Jump to content

Allies Against Forum Clutter


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 219
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='ShotgunWilly' timestamp='1322317462' post='2852437']
Poor show, Pacifica. Poor show. Something I would've expected from Olympus or Val, but whatever... petty grudges FTW!

That enough mention of Olympus and Val for ya, Keshav? :P
[/quote]

Ahh finally some recognition seems I'm finally doing my job as Emissary :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sir Keshav IV' timestamp='1322317096' post='2852434']
Why is Valhalla not mentioned or Olympus, this sucks NPO stealing our limelight [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/dry.gif[/img]
[/quote]
You should have seen that one coming! :P You mention Polar AND Pacifica in a thread and you will have those with their blinders on come out of the woodwork.

I am very happy to be backing our close friends in Olympus and those insane drunken Vikings in Valhalla.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those trying to nay say NPO's involvement in this, apart from being indirect allies of TOP, we are in fact bound to IRON through our Non Aggression Pact, signed in very early 2007 called the Cordiality Accords. Looking at it, it has wording which is in agreement with an ODAP in it also, namely the first section of Article 3.

[quote]Section 1: Each alliance has the right to ask for aid, be it financial, intelligence, or military in nature, however granting such a request goes over and above any requirement.[/quote]

While it does say granting any requests or offering assistance is over the requirement, it does not forbid NPO assisting IRON in any way shape or form. In a later section it also states that the document must not be "transcended by any active treaty currently upheld by either signatory."

We've had this treaty since January 2007 folks, it was just made defunct by various other treaties over time, and it was never cancelled (or forced upon us to be cancelled).

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1322290154' post='2851972']
[color="#0000FF"]FAIL thanks Valhalla, NPO, and that other one for your support for our extermination of Polar. If it was not for your support our providing of this valuable service to the world would be impossible.[/color]
[/quote]

Thanks RV we love you too ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1322310407' post='2852360']
Hell yeah I am serious, if Iron and TOP are going after Polar again for BiPolar they should be after MK and Archon too, after all Archon was just as instrumental as Grub in that beatdown.
[/quote]
The difference is simply we had no agreements with Archon, however Grub was a full supporter of the plan and sold us out. MK didnt betray us nor did Archon, Grub did. Now repayment of the betrayal has begun. If you have any other questions hit me up in IRC or send me a PM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='NeCoHo' timestamp='1322335147' post='2852742']
For those trying to nay say NPO's involvement in this, apart from being indirect allies of TOP, we are in fact bound to IRON through our Non Aggression Pact, signed in very early 2007 called the Cordiality Accords. Looking at it, it has wording which is in agreement with an ODAP in it also, namely the first section of Article 3.



While it does say granting any requests or offering assistance is over the requirement, it does not forbid NPO assisting IRON in any way shape or form. In a later section it also states that the document must not be "transcended by any active treaty currently upheld by either signatory."

We've had this treaty since January 2007 folks, it was just made defunct by various other treaties over time, and it was never cancelled (or forced upon us to be cancelled).
[/quote]
As awesome as this is, I still think you should have saved it for whenever you activate it in the future... now THAT would be a hell of a thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's a curbstomp, thank you for reminding us.

It's really hard to get into this conflict when you really have no stake in the revenge fantasy at its core. I guess it's kind of funny to see how much the situation has changed over the last year (that I've largely been away for).

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1322310407' post='2852360']
Hell yeah I am serious, if Iron and TOP are going after Polar again for BiPolar they should be after MK and Archon too, after all Archon was just as instrumental as Grub in that beatdown.
[/quote]
Have some patience. It'll come all in due time.

[img]http://ordoparadox.com/top/public/style_emoticons/default/mr_burns.gif[/img]

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Baron Flynt' timestamp='1322423138' post='2853919']
I used to feel kind of bad for NPO after the DH war, but I guess they're all still as opportunistic as ever.

Fool me once, shame on me!
[/quote]

QFT.

I love how they pulled up an IRON NAP they completely forgot about and tried to e-lawyer it into a oDoAP.


EDIT: And if it was an oDoAP, then it was canceled due to Karma surrender terms

[quote]VII. The New Pacific Order will immediately cancel and dissolve all treaties with military clauses. The New Pacific Order will not sign any new treaties without the approval of the victorious coalition until these terms end. All cancellation clauses are considered waived.[/quote]

Reference: [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=63887]Click[/url]

Edited by Unknown Smurf
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1322424646' post='2853940']
QFT.

I love how they pulled up an IRON NAP they completely forgot about and tried to e-lawyer it into a oDoAP.


EDIT: And if it was an oDoAP, then it was canceled due to Karma surrender terms



Reference: [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=63887]Click[/url]
[/quote]

Maybe it became one of those paperless treaties that were so popular for awhile? :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we knew our ally was going to be pulled into this (in fact allies on both sides) and we decided instead to make our own stand.

Maybe we feel close enough to IRON to support them either way.

It doesn't matter you knuckleheads will debate it for your own best interest and view regardless, even if the truth is SPECIFICALLY told to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was always a NAP with no defense clause so it was never cancelled by the surrender terms. Both of us had forgot about it for a year or so, until we started doing some history projects and wiki updates along with renewed diplomacy early this year. However this DoS follows along Flak's flow chart more than anything else.

Link to post
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...