Jump to content

The Lion and the Lady


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Commander Power' timestamp='1321466149' post='2845564']
Congrats on agreeing to maybe help each other ;)
[/quote]
CoJ doesn't do compulsory treaties; we didn't even sign a protectorate treaty when we were founded. Compulsory treaties remove decisions from the alliance, cutting sovereignty. If I ever find an alliance that I will send CoJ to defend no matter what, whether I want to or not, then we'll merge, it would make more sense than just signing on to do something without knowing the circumstances. Unlike most other alliances, CoJ is an alliance with instrinsic ideologies and beliefs, and those principles guide our actions, not paper. Rather than create a situation of subservience or assumptions or of half-assed minimal efforts, our stance creates a partnership and a relationship with the other party, it forces dialogue and understanding, and independence of action and thought.

Despite these beliefs on treaties and military partnerships, CoJ has never declined to activate a treaty in the past. In fact, I think if you were to ask NPO, they'd tell you that the ODOAP wit 64D we activated in the DH-NPO War was more useful to them than the MDP they had with Legion.

Edited by Schattenmann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1321468552' post='2845570']
I agree, Schatt. OcUK are more relevant than GOONS in every way.
[/quote]
Funny enough, but that's not what I said. I simply find it funny that a goon would crack size jokes when they've lost hundreds of members and millions of NS in the past year. In any case, what's relevance? Lots of treaties? Membership in lots of blocs? A herd of OWF posters? OcUK are more reliable, more competent, and more intelligent than just about any alliance I can name, and it doesn't matter to me if those less intelligent, less competent, and less reliable alliances think OcUK is irrelevant because they're small, don't sign 30 conflicting treaties, or diddle on the OWF all week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1321470345' post='2845582']
Funny enough, but that's not what I said. I simply find it funny that a goon would crack size jokes when they've lost hundreds of members and millions of NS in the past year. In any case, what's relevance? Lots of treaties? Membership in lots of blocs? A herd of OWF posters? OcUK are more reliable, more competent, and more intelligent than just about any alliance I can name, and it doesn't matter to me if those less intelligent, less competent, and less reliable alliances think OcUK is irrelevant because they're small, don't sign 30 conflicting treaties, or diddle on the OWF all week.
[/quote]
Relevance is a pretty straight-forward thing. How [b]relevant[/b] is that alliance to global politics? I mean no disrespect to OcUK, they were good guys when I was in Vox and I have no reason to think they aren't good guys now, but their ten members and negligible NS really doesn't affect CN in any noticeable way. If it came to war, they would have very little political capital to expend in swaying the sides, and very little size of their own to expend in the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Pops his head above the radar.

To those that did not know we were still around, well... Perhaps you did not need to know.

Nice to pop back and even nicer to have this treaty with our good friends in CoJ an alliance that have been aware of our continued existence.

*Ducks back under the radar for another year or so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1321470616' post='2845585']
Relevance is a pretty straight-forward thing. How [b]relevant[/b] is that alliance to global politics? I mean no disrespect to OcUK, they were good guys when I was in Vox and I have no reason to think they aren't good guys now, but their ten members and negligible NS really doesn't affect CN in any noticeable way. If it came to war, they would have very little political capital to expend in swaying the sides, and very little size of their own to expend in the war.
[/quote]
And as an alumnus of Vox Populi, you know that an alliance of any size is as relevant as it makes itself.
I did not bring up relevance, you did. OcUK's relevance globally, on Blue, or on any scale isn't of any particular concern to me. If I cared how relevant an ally is, then I'd start treatying alliances with which CoJ has no common interests and make a real mess of things like you more relevant alliance leaders. As it stands, CoJ is interested in building relationships with allies which are just that: allies, and in being just that ourselves: allies. We are not interested in gathering or being groupies.

Edited by Schattenmann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1321471189' post='2845592']
And as an alumnus of Vox Populi, you know that an alliance of any size is as relevant as it makes itself.
I did not bring up relevance, you did. OcUK's relevance globally, on Blue, or on any scale isn't of any particular concern to me. If I cared how relevant an ally is, then I'd start treatying alliances with which CoJ has no common interests and make a real mess of things like you more relevant alliance leaders. As it stands, CoJ is interested in building relationships with allies which are just that: allies, not groupies.
[/quote]
Of course, Deinos' foreign policy is all over the place.

You asked me what relevance was, and I told you. OcUK hasn't made itself relevant because, for its own reasons, it largely stays out of the limelight/political arena. That isn't inherently bad, but when coupled with a lack of size, it makes them irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1321470345' post='2845582']
Funny enough, but that's not what I said. I simply find it funny that a goon would crack size jokes when they've lost hundreds of members and millions of NS in the past year. In any case, what's relevance? Lots of treaties? Membership in lots of blocs? A herd of OWF posters? OcUK are more reliable, more competent, and more intelligent than just about any alliance I can name, and it doesn't matter to me if those less intelligent, less competent, and less reliable alliances think OcUK is irrelevant because they're small, don't sign 30 conflicting treaties, or diddle on the OWF all week.
[/quote]

It's a nice topic for discussion. I personally consider those alliances that are 'relevant' to be able to leave their mark in this world. It's not one thing, like size. It's a combination of a few things, military and political might, sheer size, ability to endure, humour and probably many more. Now I'm not implying that OcUK haven't left their mark but you can hardly state that GOONS is not relevant anymore because they lost a decent amount of members and NS. GOONS is still and will still be one of those alliances that spice(d) up this planet.

If there would be a relevance ranking, personally I'd say OcUK is infact pretty low on that list. Even CoJ I would rank top40. Not because you are my favorite alliance (you aren't), but primarily because you have humour and political might (in the sense of being able to rally people to your cause).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1321471415' post='2845593']
when coupled with a lack of size, it makes them irrelevant.
[/quote][quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1321471522' post='2845594']
Now I'm not implying that OcUK haven't left their mark but you can hardly state that GOONS is not relevant anymore because they lost a decent amount of members and NS. GOONS is still and will still be one of those alliances that spice(d) up this planet.

If there would be a relevance ranking, personally I'd say OcUK is infact pretty low on that list. Even CoJ I would rank top40. Not because you are my favorite alliance (you aren't), but primarily because you have humour and political might (in the sense of being able to rally people to your cause).
[/quote]
Last time because (1) this is silly and (2) "relevance" is not a metric that was consulted or that matters in this situation: I did not say GOONS is irrelevant, I did not say that OcUK is relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1321471415' post='2845593']
Of course, Deinos' foreign policy is all over the place.

You asked me what relevance was, and I told you. OcUK hasn't made itself relevant because, for its own reasons, it largely stays out of the limelight/political arena. That isn't inherently bad, but when coupled with a lack of size, it makes them irrelevant.
[/quote]

Notwithstanding of course the alliance that found us to be very relevant when we had but 5 members and a fraction of the NS that we have now.

There are ways of doing war that make alliance size and NS irrelevant. ;)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1321471849' post='2845595']
Last time because (1) this is silly and (2) "relevance" is not a metric that was consulted or that matters in this situation: I did not say GOONS is irrelevant, I did not say that OcUK is relevant.
[/quote]

You certainly did imply they were relevant because their nations have seen and done more than most nations. But yeah, I'm not arguing with you about this. I just think the concept of relevance is a fascinating concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1321469975' post='2845579']
CoJ doesn't do compulsory treaties; we didn't even sign a protectorate treaty when we were founded. Compulsory treaties remove decisions from the alliance, cutting sovereignty. If I ever find an alliance that I will send CoJ to defend no matter what, whether I want to or not, then we'll merge, it would make more sense than just signing on to do something without knowing the circumstances. Unlike most other alliances, CoJ is an alliance with instrinsic ideologies and beliefs, and those principles guide our actions, not paper. Rather than create a situation of subservience or assumptions or of half-assed minimal efforts, our stance creates a partnership and a relationship with the other party, it forces dialogue and understanding, and independence of action and thought.

Despite these beliefs on treaties and military partnerships, CoJ has never declined to activate a treaty in the past. In fact, I think if you were to ask NPO, they'd tell you that the ODOAP wit 64D we activated in the DH-NPO War was more useful to them than the MDP they had with Legion.
[/quote]

I respect that. That's somewhat outside the norm, however, hence my remark.

Edited by Commander Power
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This treaty must be pretty good. Schatt posted and it convinced the turdburglars to come out from under their bridges to call someone other than Schatt irrelevant... must be a first.

Good job Overclockers, I knew we liked you for a reason ;)

Edited by Don Chele
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1321457500' post='2845525']
A spunky statement given GOONS's loss of [i]66 members[/i] and [i]flat NS since 10/2010.[/i]
[/quote]
[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1321470345' post='2845582']
I simply find it funny that a goon would crack size jokes when they've lost [i]hundreds of members[/i] and [i]millions of NS[/i] in the past year.
[/quote]
Wait, what now?

And it wasn't exactly a size joke, more an assessment of ocUK. Prior to this they hadn't been been heard of since their last treaty was cancelled two years ago and have been sitting on 11 members. It's entirely possible FAN is still looking out for them, but superficial analysis would assume they were just another dead in the water micro. But hey, at least they're off our raid list now i guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1321427176' post='2845444']
Judging by the fact that they have 11 members and haven't been heard of since the pocahontas treaty, i'd say they aren't around.
[/quote]


Reason they are

RoK

Look up the war and how long they fought against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='johnathan buck' timestamp='1321502164' post='2845771']
Reason they are

RoK

Look up the war and how long they fought against them.
[/quote]
I do appreciate the fact, and actually remember something of it; i vaguely recall that they stayed at war because their charter precluded surrender or something to that effect.
Funny how concepts come around again, except that in this case the alliance in question is lauded for their 'tenacity and loyalty', rather than being mocked for their 'stubbornness'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1321524967' post='2845879']
It has been three years man. I can't remember every little detail.
[/quote]
Then perhaps you'd find it prudent, in the interest of delivering a decent argument, to revise your knowledge of such things before commenting on them.

As for the treaty, this is great news for both alliances. I look forward to the next few weeks to see how things pan out for OcUK.

Edited by Smithy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Smithy' timestamp='1321528370' post='2845889']
Then perhaps you'd find it prudent, in the interest of delivering a decent argument, to revise your knowledge of such things before commenting on them.
[/quote]

Wise words. Very wise words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Smithy' timestamp='1321528370' post='2845889']
Then perhaps you'd find it prudent, in the interest of delivering a decent argument, to revise your knowledge of such things before commenting on them.

As for the treaty, this is great news for both alliances. I look forward to the next few weeks to see how things pan out for OcUK.
[/quote]
But that gets rid of half the fun of commenting upon whatever minor thing pops up! And really, i have far better things to do than research why some small alliance jumped on a cross for no real reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...