Jump to content

An Announcement from the Viridian Entente and The Order of the Paradox


Goldie

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[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 B-)

Edited by berbers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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 B-)
[/quote]

All of our treaties are non-chaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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

[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

[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

[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 by Schattenmann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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

[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 by D34th
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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 by Audran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...