPO corner again does not mean we had a real desire to sit out this years global war. Had Olympus been countered we would have very very happy to enter this war. I wasnt alone in hoping to see someone break ranks and hit them. A change in FA doesnt mean we didnt want to fight somewhere in this, we just didnt want to fight in our usual place.

[Daimos]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1303264008' post='2694164']
Well the fact that they launched the attack says a lot.
[/quote]

The fact that TOP attacked MK unprovoked says alot of what? Are you trying to tell me that the act was a positive reflection of TOP on MK hence the treaty?

Edited April 20, 2011 by Daimos

[Daimos]

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1303287282' post='2694478']
It's one thing to silently judge, it's another to take it out in the open. Because if you just do it for yourself, you always have the option to correct mistakes in your judgement due to new information. If you just burst out with the first thing that comes to your head, you end up looking like an idiot because you have no knowledge about the subject at hand.
[/quote]

I am confident on my assumption that the treaty between TOP and MK was a matter of convenience primarily. So I have no problem stating it in public. Will it develop to a long lasting friendship? Time will tell.

[Timberland]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1303302225' post='2694539']
The fact that TOP attacked MK unprovoked says alot of what? Are you trying to tell me that the act was a positive reflection of TOP on MK hence the treaty?
[/quote]

The hit on MK and C&G last war was a strategic hit thats it. If we didn't hit them they would have hit us. TOP and MK are both mature enough to be able to put the war behind us. With all of our Q&A's we had on each others forums we found out we're not that much different.

[Daimos]

[quote name='Timberland' timestamp='1303303593' post='2694549']
The hit on MK and C&G last war was a strategic hit thats it. If we didn't hit them they would have hit us. TOP and MK are both mature enough to be able to put the war behind us. With all of our Q&A's we had on each others forums we found out we're not that much different.
[/quote]

I think TOP hit on MK opened their eyes that TOP is a threat to MK. MK cannot act on NPO with TOP out there not knowing what they would do. So how do you pacify TOP? Sign a treaty with them. With that out of the way MK was free to act on NPO.

You keep saying if TOP did not hit MK, they would have hit you first. Does MK share this assumption/fact?

Edited April 20, 2011 by Daimos

[HellAngel]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1303302996' post='2694546']
I am confident on my assumption that the treaty between TOP and MK was a matter of convenience primarily. So I have no problem stating it in public. Will it develop to a long lasting friendship? Time will tell.
[/quote]

How come you are so confident about that? To my knowledge, you have neither been a regular nor a government member of either TOP or MK in the time the treaty was developed. All you could say is only the point of view of an outsider without any substantial knowledge.

Confidence in ignorance is just more ignorance.

[Richard Rahl]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1303302996' post='2694546']
I am confident on my assumption that the treaty between TOP and MK was a matter of convenience primarily.
[/quote]

I like your persistence.

[Daimos]

[quote name='Richard Rahl' timestamp='1303308353' post='2694607']
I like your persistence.
[/quote]

The foundation of friendship is not there. You cannot just dismiss what happened during the BiPolar war. To fully trust an alliance that was your enemy just less than a year ago is dangerous. I am sure your leadership knows that.

TOP claims the attack on MK was a “strategic” move. So is your current treaty with them. Nothing wrong with that.

[Richard Rahl]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1303309107' post='2694616']
The foundation of friendship is not there.[/quote]

Sure it is.

[quote]You cannot just dismiss what happened during the BiPolar war.[/quote]

Why would we dismiss what happened during BiPolar? It was specifically because of what happened in BiPolar that we formed our friendship.

[quote]To fully trust an alliance that was your enemy just less than a year ago is dangerous. I am sure your leadership knows that.[/quote]

I trust MK.

[Daimos]

[quote name='Richard Rahl' timestamp='1303310350' post='2694624']
I trust MK.
[/quote]

For your alliance sake you better hope they feel the same about you. I would shake my former enemies hand but I would not turn my back on them.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Daimos

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1303310573' post='2694626']
For your alliance sake you better hope they feel the same about you. I would shake my former enemies hand but I would not turn my back on them.
[/quote]


Such touching words of wisdom.

[Daimos]

[quote name='Richard Rahl' timestamp='1303310350' post='2694624']
Why would we dismiss what happened during BiPolar? It was specifically because of what happened in BiPolar that we formed our friendship.

I trust MK.
[/quote]

What I meant is you cannot dismiss the reason why TOP attacked MK. You did not trust them than why now? Anyone can go to your diplomatic forum and say what you want to hear it does not mean they are sincere. Action speaks louder than words and so far I do not see any action that would warrant that trust. Atleast nothing at the level that would allow me to sleep well at night. That is if I was in the position of leadership for both sides.

[Richard Rahl]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1303315365' post='2694667']
What I meant is you cannot dismiss the reason why TOP attacked MK. You did not trust them than why now? Anyone can go to your diplomatic forum and say what you want to hear it does not mean they are sincere. Action speaks louder than words and so far I do not see any action that would warrant that trust. Atleast nothing at the level that would allow me to sleep well at night. That is if I was in the position of leadership for both sides.
[/quote]

TOP attacked MK for a variety of reasons, one of which was misunderstanding. We corrected that through diplomacy. Not just having their diplos come over to our forums, but by intensive, months long communication. But I don't blame you for your assumptions. You weren't involved in the process and literally have no idea what went, or is, going on.

I agree with what I assume is your basic premise that continual work is needed to ensure the viability of any relationship. But that would be necessary for any treaty partners, not just TOP and MK, which makes me wonder why it is such a big deal to you.

[Crispy99]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1303309107' post='2694616']
TOP claims the attack on MK was a “strategic” move. So is your current treaty with them. Nothing wrong with that.
[/quote]

We're not saying there is anything wrong with that, we are saying you are wrong in your assumption.

[ojiras ajeridas]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1303232132' post='2693663']
So they honoured a request from MK because they disliked TOP?

MK had nothing to do with it?

Riiiight.
[/quote]
Wait... let us put in the right order how things happened:

1. NpO was at war.
2. TOP asked if they wanted help.
3. TOP asked what NpO would say if TOP et. al. pre-empted MK.
4. NpO said they would welcome it.
5. NpO told MK that they would be attacked on date X.

And now MK did the terrible thing, the most unexpected, infamous and treachery thing which ever happened on Planet Bob: THEY DEFENDED THEMSELVES!

Of course, I do understand that you are quite surprised how we can like such an infamous alliance...

[Zero-One]

[quote name='Ojiras Ajeridas' timestamp='1303317303' post='2694688']
Wait... let us put in the right order how things happened:

1. NpO was at war.
2. TOP asked if they wanted help.
3. TOP asked what NpO would say if TOP et. al. pre-empted MK.
4. NpO said they would welcome it.
5. NpO told MK that they would be attacked on date X.

And now MK did the terrible thing, the most unexpected, infamous and treachery thing which ever happened on Planet Bob: THEY DEFENDED THEMSELVES!

Of course, I do understand that you are quite surprised how we can like such an infamous alliance...
[/quote]

Your avatar and signature are both drool-worthy. Very sharp graphics

Also, HI OJI!!! [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/blush.gif[/img]

[Daimos]

[quote name='Richard Rahl' timestamp='1303316548' post='2694682']
TOP attacked MK for a variety of reasons, one of which was misunderstanding. We corrected that through diplomacy. Not just having their diplos come over to our forums, but by intensive, months long communication. But I don't blame you for your assumptions. You weren't involved in the process and literally have no idea what went, or is, going on.

I agree with what I assume is your basic premise that continual work is needed to ensure the viability of any relationship. But that would be necessary for any treaty partners, not just TOP and MK, which makes me wonder why it is such a big deal to you.
[/quote]

TOP and MK are major players in this game. Your actions can tip the balance of power. It is worth taking notice. Hence a “big deal”.

Would be interesting how these treaty will develop. Would it suffer the same faith as the MK and NpO treaty? I bet you they thought they could trust each other when they signed it.

[Blue Lightning]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1303298402' post='2694520']
Yes, I am aware. It's still a weird thing to say to your enemy.
[/quote]
Not everyone my alliance is at war with deserves to be treated like !@#$. I actually like and respect some of my opponents.

[ojiras ajeridas]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1303318902' post='2694701']
TOP and MK are major players in this game. Your actions can tip the balance of power. It is worth taking notice. Hence a “big deal”.

Would be interesting how these treaty will develop. Would it suffer the same faith as the MK and NpO treaty? I bet you they thought they could trust each other when they signed it.
[/quote]
To be fair - tell me ONE treaty you can be absolutely sure it will last forever. Do you think we expected our treaty with Grämlins to end up like it ended? Do you think MHA thought the Grämlins treaty will be broken one day? I mean, there wasn't even a cancellation clause...

However, I find it more than silly how so many people like to say us that we can't be friends. If you want to play yellow press of Planet Bob, send some paparazzi to take shots who demonstrate this. If you can't, I think you should believe to the directly involved people. There was a feeling in that war, there was a feeling after the war and paying reps, and this feeling ended up in the treaty. Why not earlier? Well, the war forced us to interact, to finish that "Don't talk to them, their evil" attitude.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1303304655' post='2694560']
I think TOP hit on MK opened their eyes that TOP is a threat to MK. MK cannot act on NPO with TOP out there not knowing what they would do. So how do you pacify TOP? Sign a treaty with them. With that out of the way MK was free to act on NPO.[/quote]
Lets say that MK and TOP do not have a treaty. What makes you think we would have went to war on the side of the NPO? The most we would had ever done was declare neutrality. You would have gotten no help from us.

[quote]You keep saying if TOP did not hit MK, they would have hit you first. Does MK share this assumption/fact?
[/quote]
It has been stated, multiple times, that if we had entered into the Bi-Polar war through conventional means that CnG/friends (which includes MK) would have attacked us via their treatys/ghost declarations/what have you.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1303304655' post='2694560']
I think TOP hit on MK opened their eyes that TOP is a threat to MK. MK cannot act on NPO with TOP out there not knowing what they would do. So how do you pacify TOP? Sign a treaty with them. With that out of the way MK was free to act on NPO.

You keep saying if TOP did not hit MK, they would have hit you first. Does MK share this assumption/fact?
[/quote]
We knew TOP was a threat before they hit us. And yes, we probably would have ended up hitting them had they entered in.

As for being free to act on NPO, the MK/TOP treaty made it harder, not easier. In case you didn't notice, certain alliances like Polar and GOD HATE TOP. If our only objective had been to kill NPO, we would have maintained all our treaties and used all those ties to crush you by a much larger margin.

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1303309107' post='2694616']
The foundation of friendship is not there. You cannot just dismiss what happened during the BiPolar war. To fully trust an alliance that was your enemy just less than a year ago is dangerous. I am sure your leadership knows that.

TOP claims the attack on MK was a “strategic” move. So is your current treaty with them. Nothing wrong with that.
[/quote]
There was a LOT of discussion about bipolar and both of us got over it.

[Daimos]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1303320873' post='2694721']
Lets say that MK and TOP do not have a treaty. What makes you think we would have went to war on the side of the NPO? The most we would had ever done was declare neutrality. You would have gotten no help from us.
[/quote]

TOP entered the BiPolar war on the side of NpO, an alliance you historically do not like. What guarantee does MK have that you will not pull something like that again? Solution for MK, sign a treaty with TOP.

[Daimos]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1303321314' post='2694725']
We knew TOP was a threat before they hit us. And yes, we probably would have ended up hitting them had they entered in.
[/quote]

You knew they were a threat but did not know how much of a threat until they actually hit you.