LittleRena Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1322641339' post='2856782'] [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=96987"]And the same goes for your MDoAP too.[/url] [/quote] [i][b]The respective parties are not obliged to offer assistance should either signatory alliance become involved in a conflict via other treaties with other alliances or blocs. Either signatory alliance may offer assistance in such an event but any assistance would be voluntary.[/b][/i] Reading is hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1322641339' post='2856782'] [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=96987"]And the same goes for your MDoAP too.[/url] [/quote] Can you even comprehend what chaining is? Or, rather, what a non-chaining clause does? e: beaten Edited November 30, 2011 by lebubu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1322641339' post='2856782'] [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=96987"]And the same goes for your MDoAP too.[/url] [/quote] Its been a long known fact that you weren't the brightest crayon in the box, but I've got to ask, are you really that dense, or are you just acting? You could read the comments I made on the last page, or you could read the last paragraph of Article IV of the treaty that you have linked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EgoFreaky Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1322640823' post='2856777'] Me? You are aware I'm not in TPF right? [/quote] My apologies, I replied to the post and assumed, didn't really pay attention to name or alliance. [quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1322641072' post='2856780'] Its funny to watch you attempt to e-lawyer RIA out of a [b]treaty obligation.[/b] P.S. I don't need to pretend that I am a college student, or that I am a man, for those are things that I actually am. likewise, we don't need to pretend that we are better then RIA. [/quote] Oh is that what it is.. I believe its only an obligation if the ally actually asks you to help. Didn't know it meant just run into a wall because you have a piece of paper that says you can. But it's okay, i understand the frustration, you of course are eager to have this conflict expand so far that you can finally chain in on the bigger side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaiar Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1322638406' post='2856744'] Our treaty partner, unlike RIA's, was not attacked directly, they were attacked as a result of their entry into the war. Our treaty with STA has provisions which very clearly outlines our obligations in such a situation. [/quote] STA being hit by GLOF...fine STA should expect any of IRON's MDP+ partners to hit them. It all comes down to how people view treaties and chaining and all that. My view is that if STA requests assistance, then you are obligated to hit Colossus or WAPA for their direct hit on STA. I am interested in knowing why you or anyone feels my view is wrong or why you or anyone reading interprets the situation differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) Damn you're really slipping, Ardus. Obviously the lack of stuff to do has caused you to go crazy. I was really hoping for something about how PF was a threat to RIA and then maybe they could use XX and then marginalize their influence or something. That would spur them to action! Instead, it was just another boring copy/paste. I was really looking forward to the thread when it popped up too. Could you please do another one and this time a good one? [quote name='AmbroseIV' timestamp='1322634399' post='2856658'] Think of it this way - people stalling on Polar will establish a precedent that gets you out of helping STA. [/quote] Ok I laughed. Edited November 30, 2011 by Omniscient1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) [quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1322641572' post='2856786'] Its been a long known fact that you weren't the brightest crayon in the box, but I've got to ask, are you really that dense, or are you just acting? You could read the comments I made on the last page, or you could read the last paragraph of Article IV of the treaty that you have linked. [/quote] Bahahaha, So TPF is waiting to get chained in another way so they can finally win. Thank god I got to personally nuke many of your nations in PB-NpO while riding the Athens train Edited November 30, 2011 by Rotavele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1322641853' post='2856788'] STA being hit by GLOF...fine STA should expect any of IRON's MDP+ partners to hit them. It all comes down to how people view treaties and chaining and all that. My view is that if STA requests assistance, then you are obligated to hit Colossus or WAPA for their direct hit on STA. I am interested in knowing why you or anyone feels my view is wrong or why you or anyone reading interprets the situation differently. [/quote] Because TPF might not last through another list of surrender terms, and its Infra<Friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleRena Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1322641853' post='2856788'] It all comes down to how people view treaties and chaining and all that. [/quote] Lol, no it doesn't, it's clearly written in the treaty how chaining is viewed. [i]...should either signatory alliance become involved in a conflict via other treaties with other alliances or blocs...[/i] And STA became involved in a conflict via a treaty, so there is no argument of interpritation of chaining. [quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1322642143' post='2856794'] Because TPF might not last through another list of surrender terms, and its Infra<Friends. [/quote] The words clutching and straws spring to mind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1322641799' post='2856787'] Didn't know it meant just run into a wall because you have a piece of paper that says you can. [/quote] This is not how treaties work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1322641853' post='2856788'] STA being hit by GLOF...fine STA should expect any of IRON's MDP+ partners to hit them. It all comes down to how people view treaties and chaining and all that. My view is that if STA requests assistance, then you are obligated to hit Colossus or WAPA for their direct hit on STA. I am interested in knowing why you or anyone feels my view is wrong or why you or anyone reading interprets the situation differently. [/quote] Because that is the way the treaty is written. Done, end of story, thats all there is to it. It's kind of generally accepted that's how things work. If you want to change that, then i'ts you who needs to prove why it should be otherwise. [quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1322641984' post='2856791'] Bahahaha, So TPF is waiting to get chained in another way so they can finally win. Thank god I got to personally nuke many of your nations in PB-NpO while riding the Athens train [/quote] I think you would have plenty of experience on chaining in to win. Anybody who has followed TPF knows how we operate and what our values are. Seriously, remember that comment about how I said you weren't the brightest crayon in the box? Have you not been paying attention during the last few wars? Don't worry though, sooner or later your going to get your face stomped in the ground. How I hope it's us who does it to you. Edited November 30, 2011 by memoryproblems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1322642143' post='2856794'] Because TPF might not last through another list of surrender terms, and its Infra<Friends. [/quote] Former MCXA MoD, DMoFA (2) | Former Zenith DMoFA | Former TIO Founder, MoFA and now CSN? holy !@#$ this guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) [quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1322642465' post='2856801'] Because that is the way the treaty is written. Done, end of story, thats all there is to it. It's kind of generally accepted that's how things work. If you want to change that, then i'ts you who needs to prove why it should be otherwise. I think you would have plenty of experience on chaining in to win. Anybody who has followed TPF knows how we operate and what our values are. Seriously, remember that comment about how I said you weren't the brightest crayon in the box? Have you not been paying attention during the last few wars? Don't worry though, sooner or later your going to get your face stomped in the ground. How I hope its us who does it to you. [/quote] Actually Ive yet to win a war, except against TPF :DDDDD. I've lost to PC, Fark, MHA, ODN, and LSF... but yes I also hope we eventually do dance for it will be absolutely amazing. [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1322642472' post='2856802'] Former MCXA MoD, DMoFA (2) | Former Zenith DMoFA | Former TIO Founder, MoFA and now CSN? holy !@#$ this guy. [/quote] Yup yup Edited November 30, 2011 by Rotavele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninja Colt Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 Does anyone else find it hilarious that both R&R and CSN's Ministers of War (Rotavele only deputy but still) have no clue what chaining is or how treaties even work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninja Colt Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 Oh god wait Rotavele just removed the DMoD title from his signature It gets better and better and better I'd be ashamed too if I were you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Ninja Colt' timestamp='1322642745' post='2856804'] Does anyone else find it hilarious that both R&R and CSN's Ministers of War (Rotavele only deputy but still) have no clue what chaining is or how treaties even work? [/quote] Sorry, We suck. Please declare asap. We are literally the [b]WORST[/b] alliance [quote name='Ninja Colt' timestamp='1322642852' post='2856805'] Oh god wait Rotavele just removed the DMoD title from his signature It gets better and better and better I'd be ashamed too if I were you. [/quote] Adding it back, just for you Edited November 30, 2011 by Rotavele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninja Colt Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1322642854' post='2856806'] Sorry, We suck. Please declare asap. [/quote] Nevermind I see it's back. I'd never even dare preempt CSN with the mastermind Rotavele back at 2nd in command of the military! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='Ninja Colt' timestamp='1322643042' post='2856807'] Nevermind I see it's back. I'd never even dare preempt CSN with the mastermind Rotavele back at 2nd in command of the military! [/quote] Why not? [img]http://i.imgur.com/VI1vB.png[/img] Does this mean I dont get to help make the MK/CSN MDoAP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londo Mollari Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1322643097' post='2856808'] Why not? [img]http://i.imgur.com/VI1vB.png[/img] Does this mean I dont get to help make the MK/CSN MDoAP? [/quote] Now that was hilarious. I mean. RABBLE RABBLE CSN IS ENEMI RABBLE RABBLE MUST SMEAR PR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaiar Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1322642465' post='2856801'] Because that is the way the treaty is written. Done, end of story, thats all there is to it. It's kind of generally accepted that's how things work. If you want to change that, then i'ts you who needs to prove why it should be otherwise. [/quote] So, the only time you would defend STA is if a war started and they were the one's being attacked? At any other point such as the current situation STA would be involved in a war. STA never does anything to be attacked out of the blue. So you will never go to war for STA? I am confused as to how you view your treaty with STA. Don't think of this as me being combative. I am trying to understand why you would not defend STA against Colossus or WAPA. By your logic then, you will not enter the war at all at any point since the war has already started and ANY alliance that enters would be involving itself in the war via other treaties. The only exception being if other treaties you hold have different language regarding chaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EgoFreaky Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='lebubu' timestamp='1322642408' post='2856799'] This is not how treaties work. [/quote] This is not how you want them to work you mean. Treaties are the "legal" grounds to intervene, it's also the contract that states if you require defending you only need to ask and the other will come. Allies however look out for each others well being. RIA declaring on TOP makes very little difference for Polar, it would have a bad impact on RIA though. In the end the gains are way too low and the cost too high which doesn't make it beneficial for either. Now wouldn't it be funny after months and months of maneuvering and working towards a goal, you find yourself to be too prepared and left with no one to take the bait. I would think that would be hilarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EgoFreaky Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) Hands up for forum timeouts Edited November 30, 2011 by EgoFreaky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EgoFreaky Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) Triple score.. Edited November 30, 2011 by EgoFreaky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) [quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1322644009' post='2856812'] This is not how you want them to work you mean. Treaties are the "legal" grounds to intervene, it's also the contract that states if you require defending you only need to ask and the other will come. Allies however look out for each others well being. RIA declaring on TOP makes very little difference for Polar, it would have a bad impact on RIA though. In the end the gains are way too low and the cost too high which doesn't make it beneficial for either. [/quote] You don't need treaties to have the option to defend someone on the battlefield. Why sign a treaty with the RIA if it is too inept to make a difference? [quote] Now wouldn't it be funny after months and months of maneuvering and working towards a goal, you find yourself to be too prepared and left with no one to take the bait. I would think that would be hilarious. [/quote] I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this but history has shown that MK does not need a CB to beat scum into the ground. This is not really about my alliance though so, um, ok? e: typo Edited November 30, 2011 by lebubu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1322643335' post='2856810'] So, the only time you would defend STA is if a war started and they were the one's being attacked? At any other point such as the current situation STA would be involved in a war. STA never does anything to be attacked out of the blue. So you will never go to war for STA? I am confused as to how you view your treaty with STA. Don't think of this as me being combative. I am trying to understand why you would not defend STA against Colossus or WAPA. By your logic then, you will not enter the war at all at any point since the war has already started and ANY alliance that enters would be involving itself in the war via other treaties. The only exception being if other treaties you hold have different language regarding chaining. [/quote] Well as a matter of fact, that is actually exactly how non-chaining treaties work. I'll quote the relevant portion of the Hell Freezes Over treaty, [quote] The respective parties are not obliged to offer assistance should either signatory alliance become involved in a conflict via other treaties with other alliances or blocs. Either signatory alliance may offer assistance in such an event but any assistance would be voluntary.[/quote] It works both way in every non-chaining treaty. For example, TPF holds a MDoAP treaty with NPO and we hold an MDoAP with BAPS. If NPO was to be directly attacked, we would be obligated to defend them, however BAPS would be under no obligation to defend us if we were countered. It would be at their discretion. Without non-chaining clauses, one could make the argument that MDoAP treaties are usually the same as MDAP treaties, meaning that when you are inevitably countered that any MDoAPs that are chaining are activated, meaning those partners would be obligated to support you. That was fine in the old days, but it has come to be accepted that if I sign an treaty with Alliance B who has an MDoAP with Alliance C, I'm not de facto signing with Alliance C as a result of that single treaty. Although besides all that, there is more to the issue then that, which I shall not discuss publicly. The only people to whom TPF needs to answer to regarding the fashion the treaty is honored is STA. STA is the type of people who would not put up with !@#$%^&*, and I think if they did feel seriously aggrieved, our relationship would cease to continue. Edited November 30, 2011 by memoryproblems 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.