Cataduanes Posted March 10, 2012 Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1331368276' post='2936303'] I already said TLR = Athens.[/quote] And you saying this !@#$ again and again still does not make it true. Edited March 10, 2012 by Cataduanes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laslo Kenez Posted March 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1331353980' post='2936229'] To be fair, Sparta did refuse to hit GATO last war. So yea the case could have been made that Sparta got used and then !@#$ on. [/quote] That's fine, we didn't hit them this war when we could have done for a multitude of reasons. It was very good of them to do that in the first place, but it's not as if someone sat us down and made us sign some pact of eternal thankfulness about it. I've repeatedly avoided being a dick to Sparta on behalf of the alliance about anything that followed the MHA pre-empt, but I feel like they're currently ignoring anything inconveniently polite towards them at the expense of stuff to get angrier about. Which is fine I guess, but it's certainly not been a two-way street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 10, 2012 Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Laslo Kenez' timestamp='1331378079' post='2936327'] That's fine, we didn't hit them this war when we could have done for a multitude of reasons. It was very good of them to do that in the first place, but it's not as if someone sat us down and made us sign some pact of eternal thankfulness about it. I've repeatedly avoided being a dick to Sparta on behalf of the alliance about anything that followed the MHA pre-empt, but I feel like they're currently ignoring anything inconveniently polite towards them at the expense of stuff to get angrier about. Which is fine I guess, but it's certainly not been a two-way street. [/quote] That's cool, but look at it from their perspective, because they're not exactly about to sign on the whole DH express to roll Valhalla,DT, RoK, or whoever thing and they gave pretty good reasons to several people about being used against TOP and disliked when they don't go along with things like leaving XX. Edited March 10, 2012 by Roquentin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laslo Kenez Posted March 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1331378730' post='2936328'] That's cool, but look at it from their perspective, because they're not exactly about to sign on the whole DH express to roll Valhalla,DT, RoK, or whoever thing and they gave pretty good reasons to several people about being used against TOP and disliked when they don't go along with things like leaving XX. [/quote] I'm sure they have grievances, but how come they get chanelled into a specific hate for my alliance? Is it because we're a convenient target for getting annoyed at? Probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 10, 2012 Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Laslo Kenez' timestamp='1331378898' post='2936329'] I'm sure they have grievances, but how come they get chanelled into a specific hate for my alliance? Is it because we're a convenient target for getting annoyed at? Probably. [/quote] Yeah, you are, especially since it was your idea to preempt MHA. This is basically how they feel: TTK(was going to defend sparta, preempted), MHA preempted too, generally !@#$ on by 1337 and others during and following the war, so they're not very happy with the entire "group" of PB(FOK/VE as exceptions), C&G, and DH so to speak. GATO is a proximal target for the actions during the war, but we know where the root of it is(ODN/UMB/TLR/MK) If GATO existed on an island, they probably wouldn't mind you as much. Edited March 10, 2012 by Roquentin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laslo Kenez Posted March 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 So essentially you're saying Sparta lacks the guts to try it with any of the more proven powers. Thanks for the heads up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 10, 2012 Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Laslo Kenez' timestamp='1331388952' post='2936357'] So essentially you're saying Sparta lacks the guts to try it with any of the more proven powers. Thanks for the heads up! [/quote] No, they're doing it to the others as they trashed MK and co. as well. ODN, too. Have you not read the ODN election thread? Also, I had pretty much free reign on MK until the twitter incident. The issue is, moreso they lack a base of experienced OWF posters. Edited March 10, 2012 by Roquentin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted March 10, 2012 Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 A big congrats to our friends in GATO, even if they are really, really old. The spat between yourselves and Sparta is one I wouldn't have anticipated. Both alliances are so reasonable it's hard for me to comprehend them feuding. I know we've done more than some badmouthing of Sparta over the years and yet (aside from perhaps once with hyperion) I've never seen them get worked up about anything and I've not yet had a single poor interaction with GATO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted March 10, 2012 Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Cataduanes' timestamp='1331307975' post='2935959'] So if your not lambasting ODN for dropping a treaty what kind of statement are you actually trying to make? [/quote] The statement that history show us that in one way or another the treaty between ODN and an alliance in the losing side will always be canceled because ODN will never honor or respect it. [quote name='SoADarthCyfe6' timestamp='1331308385' post='2935963'] A D34th statement. Which is a statement of no basis, credibility and lacks any sort of intellectual construct. [/quote] noCB War: [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=30720"]ODN cancels treaty with NpO[/url], who were in the losing side. Karma War: [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54850"]ODN announces it will only honor treaties with Vanguard, R&R, and the International[/url], alliances who were in the winning side. Grudge War: ODN ignores Sparta treaty, imagine in what side Sparta were? Yeah, the losing side. Now please, continue the [i]Ad hominem[/i] or you are free to tell me what was the last time that ODN honored a treaty with someone in the losing side of a war. Edited March 10, 2012 by D34th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 10, 2012 Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) To be fair, Vanguard, R&R, and International were in on the initial attack on NPO, so ODN was fairly in the right to claim those obligations held precedence unless they really believed in helping a historical enemy. edit: The alternatives would have been neutrality or declaring on Fark or Gre or another IRON attacker, which wouldn't have made a lot of season or both sides. NpO didn't go in for Pacific or Valhalla, either. What ODN should have done though is offer aid before posting that to IRON or something post-war. I don't know what else they could have done since TOP wasn't as disliked despite doing something similar. Edited March 10, 2012 by Roquentin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted March 10, 2012 Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1331391844' post='2936371'] To be fair, Vanguard, R&R, and International were in on the initial attack on NPO, so ODN was fairly in the right to claim those obligations held precedence unless they really believed in helping a historical enemy. [/quote] This could be a good excuse if they don't had treaties with alliances who were connected to NPO. This is a problem not only with ODN, but with the great majority of alliances in cyberverse who sign tons of treaties and when said treaties conflict, they always honor the treaties with the winning side of the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 10, 2012 Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1331392431' post='2936376'] This could be a good excuse if they don't had treaties with alliances who were connected to NPO. This is a problem not only with ODN, but with the great majority of alliances in cyberverse who sign tons of treaties and when said treaties conflict, they always honor the treaties with the winning side of the war. [/quote] That's true, but Polaris also intentionally signed conflicting treaties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted March 10, 2012 Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1331392496' post='2936377'] That's true, but Polaris also intentionally signed conflicting treaties. [/quote] While I don't remember a conflict treaty that Polaris signed, probably at some point of the history they did, but what Polaris has to do with what I'm talking about or why the fact that they did it too make my argument less true? Edited March 10, 2012 by D34th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 10, 2012 Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1331392836' post='2936381'] While I don't remember a conflict treaty that Polaris signed, probably at some point of the history they did, but what Polaris has to do with what I'm talking about or the fact that they did it too make my argument less true? [/quote] Valhalla and NPO and the others. It was even admitted by Zbaldwin that it was done so both sides of a potential upcoming war would have an interest in Polaris. The thing is, NpO received limited flak for doing the same thing. TOP as well. Only certain alliances get stuck with a label. That is the point. It doesn't make your argument less true. It strengthens it, but shows such reasoning isn't applied consistently. In addition, over time treaties become conflicting and nothing is done about them. Crymson bragged about a unipolar foreign policy when the cracks in it are already beginning to show. Like with Sparta, they weren't well-liked in Q(Feanor can vouch for this), but still had several external treaties with Q signatories and heg and didn't make arrangements or get rid of them fast enough. Initially, IRON seemed to want to keep that treaty, not sure what happened after that. That was the only time they "switched sides," so to speak, even though known counterblocs had been discussed for months. Edited March 10, 2012 by Roquentin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmansfield68 Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 Awesome lineup, you 'arrogant' emmer-effers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 Down with Armens opression...VIVA la revolution!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 [quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1331367568' post='2936298'] Athens, actually. It's ok, we won anyways. [/quote] Whatever, point still stands. Perhaps we owe TLR, though it's not something they will ever have to call in, and if they feel like it maybe TLR owes Sparta.....well after the last war maybe not...but we owed Sparta nothing save being respectful while they were allied to ODN. Once FARK hit our ally and Intel surfaced about MHAs moves all bets were off. It is what it is. Also, I don't remember RIA doing anything but surviving that fight while their pals did the heavy lifting. Written history says nobody won or lost but feel free to believe whet you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cataduanes Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1331391182' post='2936366'] The statement that history show us that in one way or another the treaty between ODN and an alliance in the losing side will always be canceled because ODN will never honor or respect it. [/quote] Well thank you for clarifying what you meant D34th, your use of 'never honor or respect' is too arbitrary but given your long recorded aversion to all things ODN unsurprising. Your analysis fails to take into account such events as say GW3 (and yes Orrple did $%&@ it up for GW2...oh and yeah CDS in GW3 blah blah)and is what another example of your extreme bias seeking to paint ODN in a certain light, but yeah I do not expect you to change a habit of a lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted March 12, 2012 Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Cataduanes' timestamp='1331455070' post='2936752'] Well thank you for clarifying what you meant D34th, your use of 'never honor or respect' is too arbitrary but given your long recorded aversion to all things ODN unsurprising. Your analysis fails to take into account such events as say GW3 (and yes Orrple did $%&@ it up for GW2...oh and yeah CDS in GW3 blah blah)and is what another example of your extreme bias seeking to paint ODN in a certain light, but yeah I do not expect you to change a habit of a lifetime. [/quote] If you think that I'm being too arbitrary you are more than welcome to prove me wrong and show me just one treaty that ODN honored with the losing side of a war after GW3 and I'll happily apologize for my wrong judgment if that happens. Edited March 12, 2012 by D34th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 12, 2012 Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) Well, they probably would have gone in Dove if Legion had asked them, but Legion asked them to stay out iirc, so not really their fault. I'd need someone from ODN gov at the time to confirm. Edited March 12, 2012 by Roquentin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted March 12, 2012 Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1331514954' post='2937040'] Well, they [b]probably[/b] would have gone in Dove [b]if[/b] Legion had asked them, but Legion asked them to stay out iirc, so not really their fault. [/quote] The two bold words in your post made your argument become useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 12, 2012 Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 The issue is, if you are asked to stay out, it can't really be held against you. If they were willing to enter against the Unjust Path and get destroyed, it'd be meaningful. I don't think intent doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted March 12, 2012 Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 [quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1331453005' post='2936748'] Also, I don't remember RIA doing anything but surviving that fight while their pals did the heavy lifting. Written history says nobody won or lost but feel free to believe whet you want. [/quote] RIA was definitely fighting us. They weren't as good as iFOK, but they were there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keelah Posted March 12, 2012 Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 Back on topic, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkfox Posted March 12, 2012 Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 12 page Govt announcement thread. Must be some truly amazing people elected. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts