Pariah Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1318023126' post='2820109'] Without doing anything the other side isn't doing already, Legion's side could treaty chain in Valhalla, GOONS, NPO, IRON, MK, TOP, Umbrella and most of the treaty web on their side by having allies activate their oA clauses to join in, much like how IAA activated their oA clause with NsO as reason to join in on the Tetris side. Probably won't happen, but it would be funny to see this embarrassing spectacle for the alliances fighting Legion who keep needing to bring more alliances in to stand a chance see the same tactics used against them to make this war a lot worse for them. [/quote] Possible, but highly unlikely. Valhalla would never get in the same side as Polaris anytime soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Breaking news, Legion discovers NSO has non-chaining treaties. Millions shocked. What's your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.Hubb Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1318224568' post='2822018'] Breaking news, Legion discovers NSO has non-chaining treaties. Millions shocked. What's your point? [/quote] That your level of butt hurt is epic-and that we find your arguments amusing, but somewhat pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='Xineoph' timestamp='1318224343' post='2822011'] "Hereno's Fictional Penis" "Amazonian Sith" "The Terra-Cotta Pact" "The Fiery Sith Accords" "Treaty at Bakura" [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/emot-v.gif[/img] [/quote] So yeah... they're treaties don't chain. Do you have any idea what you're talking about or did you just search for the word "Optional" in NSO's treaties? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) [quote name='T.Hubb' timestamp='1318224751' post='2822019'] That your level of butt hurt is epic-and that we find your arguments amusing, but somewhat pathetic. [/quote] The "nou" is [i]strong [/i]with this one. [quote name='Xineoph' timestamp='1318224944' post='2822024'] You kids are absolutely adorable. [/quote] This one too. Edited October 10, 2011 by Varianz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xineoph Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 You kids are absolutely adorable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='Xineoph' timestamp='1318224944' post='2822024'] You kids are absolutely adorable. [/quote] Adorable and coherent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='Xineoph' timestamp='1318224944' post='2822024'] You kids are absolutely adorable. [/quote] On behalf of NSO and their allies, I accept this apology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='T.Hubb' timestamp='1318224751' post='2822019'] That your level of butt hurt is epic-and that we find your arguments amusing, but somewhat pathetic. [/quote] What butthurt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted October 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='Xineoph' timestamp='1318224343' post='2822011'] -NSO's non-chaining clauses- [/quote] You clearly don't get out much, do you? I think the vast majority of treaties today have non-chaining clauses, including all of yours. I didn't even bother to point it out because this is quite the norm, and has been for some time now. For example, I shouldn't have to defend Tetris through VE through any of my PB allies if this war were to expand that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1318252705' post='2822143'] You clearly don't get out much, do you? I think the vast majority of treaties today have non-chaining clauses, including all of yours. I didn't even bother to point it out because this is quite the norm, and has been for some time now. For example, I shouldn't have to defend Tetris through VE through any of my PB allies if this war were to expand that way. [/quote] He said that because NSO was talking !@#$ about Legion having non-chaining clauses... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Stuart Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1318253406' post='2822154'] He said that because NSO was talking !@#$ about Legion having non-chaining clauses... [/quote] Umm, no. We were amazed at the fact that you had oMDoAPs. There is a difference between optional and non chaining. Edited October 10, 2011 by Charles Stuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1318253581' post='2822155'] Umm, no. We were amazed at the fact that you had oMDoAPs. There is a difference between optional and non chaining. [/quote] Mandatory doesnt have to mean auto-activating. Writing treaties that dont autoactivate is no more wierd than writing treaties that dont chain. Your non-chaining treaties become optional when chains are involved, their manual activation treaty is still mandatory, whenever it's invoked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schad Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1318253581' post='2822155'] Umm, no. We were amazed at the fact that you had oMDoAPs. There is a difference between optional and non chaining. [/quote] You might be even more amazed to find out that you too have oMDoAPs. Last year, NSO found itself in a bit of a bind, in a situation where non-chaining clauses didn't apply...and you asked your allies to stay out of it, and they complied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 Hey, is this the thread where I call Polaris cowards? I am thinking it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhelm the Demented Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1318000991' post='2819707'] Can Polar choose to defend Legion without it’s consent? What is the difference with this treaty and a ODP? [/quote] A request. Request all you want with an ODP, it would do little to impact obligations. [quote name='Schad' timestamp='1318259438' post='2822236'] You might be even more amazed to find out that you too have oMDoAPs. Last year, NSO found itself in a bit of a bind, in a situation where non-chaining clauses didn't apply...and you asked your allies to stay out of it, and they complied. [/quote] THE COWARDS! Edited October 12, 2011 by Wilhelm the Demented Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asewland Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 [quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1318315403' post='2822740'] Hey, is this the thread where I call Polaris cowards? I am thinking it is. [/quote] I thought this had nothing to do with Polaris... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1318005912' post='2819790'] As I said in a blog reply earlier, it is why alliances in the C&G sphere have risen to prominence in the game, we did not fear our beatdowns, because at the end of the day, we knew we were better than the other side. [/quote] You mean, like when Valhalla hit BAPS and MK begged BAPS to let them stay out? C&G got beat down once, in a war that lasted about two weeks. Whoopee. You guys have nothing on us; those of us who've fought fourteen alliances in a war that lasted for months know what it means to be strong inside. Also, what Londo said. [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1318009226' post='2819842'] I would suggest that the mass # of NpO nations in peace mode is a 100% perfect example of fear. [/quote] It's good strategy. It's obvious that a number of alliances want to hit NpO right now, when Legion is occupied. By keeping its nations in dove, NpO preserves the ability to attack when it wants - if Legion should need the help - and prevents the preempt. If NPO had done the same thing at the outbreak of PB-NpO, the Doomhouse preempt would have been much less effective. Now I intensely dislike Polar, but really, you're not making any sense here. Going to peace mode is a common move for alliances preparing to enter a war, especially when they don't know when they may be called on. [quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1318010357' post='2819874'] Alot of people are referencing the VE-Tetis downgrade and wither or not people knew about it beforehand. Do you know what would have solved that problem? Announcing the treaty downgrade on the OWF. More and more alliances are subscripting to this ridiculous notion of not announcing changes to their treaties. [/quote] It's because we don't want your posts on our treaty threads. [quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1318253581' post='2822155'] There is a difference between optional and non chaining. [/quote] Partly. However one of the things non-chaining means is that if one alliance declares war, its allies are not obligated to support it. Non-chaining clauses make treaties optional most of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1318420701' post='2823437'] You mean, like when Valhalla hit BAPS and MK begged BAPS to let them stay out? C&G got beat down once, in a war that lasted about two weeks. Whoopee. You guys have nothing on us; [b]those of us who've fought fourteen alliances in a war[/b] that lasted for months know what it means to be strong inside. [/quote] Let me guess, you are referring to the huge-ass chain we used to hit you? Are you still trying to make others believe you've actually fought 14 alliances at once? Damn, you are dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1318420701' post='2823437'] You mean, like when Valhalla hit BAPS and MK begged BAPS to let them stay out? C&G got beat down once, in a war that lasted about two weeks. Whoopee. You guys have nothing on us; those of us who've fought fourteen alliances in a war that lasted for months know what it means to be strong inside. [/quote] Besides the fact that your example is wrong, as usual might I add, C&G didn't exist at the time, nor did most alliances that ended up creating it. And MK isn't a C&G alliance anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashoka the Great Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 A offends B. B declares war on A. A tells its allies not to get involved. In return, said allies promise massive amounts of reconstruction aid once the conflict is over. Welcome to the Brave New [s]World[/s] Yawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Legion, you cowards! How dare you not call in your allies to create a less-favorable situation for yourselves and your allies! What's more, how dare you deprive others entertainment when they fail to provide any for themselves! Cowards, funsuckers, incompetent, something something meany face! Are we all done yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1318447424' post='2823567'] A offends B. B declares war on A. [s][i]A[/i][/s] B tells its allies not to get involved. In return, said allies promise massive amounts of reconstruction aid once the conflict is over. [/quote] Minor error, but fixed... Edited October 12, 2011 by Unknown Smurf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 [quote name='Schad' timestamp='1318259438' post='2822236'] You might be even more amazed to find out that you too have oMDoAPs. Last year, NSO found itself in a bit of a bind, in a situation where non-chaining clauses didn't apply...and you asked your allies to stay out of it, and they complied. [/quote] Stop with your logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 [quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1318465431' post='2823711'] Stop with your logic. [/quote] Blood for the Blood God. We have no time for logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.