King Louis the II Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1322714023' post='2857628'] Why is it that your debating tactics so closely resemble a game of three card monte? "I don't like your criticism of X, so I'm going to criticize you of the same thing, which de facto recognizing that it is bad, while failing to tell you why your original criticism was wrong." Not to mention that the situations aren't at all comparable. [/quote] Not comparable? Can you be more hypocritical? TPF- "our treat is non-chaining" RIA- "Our treaty say that they need to request (and is non-chaining as well)" I am not saying that both are right or wrong, but you cant have double standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enamel32 Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Jesus you guys !@#$%* a lot. Don't worry, you'll get your curbstomp. You'll find a way, I'm sure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1322764762' post='2858318'] Not the point. I am not discussing whether alliance A or B are good or not, even if they follow their treaties or not. My point is if you think RIA must support Polar the same is valid for TPF-STA. If you say that "TPF dont need to support STA because is not chaining" you can not say that is wrong for RIA to say their treaty was only valid "if requested" (and by the way I still think the RIA-Polar treaty is non chaining but this is a matter of discussion). to read someone in TPF posting a long text on how immoral and coward RIA is for not jumping in the war, and at the same time "oh but our treaty is non chaining" makes me vomit. [/quote] It would only make you vomit if you are unaware of how treaties work. RIA-NpO treaty being non-chaining is completely immaterial to the discussion. Chaining only comes into play if it were a different ally of RIA or NpO that were attacked. When RIA or NpO are attacked directly, chaining does not matter in the slightest to those 2 parties. Had STA been attacked like NpO was, I would bet tech that TPF would have been involved quickly. Therein lies the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1322763939' post='2858300'] I don't buy that Polar is asking RIA to sit this one out. You don't call in a few of your allies and not the other ones. It's extremely insulting to the ones you called in to get stomped. It's not good strategy, either. RIA is asking NpO not to bring them in or just plain saying "no" or "wait" to NpO's requests. It's really that simple. I'm sure SF/XX are trying to drag more alliances to their side (unsuccessfully) and now they are a bit scared to get rolled with a dwindling coalition. [/quote] I am in agreement with this viewpoint. I just don't see why Polar would request STA/UPN's help but not RIA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Louis the II Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='janax' timestamp='1322765162' post='2858327'] It would only make you vomit if you are unaware of how treaties work. RIA-NpO treaty being non-chaining is completely immaterial to the discussion. Chaining only comes into play if it were a different ally of RIA or NpO that were attacked. When RIA or NpO are attacked directly, chaining does not matter in the slightest to those 2 parties. Had STA been attacked like NpO was, I would bet tech that TPF would have been involved quickly. Therein lies the difference. [/quote] This difference is irrelevant if you really value your ally. Both are being stomped. If you are talking about morals, and bravery and cowardice than the fine prints don't matter. ADDED: If YOU in Argent, wants to criticize RIA, I might not agree but I would respect your point of view. However, TPF calling RIA cowards because of this is just not coherent. Edited December 1, 2011 by King Louis the II Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1322765146' post='2858326'] Jesus you guys !@#$%* a lot. Don't worry, you'll get your curbstomp. You'll find a way, I'm sure [/quote] hehe come preempt us you guys do that all the time so well hehe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enamel32 Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1322765286' post='2858333'] This difference is irrelevant if you really value your ally. Both are being stomped. If you are talking about morals, and bravery and cowardice than the fine prints don't matter. [/quote] Dude, You are talking about TOP and friends, there are no morals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted December 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1322765182' post='2858329'] I am in agreement with this viewpoint. I just don't see why Polar would request STA/UPN's help but not RIA. [/quote] This is totally unfounded, but my best guess has been that STA & UPN was set to roll whether requested or not. Because they're like that. Now if you'll excuse me, I must go and take a shower so as to wash the filth that is complimenting UPN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enamel32 Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1322765292' post='2858334'] hehe come preempt us you guys do that all the time so well hehe [/quote] Oh you..... EDIT: speaking of pre-empting, I thought RoK and MK were going to do that? Or what happened there? Edited December 1, 2011 by Enamel32 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1322765378' post='2858337'] Oh you..... EDIT: speaking of pre-empting, I thought RoK and MK were going to do that? Or what happened there? [/quote] Same thing that happened to the Heptagon voting down the Polar strike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schad Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1322764762' post='2858318'] to read someone in TPF posting a long text on how immoral and coward RIA is for not jumping in the war, and at the same time "oh but our treaty is non chaining" makes me vomit. [/quote] According to both STA and TPF, they have had an understanding from day one that TPF would not be expected to burn for Polar. Here, RIA and NpO signed a treaty seemingly in response to a threat against the latter, both parties had a grand couple of days waxing about the lack of testicular fortitude shown by a third party (that was never declaring on that date anyway) while making statements about their commitment to facing threats together...and less than a week later, proceeded to e-lawyer the hell out of the document. You don't see a difference there? Even if Polar has asked RIA to stay out of it, this whole situation makes absolutely no sense. Why rush through the treaty in response to a potential event, burning a bridge elsewhere in the process, if they weren't going to use it when that event unfolded? Why match the treaty with a ~*CaLlOuT*~ if that was even a possibility? Why call in other allies, but not RIA? The only [i]logical[/i] explanation is that RIA and NpO fully intended for the treaty to be invoked, but another party or parties have put on the brakes, at least temporarily. However, you guys are starting to convince me that it is indeed simply one of the most illogical series of decisions I've seen made in this world. Which is unfortunate, because I don't really hold RIA in poor esteem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1322765182' post='2858329'] I am in agreement with this viewpoint. I just don't see why Polar would request STA/UPN's help but not RIA. [/quote] Are you sure Polar requested STA and UPN enter? (not being sly, I'm honestly unaware) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1322765812' post='2858344'] Are you sure Polar requested STA and UPN enter? (not being sly, I'm honestly unaware) [/quote] If NpO doesn't want their help then they should have told them to stay out like it appears they told RIA. [quote name='janax' timestamp='1322765721' post='2858342'] Same thing that happened to the Heptagon voting down the Polar strike. [/quote] Bazinga! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enamel32 Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='janax' timestamp='1322765721' post='2858342'] Same thing that happened to the Heptagon voting down the Polar strike. [/quote] But if TOP/Yevgeni is any testament to a well founded democracy, I'm sure MK will be able to find someway to convince everyone that abuse of the treaty web is a good idea right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1322765963' post='2858349'] But if TOP/Yevgeni is any testament to a well founded democracy, I'm sure MK will be able to find someway to convince everyone that abuse of the treaty web is a good idea right? [/quote] ...you missed the joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Louis the II Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Schad' timestamp='1322765730' post='2858343'] According to both STA and TPF, they have had an understanding from day one that TPF would not be expected to burn for Polar. Here, RIA and NpO signed a treaty seemingly in response to a threat against the latter, both parties had a grand couple of days waxing about the lack of testicular fortitude shown by a third party (that was never declaring on that date anyway) while making statements about their commitment to facing threats together...and less than a week later, proceeded to e-lawyer the hell out of the document. You don't see a difference there? Even if Polar has asked RIA to stay out of it, this whole situation makes absolutely no sense. Why rush through the treaty in response to a potential event, burning a bridge elsewhere in the process, if they weren't going to use it when that event unfolded? Why match the treaty with a ~*CaLlOuT*~ if that was even a possibility? Why call in other allies, but not RIA? The only [i]logical[/i] explanation is that RIA and NpO fully intended for the treaty to be invoked, but another party or parties have put on the brakes, at least temporarily. However, you guys are starting to convince me that it is indeed simply one of the most illogical series of decisions I've seen made in this world. Which is unfortunate, because I don't really hold RIA in poor esteem. [/quote] I cant answer the real reasons behind this. and I sincerely dont care. In fact, I think TOP and Polar should have fought to solve their differences even earlier. The truth is that people want to take this opportunity to fulfill their own political agenda. I think frankly speaking, nobody is naive enough to think that the calling for RIA to join the war is really based on moral outrage. Are you? added: I am not referring to TOP or PF when I say "people want to take this opportunity to fulfill their own political agenda" Edited December 1, 2011 by King Louis the II Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1322766077' post='2858353'] The truth is that people want to take this opportunity to fulfill their own political agenda. [/quote] This is a bad thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Louis the II Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1322766364' post='2858358'] This is a bad thing? [/quote] No "it" is not. I agree with you 100% I even think that baiting RIA in to a war is valid. However, to keep insisting in making a moral case about it is ridiculous Edited December 1, 2011 by King Louis the II Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1322765937' post='2858348'] If NpO doesn't want their help then they should have told them to stay out like it appears they told RIA. [/quote] I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schad Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1322766077' post='2858353'] I cant answer the real reasons behind this. and I sincerely dont care. In fact, I think TOP and Polar should have fought to solve their differences even earlier. The truth is that people want to take this opportunity to fulfill their own political agenda. I think frankly speaking, nobody is naive enough to think that the calling for RIA to join the war is really based on moral outrage. Are you? [/quote] I'm sure many people are. Me? Prior to the signing of this treaty, it seemed fairly likely that the war would stay localized; that part of it isn't really the problem, much though I'd enjoy a war. It's the maddening fact that I have no earthly clue as to why these two parties have done this; I've been waiting for an "aha!" moment, when the grand strategy is revealed and everything made sense, but that apparently isn't coming. It's not moral outrage...it's the fact that -- if what people on your side of things have said is true -- RIA has done pretty grievous harm to their otherwise decent reputation simply to sit on the sidelines, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why. Edited December 1, 2011 by Schad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Louis the II Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='Schad' timestamp='1322766863' post='2858364'] I'm sure many people are. Me? Prior to the signing of this treaty, it seemed fairly likely that the war would stay localized; that part of it isn't really the problem, much though I'd enjoy a war. It's the maddening fact that I have no earthly clue as to why these two parties have done this; I've been waiting for an "aha!" moment, when the grand strategy is revealed and everything made sense, but that apparently isn't coming. [/quote] I couldn't agree more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefjoe Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) TBH if I was IRON id just cancel the RIA NAP here in this thread publicly and eliminate even that last and weakest of excuses for RIA to chicken out... Any IRON council out there reading this? If so please post a vote for the RIA NAP cancellation in .gov chambers plox Edited December 1, 2011 by chefjoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefjoe Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) edit- dbl post sorry Edited December 1, 2011 by chefjoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diabloz Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) 1 million dollar question to RIA? What are you waiting for? A- We won't enter B- We won't enter C- NpO clearly is winning this and no need to help. D- This is strategy Edited December 1, 2011 by Diabloz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1322765963' post='2858349'] But if TOP/Yevgeni is any testament to a well founded democracy, I'm sure MK will be able to find someway to convince everyone that abuse of the treaty web is a good idea right? [/quote] If anything, my election (and reelection) to the office of Grandmaster of the Order is a testament to how mildly charismatic madmen can subvert a democractic process to their own ends. Long live the Paradoxian Soviet! Long live the NKVD! Edited December 1, 2011 by Yevgeni Luchenkov 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.