SpacingOutMan Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1322670798' post='2857048'] Stop &#$@ blocking the war Delta1212, you're making MK feel bad. [/quote] I think my blue balls are contagious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1322670798' post='2857048'] Stop &#$@ blocking the war Delta1212, you're making MK feel bad. [/quote] Yeah, we're totally the only ones waiting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1322671472' post='2857053'] Yeah, we're totally the only ones waiting. [/quote] Yeah MK isn't even the slightest bit impatient, the frothing at the mouth is just rabies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EgoFreaky Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1322666781' post='2857017'] Oh God, where is my off switch? [/quote] If you find out, please let the rest of us know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) [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] There is actually no way for us to activate this treaty without Polar requesting assistance. We could always just attack anyways I guess. Edited November 30, 2011 by James Dahl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1322673371' post='2857071'] There is actually no way for us to activate this treaty without Polar requesting assistance. [/quote] Literally impossible!! It's not like it says you're "obligated to act," which is fairly open to interpretation if you want to get imaginative. Not that I really expect you to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1322673542' post='2857076'] Literally impossible!! It's not like it says you're "obligated to act," which is fairly open to interpretation if you want to get imaginative. Not that I really expect you to. [/quote] Actually it doesn't say "obligated to act". It says "obligated to [i]defend upon request[/i]" [img]http://www.readingpains.com/johnny_cover.jpg[/img] Edited November 30, 2011 by James Dahl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) [quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1322673769' post='2857078'] Actually it doesn't say "obligated to act". It says "obligated to [i]defend upon request[/i]" [/quote] You're right, my bad. Off the top of my head, I was trying to refer to the lines that precedes that one: [quote]As such, an attack of any kind on one is considered a valid casus belli that must be acted upon by the other[/quote] The key word being "must," which really makes the whole "upon request" clause quite a contradiction if you ask me. Edit: inb4 "we didn't ask you nyah." The contradiction of terminology remains. Edited November 30, 2011 by Leet Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 You guys should just go back to making stupid propaganda with cactuars in it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1322675353' post='2857092'] You guys should just go back to making stupid propaganda with cactuars in it [/quote] Fantastic retort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted November 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1322673769' post='2857078'] Actually it doesn't say "obligated to act". It says "obligated to [i]defend upon request[/i]" [img]http://www.readingpains.com/johnny_cover.jpg[/img] [/quote] I'm pleased to see you veil your cowardice behind legalese. I do hope you continue, as I've got another wonder purchase coming up here real soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EgoFreaky Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1322667619' post='2857023'] Arguments here are so petty and dumb, and extending them beyond three responses is monotonous to the highest degree. [/quote] [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1322675418' post='2857093'] Fantastic retort. [/quote] I guess he just agreed with you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1322675865' post='2857103'] I guess he just agreed with you [/quote] My comment actually had a fairly large unclarity I'd love to hear commented on before putting this argument to rest, and it's an angle I have yet to see addressed here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jyrinx Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 Just noticed this and good god. A little late I suppose, but as a member of STA gov I'll just say that the STA-TPF treaty is not up for interpretation by third parties; it's an agreement between STA and TPF alone and everyone else can shove it. We have absolutely excellent relations with TPF and that's all any of you really needs to know. Other than that, carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EgoFreaky Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='Jyrinx' timestamp='1322676216' post='2857108'] Just noticed this and good god. A little late I suppose, but as a member of STA gov I'll just say that the STA-TPF treaty is not up for interpretation by third parties; it's an agreement between STA and TPF alone and everyone else can shove it. We have absolutely excellent relations with TPF and that's all any of you really needs to know. Other than that, carry on. [/quote] How STA and TPF interpret and act on their treaty is indeed no one else their concern. But then memoryproblems started pointing at how RIA and Polar interpret and act on their treaty, which is hypocritical at best when you are hiding behind a non-chaining clause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 MK has an optional aggression clause, why aren't you helping your ally TOP? Must be cowardice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1322676977' post='2857116'] MK has an optional aggression clause, why aren't you helping your ally TOP? Must be cowardice. [/quote] My argument has absolutely nothing to do with invoking optional or request clauses, nor cowardice, rather it entirely has to do with a contradiction within the wording of your treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
im317 Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [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] if we follow this line of argument then i get to point out that WAPA is not in Aztec, meaning there entering into the war was via an oA. now its your turn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted November 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1322676977' post='2857116'] MK has an optional aggression clause, why aren't you helping your ally TOP? Must be cowardice. [/quote] A [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=106876]bunch[/url] [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=106885]of other[/url] [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=106985]people[/url] cut in line when we weren't looking. Now the show's sold out and the best we can do is wait to see if any other acts worth checking out come to town. Then there's guys like you with front row tickets sitting at home with their hands down their pants, too lazy to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1322676817' post='2857113'] How STA and TPF interpret and act on their treaty is indeed no one else their concern. But then memoryproblems started pointing at how RIA and Polar interpret and act on their treaty, which is hypocritical at best when you are hiding behind a non-chaining clause. [/quote] Do you even know what hypocritical means? Because theres nothing hypocritical about it. On one hand, there is no obligation, simply the option to enter at our discretion. On the other hand, RIA has a clear and obvious [b]obligation[/b]. They signed, sealed and delivered it, and now they aren't owning up to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) [quote name='im317' timestamp='1322677872' post='2857128'] if we follow this line of argument then i get to point out that WAPA is not in Aztec, meaning there entering into the war was via an oA. now its your turn. [/quote] So? How they enter a war is meaningless, unless you are Xiph and go ape because an ODP was used. This is how non-chaining works (in a standard non-chaining claused treaty, your mileage may vary if you write crappy treaties.) Alliance A and Alliance Z have a MDP with a non-chaining clause. Event: Alliance A is attacked. Result: Alliance Z is required to defend their treaty partner Event 2: Alliance A defends Alliance 1 via their own treaty, and attacks Alliance 2. Alliance A is subsequently attacked by Alliance Q, an MDP partner of Alliance J. Result 2: Chaining clause makes Alliance Z's defense of Alliance A optional. Event 3: Alliance A defends Alliance 1 via their own treaty, and attacks Alliance 2. Alliance A is subsequently attacked by Alliance Q, an MDP partner of Alliance J and Alliances S & T via their own optional Aggression portion of their MDoAP with Alliance Q. Result 3: Chaining clause makes Alliance Z's defense of Alliance A optional. Event 4: Alliance A defends Alliance 1 via their own treaty, and attacks Alliance 2. Alliance A is subsequently attacked by Alliance Q, an MDP partner of Alliance J and Alliances S & T and 800 other alliances, via their own optional Aggression portion of their MDoAP with Alliance Q. Result 4: Chaining clause makes Alliance Z's defense of Alliance A optional. Basically, if the scenario involves an alliance declaring war to assist another treaty partner, non-chaining makes every subsequent attack no matter what !@#$@#$ kind of treaty it is, OPTIONAL. Edited November 30, 2011 by janax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1322678207' post='2857133'] Then there's guys like you with front row tickets sitting at home with their hands down their pants, too lazy to go. [/quote] I'm actually at a friends house, they wouldnt let me bring my hard liquor to the show, so I'm having a friend stream it to me while we have a party here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1322678207' post='2857133'] A [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=106876]bunch[/url] [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=106885]of other[/url] [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=106985]people[/url] cut in line when we weren't looking. Now the show's sold out and the best we can do is wait to see if any other acts worth checking out come to town. Then there's guys like you with front row tickets sitting at home with their hands down their pants, too lazy to go. [/quote] I always suspected you were hipsters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/qiGo8.png[/IMG] honestly guys just do this and your entire OWF viewing experience is improved immeasurably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Black Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 [quote name='DemonSpawn' timestamp='1322634307' post='2856657'] Ohhhh a "Come at me bro" thread. It seems your more worried about what RIA and/or FARK will do in response to the attacks the TOP and IRON launched, that you and your alliance had no part of mind you. To me, if your so worried about it, why don't you attack RIA, FARK, or hell, R&R for that matter? [/quote] This please, do what this man says. And Umberella while their at that, please attack GPA, ODN, Legion, and Valhalla, (note the before mentioned alliances are not mentioned for malice, but simply because it would allow all hell to break out and for once we could have us an old fashion bar room brawl) 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.