A Briefest Comment on RIA

[AmbroseIV]

[quote name='lebubu' timestamp='1322644518' post='2856815']
I'm not sure where you're trying to get 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?
[/quote]

Playing dumb doesn't work when you're the most politically active alliance in Bob's recent history and, given the OP, I'm also fairly certain people are justified in assuming Ardus' desire to see this expand into a bigger war is tied in with MK's open loathing of people within XX/SF.

[northstars]

Shame on you, RIA. You have sullied your once proud name.

[EgoFreaky]

[Quote]
I'm not sure where you're trying to get 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?
[/quote]

You mean beating up an alliance that was already beaten down, stomped into the ground, robbed of its tech and politically isolated? Oh no wait.. today they might prove useful in achieving your next goal, so let's call them friends now.

This is not about your alliance? Come on the one time you have a reason to be smug you aren't? This has been about your alliance for months. Don't even pretend you really care about what happened in Bi-Polar nor care about the current conflict apart from that it will help you achieve your goal.

Edited November 30, 2011 by EgoFreaky

[SpoiL]

[quote name='cctmsp13' timestamp='1322637970' post='2856739']
To those who are wondering about the RIA's recent actions. Please remember the following.

The RIA is honor-bound to respect IRON's Potatoes (in return for their respect of our RIA squash). As TOP and IRON are treaty partners, IRON has inevitably shared its potatoes with TOP. Therefore an attack on TOP would likewise be disrespect to IRON's potatoes.

The disrespect of potatoes you are encouraging could have damaging and wide reaching consequences to the farmer's market as a whole. To allow that to happen is unthinkable
[/quote]

Iron already disrespected your squash by declaring war on your treaty partner though.

[Wilhelm the Demented]

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1322644576' post='2856816']
Well as a matter of fact, that is actually exactly how non-chaining treaties work.
[/quote]
Let me help you out:

He's asserting that the declarations of war issued by WAPA and Colossus count as new, aggressive actions, thereby placing them outside of the jurisdiction of the non-chaining clause. Which means you are legally obligated to defend the STA against those alliances should it be requested.

If you agree with that and state that the STA has not requested it then you thereby must provide RIA and Polar with the same sovereignty over the execution of their treaty or you are being hypocritical.

If you disagree then I can only assume it's based on the legal nature of WAPA and Colossus' entry but, if I am not mistaken, they must have executed the oA clause of the AZTEC treaty in order to declare because they have no other treaty obligations that necessitate their entry (and I use[i] necessitate[/i] liberally here). Either that or you disagree that they count as new actions and instead count as part of the on-going conflict but, if that is the case, then you are wondering in to a gray area and treaties don't allow for gray areas unless they [i]explicitly[/i] allow for gray areas (which goes against the entire concept of "gray area").

Needless to say, I eagerly await your presentation of the [i]These Wars Legally Count as Aggression but we Think They're Part of the Original Conflict so we Still Won't Defend our Allies[/i] clause in your treaty.

[quote name='SpoiL' timestamp='1322646095' post='2856821']
Iron already disrespected your squash by declaring war on your treaty partner though.
[/quote]
Then it's apparent that RIA holds the farmer's market in a higher regard than IRON.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Wilhelm the Demented

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='Wilhelm the Demented' timestamp='1322646292' post='2856822']
Let me help you out:

He's asserting that the declarations of war issued by WAPA and Colossus count as new, aggressive actions, thereby placing them outside of the jurisdiction of the non-chaining clause. Which means you are legally obligated to defend the STA against those alliances should it be requested.

If you agree with that and state that the STA has not requested it then you thereby must provide RIA and Polar with the same sovereignty over the execution of their treaty or you are being hypocritical.

If you disagree then I can only assume it's based on the legal nature of WAPA and Colossus' entry but, if I am not mistaken, they must have executed the oA clause of the AZTEC treaty in order to declare because they have no other treaty obligations that necessitate their entry (and I use[i] necessitate[/i] liberally here). Either that or you disagree that they count as new actions and instead count as part of the on-going conflict but, if that is the case, then you are wondering in to a gray area and treaties don't allow for gray areas unless they [i]explicitly[/i] allow for gray areas (which goes against the entire concept of "gray area").

Needless to say, I eagerly await your presentation of the [i]These Wars Legally Count as Aggression but we Think They're Part of the Original Conflict so we Still Won't Defend our Allies[/i] clause in your treaty.


Then it's apparent that RIA holds the farmer's market in a higher regard than IRON.
[/quote]

It is the view of TPF that the term "conflict" in the Hell Freezes Over treaty refers to a war as a whole. I believe that is an understanding shared between the two signatories of said treaty.

Edited November 30, 2011 by memoryproblems

[SpoiL]

[quote name='Wilhelm the Demented' timestamp='1322646292' post='2856822']
Then it's apparent that RIA holds the farmer's market in a higher regard than IRON.
[/quote]

Than RIA ought to protect it's interest in the farmer's market because NpO is one large potato.

[Wilhelm the Demented]

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1322647833' post='2856832']
It is the view of TPF that the term "conflict" in the Hell Freezes Over treaty refers to a war as a whole. I believe that is an understanding shared between the two signatories of said treaty.
[/quote]
See, if you had comprehended it the first time he made that assertion you wouldn't have had to bring up that non-chaining clause a hundred times.

If that is the view you share then that is the view you share but, if I were you, I'd make sure to clear this issue with the current government of STA before you go on about believing.


[quote name='SpoiL' timestamp='1322648001' post='2856833']
Than RIA ought to protect it's interest in the farmer's market because NpO is one large potato.
[/quote]
Well, the potatos are IRON's responsibility.

It's the squash that I'm really concerned about.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Wilhelm the Demented

[berbers]

No worries, Doomhouse has already proven that if their toddler-like insult hurling can't get someone to enter a war (hi NPO), they'll just attack them anyways. RIA knows this, they just watched it happen. Maybe they are waiting to be declared on to trigger a better treaty reaction? Either way, all this bawwing from people wanting SF to jump on the train is shallow and pedantic. Just sit back, something fun has to come out of this, and I am sure everybody will be fighting everybody soon enough.

Also, Wilhelm your point is non-sensical. STA DoW'd IRON, IRON's allies countered, I don't see anything there to trigger a non-chaining treaty with TPF.

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='Wilhelm the Demented' timestamp='1322648002' post='2856834']
See, if you had comprehended it the first time he made that assertion you wouldn't have had to bring up that non-chaining clause a hundred times.

If that is the view you share then that is the view you share but, if I were you, I'd make sure to clear this issue with the current government of STA before you go on about believing.
[/quote]

The communications that occur between the respective governments of TPF and STA are private and I have no interest to discuss them here, other then to say that I believe the two fully understand the other's position, and that assistance will be provided in a variety of forms.

Edited November 30, 2011 by memoryproblems

[Wilhelm the Demented]

[quote name='berbers' timestamp='1322648106' post='2856835']
No worries, Doomhouse has already proven that if their toddler-like insult hurling can't get someone to enter a war (hi NPO), they'll just attack them anyways. RIA knows this, they just watched it happen. Maybe they are waiting to be declared on to trigger a better treaty reaction? Either way, all this bawwing from people wanting SF to jump on the train is shallow and pedantic. Just sit back, something fun has to come out of this, and I am sure everybody will be fighting everybody soon enough.

Also, Wilhelm your point is non-sensical. STA DoW'd IRON, IRON's allies countered, I don't see anything there to trigger a non-chaining treaty with TPF.
[/quote]
And then GLoF activated their MDP, yes.

WAPA and Colossus, on the other hand, don't share any ODPs or MDPs with IRON, the only way they could be in a state of war with the STA right now is if they activated the oA clause in AZTEC via GLoF (or declared aggressive wars independently).

I really can't believe I had to explain that a second time, especially since I thought I did such a great job the first time. :/

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1322648173' post='2856837']
The communications that occur between the respective governments of TPF and STA are private and I have no interest to discuss them here, other then to say that I believe the two fully understand the other's position, and that assistance will be provided in a variety of forms.
[/quote]
That's all well and good, I don't really care. I was just tired of seeing that damned non-chaining clause.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Wilhelm the Demented

[Jgoods45]

[quote name='Wilhelm the Demented' timestamp='1322648495' post='2856838']
And then GLoF activated their MDP, yes.

WAPA and Colossus, on the other hand, don't share any ODPs or MDPs with IRON, the only way they could be in a state of war with the STA right now is if they activated the oA clause in AZTEC via GLoF.

I really can't believe I had to explain that a second time, especially since I thought I did such a great job the first time. :/
[/quote]

AZTEC is a MDAP last time I checked!

[Vanilla Napalm]

You know, before all of this i was somewhat excited to see the whole PB-XX et. al. showdown. After reading through this thread, i now kinda feel ashamed of it. I imagine this how Q alliances felt after attacking GPA.
We really shouldn't be picking on people who can't defend themselves, and just start a few raids up instead.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Vanilla Napalm

[Wilhelm the Demented]

[quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1322648586' post='2856840']
AZTEC is a MDAP last time I checked!
[/quote]
I stand corrected but it is still an aggression clause.

[Dajobo]

I really dont see why TPF is any part of this discussion. It's STA's business and nobody else's.

[SpoiL]

[quote name='Wilhelm the Demented' timestamp='1322648002' post='2856834']
It's the squash that I'm really concerned about.
[/quote]

Excuse my misspeak, RIA ought to protect it's interest in the farmer's market because NpO is one large [i]squash[/i].

[Wilhelm the Demented]

[quote name='Dajobo' timestamp='1322648912' post='2856843']
I really dont see why TPF is any part of this discussion. It's STA's business and nobody else's.
[/quote]
I think it all started when they were comparing TPF's inaction with RIAs. Which are both valid but for different reasons (assuming Polaris hasn't yet requested RIA's assistance).

It's all silly, really. Like I said before, I just got tired of seeing the non-chaining clause. XD


[quote name='SpoiL' timestamp='1322649043' post='2856845']
Excuse my misspeak, RIA ought to protect it's interest in the farmer's market because NpO is one large [i]squash[/i].
[/quote]
I was really hoping you'd go in another direction than this but you simply persisted, so now I'm bored by this analogy.
[quote name='cctmsp13' timestamp='1322649200' post='2856848']
Also, I would like to state that unfortunately the RIA used the cheapest possible shipping method, and there was no squash present in Polaris to be disrespected. We promise that in the future we will spring for the UPS 2-day delivery rather than giving our squash to some hippies on a cross country road trip in a VW van, and asking them to drop them off on the way.
[/quote]
See, this is clever!

Edited November 30, 2011 by Wilhelm the Demented

[cctmsp13]

Everyone seems to be all caught up on chains and such they seem to be forgetting other things.

Go look at the RIA-Polar treaty. Try searching for a line that starts "If a third party"

Once again, I can assure you, the RIA is intent on honoring all of our treaties to the utmost, and we continue to do so.

Also, I would like to state that unfortunately the RIA used the cheapest possible shipping method, and there was no squash present in Polaris to be disrespected. We promise that in the future we will spring for the UPS 2-day delivery rather than giving our squash to some hippies on a cross country road trip in a VW van, and asking them to drop them off on the way.

Edited November 30, 2011 by cctmsp13

[Jgoods45]

[quote name='Wilhelm the Demented' timestamp='1322648880' post='2856842']
I stand corrected but it is still an aggression clause.
[/quote]

A clause they are still obligated to adhere to regardless of how the war started. At least they understand how a "mandatory" clause works and they adhere to it in a timely fashion.

[Wilhelm the Demented]

[quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1322649276' post='2856849']
A clause they are still obligated to adhere to regardless of how the war started. At least they understand how a "mandatory" clause works and they adhere to it in a timely fashion.
[/quote]
Still aggression. It's also what happens when you don't add the words "if requested" and thereby make it mindless.

I get it, you're trying to bait RIA in to the conflict but please don't let that get in the way of logic.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Wilhelm the Demented

[Jgoods45]

[quote name='Wilhelm the Demented' timestamp='1322649595' post='2856851']
Still aggression. It's also what they get for not adding the words "if requested".

I get it, you're trying to bait RIA in to the conflict but please don't let that get in the way of logic.
[/quote]

I read their treaty with Polaris and I saw the bit where they added the requested part. So I suppose RIA is waiting for Polaris to ask for help eh? That kind of wording is the reason why this game sucks ass and I hope you all feel ashamed for it.

[Wilhelm the Demented]

[quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1322649733' post='2856853']
I read their treaty with Polaris and I saw the bit where they added the requested part. So I suppose RIA is waiting for Polaris to ask for help eh? That kind of wording is the reason why this game sucks ass and I hope you all feel ashamed for it.
[/quote]
I think a lack of personal choice and actual strategy stifles the imagination and makes the game boring and mechanical.

We all have our perspectives, though.

[SpoiL]

[quote name='Wilhelm the Demented' timestamp='1322649147' post='2856847']
I think it all started when they were comparing TPF's inaction with RIAs. Which are both valid but for different reasons (assuming Polaris hasn't yet requested RIA's assistance).

It's all silly, really. Like I said before, I just got tired of seeing the non-chaining clause. XD



I was really hoping you'd go in another direction than this but you simply persisted, so now I'm bored by this analogy.

See, this is clever!
[/quote]

I was going more for invalidating your argument that TOP is protected because they are IRON's potatoes, but IRON can disrespect RIA's squash (NpO) without compromising the treaty. Seems to me that RIA has more of a reason to go to war against IRON because of the FAP/NAP than to not.

[Wilhelm the Demented]

[quote name='SpoiL' timestamp='1322649969' post='2856858']
I was going more for invalidating your argument that TOP is protected because they are IRON's potatoes, but IRON can disrespect RIA's squash (NpO) without compromising the treaty. Seems to me that RIA has more of a reason to go to war against IRON because of the FAP/NAP than to not.
[/quote]
Well, that's all fine an dandy (and kudos, I underestimated the depth of your analogy) but unfortunately you don't have a say in the matter.

If RIA and Polar decide that it's in both of their best interests for RIA to stay out of it then that is the fact of the matter. You'll just have to drag your blue balls back home and sit on them or, to risk sounding petty, do something about it.

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='Wilhelm the Demented' timestamp='1322649908' post='2856856']
I think a lack of personal choice and actual strategy stifles the imagination and makes the game boring and mechanical.

We all have our perspectives, though.
[/quote]

I've been trying to grasp your perspective, and I still don't understand your view about non-chaining treaties.

I think the vast majority of people would see it along the lines of, if the reason your getting attacked is because you attacked somebody else, thats the sort of deal that a non-chaining treaty deals with. I don't think many people try to overthink it as I believe you are doing, and try to differentiate conflicts based on if they were attacked by somebody on a MD or an oA or whatever.

My interpretation of a non-chaining treaty is rather simple, if somebody else attacks you [b]because[/b] you attacked somebody else, non-chaining clauses would apply. I frankly don't think it matters what type of treaties somebody else used to attack you.

These things have gotten much more complex from the days when if you attacked somebody else you were the aggressor, and if you got attacked by somebody else, you were the defender. The onset of rhetoric about how doing the things that caused you to be attacked making you the aggressor and so on has just made things too hard to follow sometimes.