Drai Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 This was a treaty I was very interested in seeing develop. Congrats on both ends Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1313110933' post='2778099'] If anyone thinks we'll be dropping GOD and leaving them to the wolves they may find themselves disappointed. [/quote] Yeah there is a very easy way to avoid the situation anyways, as evidenced the last few wars. Whoever GOD hits will just have people ghost their AA and fight back, negating the need for a counter-dow, and thus not activating the defense treaty. I suppose they could go in with the aggression, but that's not all that likely. Does that treaty have a non-chaining clause? Edit: Also, congrats to VE and TOP on this fine treaty Edited August 12, 2011 by berbers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audran Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 [quote name='berbers' timestamp='1313114329' post='2778167'] Yeah there is a very easy way to avoid the situation anyways, as evidenced the last few wars. Whoever GOD hits will just have people ghost their AA and fight back, negating the need for a counter-dow, and thus not activating the defense treaty. I suppose they could go in with the aggression, but that's not all that likely. Does that treaty have a non-chaining clause? Edit: Also, congrats to VE and TOP on this fine treaty [/quote] All of our treaties are non-chaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Audran' timestamp='1313114635' post='2778177'] All of our treaties are non-chaining. [/quote] As are ours Edited August 12, 2011 by Chalaskan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sniper Joe Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 I like how everyone and their mother know exactly what VE is thinking and what their intentions are. Well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzptm Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 [quote name='Sniper Joe' timestamp='1313115482' post='2778202'] I like how everyone and their mother know exactly what VE is thinking and what their intentions are. Well done. [/quote] Aw, shucks, it ain't nothing. It's pretty obvious, really. A child of six could suss out what's going on. We also understand that persons of note must keep up appearances until such a time comes when appearances are no longer a necessity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkerNinja Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Everyone seems to be indicating that this is VE looking for a way out. Have any of you considered that this could be TOP looking for a way [i]in[/i]? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwe Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Hey everyone! Remember a couple pages back when Hecate asked everyone to stay on topic? Yep, turns out that post is still there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 [quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1313117166' post='2778257'] Aw, shucks, it ain't nothing. It's pretty obvious, really. A child of six could suss out what's going on. We also understand that persons of note must keep up appearances until such a time comes when appearances are no longer a necessity. [/quote] You're one of those special people, aren't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baltus Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Let the world [i]tremble[/i]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conistonslim Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 [quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1313110933' post='2778099'] If anyone thinks we'll be dropping GOD and leaving them to the wolves they may find themselves disappointed. [/quote] They may or will be disappointed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 [quote name='conistonslim' timestamp='1313118196' post='2778282'] They may or will be disappointed? [/quote] Will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Audran' timestamp='1313114635' post='2778177'] All of our treaties are non-chaining. [/quote] The [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Balkan_Entente"]Balkan Entente[/url] was written years before the advent of non-chaining clauses and contains no such language. Though I suppose that the "we hereby affirm our commitment to support one another in any such action, in any way we deem fit." could be pigeon-holed into a modern non-chaining interpretation along the lines of "good luck, buddy, we'll be here with cash when the war's over." Edited August 12, 2011 by Schattenmann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted August 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1313119967' post='2778311'] The [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Balkan_Entente"]Balkan Entente[/url] was written years before the advent of non-chaining clauses and contains no such language. [/quote] All of our treaties are non-chaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1313120014' post='2778314'] All of our treaties are non-chaining. [/quote] How a MADP is non-chaining? Or GOD/VE downgraded it to a MDoAP? Edited August 12, 2011 by D34th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audran Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1313119967' post='2778311'] The [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Balkan_Entente"]Balkan Entente[/url] was written years before the advent of non-chaining clauses and contains no such language. Though I suppose that the "we hereby affirm our commitment to support one another in any such action, in any way we deem fit." could be pigeon-holed into a modern non-chaining interpretation along the lines of "good luck, buddy, we'll be here with cash when the war's over." [/quote] The decision was made under Cornelius (I think) to make all treaties non-chaining, including the ones we already held. We never went back and added in any clauses, but our allies know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audran Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1313120407' post='2778319'] How a MADP is non-chaining? Or GOD/VE downgraded it to a MDoAP? [/quote] If GOD is pulled into a war because of an outside treaty it doesn't mean the mutual aggression clause is activated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 [quote name='Audran' timestamp='1313120597' post='2778323'] If GOD is pulled into a war because of an outside treaty it doesn't mean the mutual aggression clause is activated. [/quote] There is no chaining mention in the defensive clause either: [quote]In the understanding that we live in dangerous times, full of intrigue, betrayal and opportunism, [b]the three signatories hereby reaffirm their commitment to the defense of one another and their respective dominions against [u]any[/u] foreign aggression.[/b] [/quote] The emphasis is mine of course. Also see the first part of the clause, looks like it was written specially for this current times no? Of course if GOD agrees with this new(at least for me) interpretation for the treaty I see no problem with that, but only if GOD agrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 [quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1313094693' post='2777821'] Do you see a cancellation between GOD and VE anywhere? [/quote] I'll personally buy you 100 tech if VE and GOD remain allies much longer For the record i hate both of these alliances so its whatever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audran Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1313120966' post='2778327'] There is no chaining mention in the defensive clause either: The emphasis is mine of course. Also see the first part of the clause, looks like it was written specially for this current times no? Of course if GOD agrees with this new(at least for me) interpretation for the treaty I see no problem with that, but only if GOD agrees. [/quote] As I stated previously in response to Schattenman's post, all of our treaties were retroactively "unchained" a while ago, and the treaty partners were told. It's been standard practice for us since then. Edited August 12, 2011 by Audran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 [quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1313120976' post='2778328'] I'll personally buy you 100 tech if VE and GOD remain allies much longer For the record i hate both of these alliances so its whatever [/quote] How long is much longer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Cinching it up. Thanks for all the well wishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 [quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1313121597' post='2778335'] How long is much longer? [/quote] VE and GOD add a sunset clause titled "WickedJ owes WarriorConcept 100 tech" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1313119967' post='2778311'] The [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Balkan_Entente"]Balkan Entente[/url] was written years before the advent of non-chaining clauses and contains no such language. Though I suppose that the "we hereby affirm our commitment to support one another in any such action, in any way we deem fit." could be pigeon-holed into a modern non-chaining interpretation along the lines of "good luck, buddy, we'll be here with cash when the war's over." [/quote] The WUT had a similar clause. It stipulated mandatory support for aggressive actions but did not specify that the support needed to be of the military sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogenes Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Will GOD be leaving SF to protest this, or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts