Ernsters Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 [center][img]http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc318/Pensare/Boards/Apparatus/ApparatusPeace.png[/img] 72 hours ago, the government of House Baratheon was informed of The Apparatus' cancellation of [i]The Cogs of Fury[/i]. [quote]Article 4: System Failure Both House Baratheon and The Apparatus shall uphold this treaty without fail as long as both shall exist. In the unlikelihood that both parties venture separate ways, notice will be given by airship or raven and will become void across the lands after the passage of 72 hours.[/quote] Have fun rebuilding guys.[/center] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 sounds like this treaty *puts on sunglasses* just ran out of steam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KemMo Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Good luck to my friends in the Apparatus and to HB. o/ App Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conred Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 I knew about this 72 hours ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conred Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 [quote name='KemMo' timestamp='1341032198' post='3000420'] Good luck to my friends in the Apparatus and to HB. o/ App [/quote] Have i ever told you how much I love your Boardwalk Empire pic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vukland Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Understandable. Good luck to both AA's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingervites Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 I have got friends in both so it is a little sad to see this go. Sorta expected to see this but good luck to both parties Hey Conred Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 You lost a good ally here, HB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 [quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1341032366' post='3000427'] You lost a good ally here, HB. [/quote] One can say the same of Apparatus. Too bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melancholy Culkin Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Good for HB getting rid of a !@#$ alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Spanier Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 [quote name='Melancholy Culkin' timestamp='1341033228' post='3000434'] Good for HB getting rid of a !@#$ alliance. [/quote] What is this, I don't even. Anyway, good luck to all steaming forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taget Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Yours is the Fury. Good luck to House Baratheon in all its endeavors! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Nothing the value was lost Apparatus, HB already showed that they worry more about pixels than friends. I just hope GATO face the same situation that Apparatus and see HB signing a treaty with an alliance of the other side to escape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernesto Che Guevara Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1341032174' post='3000419'] sounds like this treaty *puts on sunglasses* just ran out of steam [/quote] How do you do it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanore Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1341032174' post='3000419'] sounds like this treaty *puts on sunglasses* just ran out of steam [/quote] (•_•) ( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■) [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMPAH67f4o"]Yeaaaaahhhhhhhhh[/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Good luck everybody, understandable given the circumstances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrenster Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1341034473' post='3000447'] Nothing the value was lost Apparatus, HB already showed that they worry more about pixels than friends. I just hope GATO face the same situation that Apparatus and see HB signing a treaty with an alliance of the other side to escape. [/quote] D34tasgh, you're literally my favorite person. One day, you sit around yelling at us for defending the wrong people and then start e-lawyering about non-chaining treaties, and then the next you yell at other people who defend the people you don't like. And then at the end of it all, everyone is told that STA won't be joining this war unless their friends are preempted or something. You are seriously my hero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 [quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1341034770' post='3000455'] D34tasgh, you're literally my favorite person. One day, you sit around yelling at us for defending the wrong people and then start e-lawyering about non-chaining treaties, and then the next you yell at other people who defend the people you don't like. And then at the end of it all, everyone is told that STA won't be joining this war unless their friends are preempted or something. You are seriously my hero. [/quote] Let me explain things to you since in your effort to spin what I said you got lost: HB had a treaty with Apparatus, when the war begun they signed a treaty with GATO, then both Apparatus and GATO used their oA with allies and attacked alliances. While Apparatus is defending allies who are at war in a defensive mode because MK started this just because they could, GATO entered this war in support of an aggressive and unnecessary war. Who HB decided to support? Apparatus who were older allies and are themselves defending allies because they were dragged to a curbtomp or GATO with who they just signed a treaty and is in the bigger side supporting an aggressive war? The HB decision to support an new ally who are in the bigger side instead of support one who are rightfully fighting speaks tons about HB character. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1341032174' post='3000419'] sounds like this treaty *puts on sunglasses* just ran out of steam [/quote] I ain't even gonna lie that was pretty !@#$@#$ funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrenster Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1341035377' post='3000465'] Let me explain things to you since in your effort to spin what I said you got lost: HB had a treaty with Apparatus, when the war begun they signed a treaty with GATO, then both Apparatus and GATO used their oA with allies and attacked alliances. While Apparatus is defending allies who are at war in a defensive mode because MK started this just because they could, GATO entered this war in support of an aggressive and unnecessary war. Who HB decided to support? Apparatus who were older allies and are themselves defending allies because they were dragged to a curbtomp or GATO with who they just signed a treaty and is in the bigger side supporting an aggressive war? The HB decision to support an new ally who are in the bigger side instead of support one who are rightfully fighting speaks tons about HB character. [/quote] I have literally spun nothing. I have stated all facts. I love it when people counter-argue with "lolol you're spinning" and then completely don't address that argument anymore and move onto something else. In your case, you're just qualifying why you have such hypocrisy. Your hypocrisy about this whole "defending allies" thing is clearly circumstantial. One day, you'll just blast random people for defending their allies citing something about the choice of not needing to due to non-chaining agreements. And then the next, you will blast them for not honoring those treaties, completely disregarding your previous arguments about non-chaining. And now you're making judgments and extrapolations about HB's "character" based off of a few events without even bothering to research the circumstances. The problem with people like you is that you don't actually care about the facts underneath. You just care about what you see on the OWF and then you think that's enough "facts" for you to make judgments like this. Now let's be honest. Whatever sort of "perceived injustice" you see is merely picking sides. It's as simple as that. You like one side more than the other. And so you will yell at everyone that is joining the side you don't like. Stop trying to pretend you have some sort of high ground here, when you clearly don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subcomandante VL Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 Summer is here. No more need for those newfangled mechanics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phaedron Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 HB never seemed to be full of bad people, just poor decisions. Wish we actually had the opportunity to support each other on the battlefield. GATO has been completely cool to us since the last war, and we do hope that maybe they can find value in that treaty. I'd like to make this clear though: For many of us old-timers in The Apparatus, our declaration on NG was simply the fulfillment of the Descendants of Avatar DMA Treaty. We also have made our stance on e-bullying pretty clear. So call it oA if you want, but at least we had legit CB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1341036077' post='3000474'] I have literally spun nothing. I have stated all facts. I love it when people counter-argue with "lolol you're spinning" and then completely don't address that argument anymore and move onto something else. In your case, you're just qualifying why you have such hypocrisy. Your hypocrisy about this whole "defending allies" thing is clearly circumstantial. One day, you'll just blast random people for defending their allies citing something about the choice of not needing to due to non-chaining agreements. And then the next, you will blast them for not honoring those treaties, completely disregarding your previous arguments about non-chaining. And now you're making judgments and extrapolations about HB's "character" based off of a few events without even bothering to research the circumstances. The problem with people like you is that you don't actually care about the facts underneath. You just care about what you see on the OWF and then you think that's enough "facts" for you to make judgments like this. Now let's be honest. Whatever sort of "perceived injustice" you see is merely picking sides. It's as simple as that. You like one side more than the other. And so you will yell at everyone that is joining the side you don't like. Stop trying to pretend you have some sort of high ground here, when you clearly don't. [/quote] I'm not hypocrite, I'll criticize those who use the excuse of "defend allies" to support and enable MK actions (like your alliance did and that's why you are upset with me, since I don't remember you calling me a hypocrite when I supported NPO against DH aggression and wasted my time doing propaganda to support NPO) and I'll criticize those who having allies in both sides chose to the defend the ones who are in the bigger(Like HB did) and probably winning side than stay neutral or defend those who really need to be defended while I'll praise alliances who even having the chance to avoid a curbstomp will do suicidal chargers and defend their allies who are in really need like NATO and VE and if you knew me you would know that is really hard to support VE mainly after what they did against Polaris, but I do support them because they (this time) ran in defense of those who probably are going to lose and I respect that. Now you are welcome to search my posts in the last 5 years and if you find one where I'm being against what I said above I'll happily accept the hypocrisy insult, until there you are just posting like 99% of OWF who get angry with me when I tell the hurtful truth. Edit: Oh and while searching the posts remember that while everybody was pretending to be white knights in karma fighting the evil NPO I were doing pepsi/coke sigs about the hypocrisy of the movement who resulted in MK becoming what they are today. I don't support alliances, I support an idea and that isn't my fault if in the last 2(3?) years the same alliances are in the opposite side of my principles. Also remember that I used to criticize MK moves even when they were still Polar allies, so your argument of that I'm biased is also flawed. Edited June 30, 2012 by D34th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avakael Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 This is the absolute last treaty that I would have expected to see cancelled on grounds of politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KainIIIC Posted June 30, 2012 Report Share Posted June 30, 2012 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1341036741' post='3000480'] I'm not hypocrite, I'll criticize those who use the excuse of "defend allies" to support and enable MK actions (like your alliance did and that's why you are upset with me, since I don't remember you calling me a hypocrite when I supported NPO against DH aggression and wasted my time doing propaganda to support NPO) and I'll criticize those who having allies in both sides chose to the defend the ones who are in the bigger(Like HB did) and probably winning side than stay neutral or defend those who really need to be defended while I'll praise alliances who even having the chance to avoid a curbstomp will do suicidal chargers and defend their allies who are in really need like NATO and VE and if you knew me you would know that is really hard to support VE mainly after what they did against Polaris, but I do support them because they (this time) ran in defense of those who probably are going to lose and I respect that. Now you are welcome to search my posts in the last 5 years and if you find one where I'm being against what I said above I'll happily accept the hypocrisy insult, until there you are just posting like 99% of OWF who get angry with me when I tell the hurtful truth. Edit: Oh and while searching the posts remember that while everybody was pretending to be white knights in karma fighting the evil NPO I were doing pepsi/coke sigs about the hypocrisy of the movement who resulted in MK becoming what they are today. I don't support alliances, I support an idea and that isn't my fault if in the last 2(3?) years the same alliances are in the opposite side of my principles. Also remember that I used to criticize MK moves even when they were still Polar allies, so your argument of that I'm biased is also flawed. [/quote] So basically you confirmed his point. It's not about each of the individual alliance's actions viewed in context, it's whoever opposes MK is awesome, and whoever happens to end up on MK's side is the root of all evil. As for this cancellation, it's quite sad (but necessary) to see, liking both alliances quite a bit. 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.