A Statement from BFF

[Stewie]

[quote name='Roadie' timestamp='1357861812' post='3074226']
Respectable move, BFF. Very respectable.
[/quote]

Selling out a MDAP ally is now respectable? Well that's a new one.


You ride together, you die together..... For better or worse. That's the whole point of MDAPs... it's a suicide pact.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Stewie

[trimm]

[quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1357862941' post='3074241']


Selling out a MDAP ally is now respectable? Well that's a new one.


You ride together, you die together..... For better or worse. That's the whole point of MDAPs... it's a suicide pact.
[/quote]

Well that's why MADPs are stupid.

That said, I think BFF cancelling is eminently defensible given NEW's actions. If I were BFF, I wouldn't have given them the seven days, but you can't accuse them of not honoring the spirit of that treaty as a result.

[AirMe]

I like this post. It was well written, entertaining, and informative. It is also the right decision and following the wording of the treaty. Situations like these are why treaties have clauses.

Good luck BFF.

EDIT: I need to proofread better. We treaties? What the hell does that even mean?

Edited January 11, 2013 by AirMe

[Infopowerbroker]

honorable move.

o/ BFF for doing the right thing, even in a bad situation.

[D34th]

[quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1357862941' post='3074241']
Selling out a MDAP ally is now respectable? Well that's a new one.


You ride together, you die together..... For better or worse. That's the whole point of MDAPs... it's a suicide pact.
[/quote]

You expect too much from people, the whole "friends > infra" is only suitable in CN when your friends are on the big side of a conflict.

[Sniper Joe]

[quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1357862941' post='3074241']
Selling out a MDAP ally is now respectable? Well that's a new one.


You ride together, you die together..... For better or worse. That's the whole point of MDAPs... it's a suicide pact.
[/quote]

We're hardly abandoning them. If we wanted to abandon them we'd just say that they violated the treaty and tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine if they asked for our help. We're cancelling on them for being awful allies and nearly everyone agrees that it's completely justified. Why would we keep a treaty with an alliance who has no regard whatsoever for the people they're tied to?

We're doing them a favor here, even after they took a crap all over us and our relationship.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Sniper Joe

[BloodFury]

A said move, but the right move BFF. You got my number Chax.

[berbers]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1357863356' post='3074244']
I like this post. It was well written, entertaining, and informative. It is also the right decision and following the wording of the treaty. Situations like these are why we treaties have clauses.

Good luck BFF.
[/quote]

I have to agree, the reasons were well presented and as a frequent OWF user, I was impressed by the additional details provided. No fault to BFF on this.

As an aside, this is a great example why posting a bit more than "communication difficulties" when cancelling can really aid in people's understanding of a situation, preventing them from forming incorrect opinions.

[Bernkastel]

[quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1357862941' post='3074241']
Selling out a MDAP ally is now respectable? Well that's a new one.

You ride together, you die together..... For better or worse. That's the whole point of MDAPs... it's a suicide pact.
[/quote]

The BFF I know and am familiar with would have stuck by its bonds of blood. BFF as a block would stand together no matter the consequences and keep their other allies out, just as they have in the past before. It's a shame BFF the alliance is not the same as the bloc. It's a real shame. I have to feel bad for NEW especially after all NEW did for BFF the alliance and the bloc. It's a shame you have to be paid back with disloyalty for your unyielding loyalty.

Blood For Friends*
*exclusions may apply.

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1357862941' post='3074241']
Selling out a MDAP ally is now respectable? Well that's a new one.


You ride together, you die together..... For better or worse. That's the whole point of MDAPs... it's a suicide pact.
[/quote]

Suddenly MADPs are permanent.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Bernkastel' timestamp='1357864296' post='3074256']
The BFF I know and am familiar with would have stuck by its bonds of blood. BFF as a block would stand together no matter the consequences and keep their other allies out, just as they have in the past before. It's a shame BFF the alliance is not the same as the bloc. It's a real shame. I have to feel bad for NEW especially after all NEW did for BFF the alliance and the bloc. It's a shame you have to be paid back with disloyalty for your unyielding loyalty.

Blood For Friends*
*exclusions may apply.
[/quote]

So covertly planning and implementing an act of war with out even a hint is good behavior? Because that is what you are saying. The disloyalty started when NEW decided it wanted to try to start a larger war without informing the alliance they have a "bond of blood" with. BFF didn't cause this cancelation. NEW did.

Edited January 11, 2013 by AirMe

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Sniper Joe' timestamp='1357863594' post='3074253']
We're hardly abandoning them. If we wanted to abandon them we'd just say that they violated the treaty and tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine if they asked for our help. We're cancelling on them for being awful allies and nearly everyone agrees that it's completely justified. Why would we keep a treaty with an alliance who has no regard whatsoever for the people they're tied to?

We're doing them a favor here, even after they took a crap all over us and our relationship.
[/quote]

He's not referring to the cancellation, the cancellation was absolutely the right thing to do, in fact you should never have signed the treaty in the first place. NEW goes insane on an annual basis, you knew that when you inked the treaty, it's not a new character trait. So trying to strike backroom deals so you take minimal damage if you have to enter in their defence is pretty poor. If you agree to enter on a limited conflict basis it diminishes the act of coming to their aid, essentially you are entering so you can save face while your MADP partners get theirs smashed in because you have no real intention of being of any assistance. You'd be better just being honest and saying NEW you are !@#$@#$ retarded, you violated the terms of our treaty and you can go die in the fire you have built for yourself. Instead you choose to try and claim a moral victory in a situation where it wasn't really required selling out your MADP allies in the process.

[mythicknight]

I'm not sure why people seem to be in awe/praising the honoring of the cancellation period - usually that's just the standard way of doings things if you're cancelling a treaty, it's nothing new. Claiming it could have been waived altogether due to some blown-up infraction of another clause just reeks of covering asses/bailing tactics.

Anyway, that said, good luck NEW, good luck BFF, good luck Scott Bakula, may you find your way home.

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1357864433' post='3074258']
So covertly planning and implementing an act of war with out even a hint is good behavior?
[/quote]


Sending aid to their friends in the heat of the moment to try and get in on some action is far from some brooding plot they concocted like some of the posts in this thread are seeming to insinuate. I'm not defending their actions (we were taken by surprise too), but there's a clear difference.

Edited January 11, 2013 by mythicknight

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1357864724' post='3074260']
So trying to strike backroom deals so you take minimal damage if you have to enter in their defence is pretty poor. If you agree to enter on a limited conflict basis it diminishes the act of coming to their aid, essentially you are entering so you can save face while your MADP partners get theirs smashed in because you have no real intention of being of any assistance.
[/quote]

If there is any evidence of such a deal I have missed it so far.

[alyster]

This reminds me: can someone please fix NEW's wiki page, especially their treaty list.

You know some of us are lazy.

Also good BFF blah blah blah

[Walshington]

[quote name='Longshadow' timestamp='1357861070' post='3074205']
This is still something I would love to see what happens.

NEW might end up just going off the reservation now for that simple fact.

Should be fun to watch what happens
[/quote]

This would be interesting. Been awhile since a war no one expected kind of pops up without the careful alignment of the treaty web beforehand.Planet Bob caught with its pants down! I suspect this will stall out, but the possibilities are intriguing.

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1357863356' post='3074244']
Situations like these are why treaties have clauses.
[/quote]

THIS.

[Sniper Joe]

[quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1357864724' post='3074260']
He's not referring to the cancellation, the cancellation was absolutely the right thing to do, in fact you should never have signed the treaty in the first place. NEW goes insane on an annual basis, you knew that when you inked the treaty, it's not a new character trait. So trying to strike backroom deals so you take minimal damage if you have to enter in their defence is pretty poor. If you agree to enter on a limited conflict basis it diminishes the act of coming to their aid, essentially you are entering so you can save face while your MADP partners get theirs smashed in because you have no real intention of being of any assistance. You'd be better just being honest and saying NEW you are !@#$@#$ retarded, you violated the terms of our treaty and you can go die in the fire you have built for yourself. Instead you choose to try and claim a moral victory in a situation where it wasn't really required selling out your MADP allies in the process.
[/quote]

Wow IRON, why did you put Methrage in charge of your alliance?

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1357865042' post='3074262']
If there is any evidence of such a deal I have missed it so far.
[/quote]

Nothing has been posted but enlightened gentleman like Stewie and I know such things.

edit:


[quote name='Sniper Joe' timestamp='1357865311' post='3074265']
Wow IRON, why did you put Methrage in charge of your alliance?
[/quote]

I'm certain you will regret making this statement before this thread is over and that amuses me greatly.

Edited January 11, 2013 by MCRABT

[Robster83]

lol Honourable? You are complete sell outs.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1357865398' post='3074266']
I'm certain you will regret making this statement before this thread is over and that amuses me greatly.
[/quote]
Oh, get over yourself.

An alliance that so blatantly betrays the trust of their ally deserves to be sold out. BFF owe NEW nothing in my opinion. BFF is giving NEW far more than I would in their shoes.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Sardonic

[D34th]

[quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1357864724' post='3074260']
He's not referring to the cancellation, the cancellation was absolutely the right thing to do, in fact you should never have signed the treaty in the first place. NEW goes insane on an annual basis, you knew that when you inked the treaty, it's not a new character trait. So trying to strike backroom deals so you take minimal damage if you have to enter in their defence is pretty poor. If you agree to enter on a limited conflict basis it diminishes the act of coming to their aid, essentially you are entering so you can save face while your MADP partners get theirs smashed in because you have no real intention of being of any assistance. You'd be better just being honest and saying NEW you are !@#$@#$ retarded, you violated the terms of our treaty and you can go die in the fire you have built for yourself. Instead you choose to try and claim a moral victory in a situation where it wasn't really required selling out your MADP allies in the process.
[/quote]

I don't always agree with IRON members, but when I do, is with their president.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1357865398' post='3074266']
Nothing has been posted but enlightened gentleman like Stewie and I know such things.
[/quote]

Interesting. You might well know something. You might just be slinging mud. With a bare insinuation, and no evidence, I wont hazard an opinion as to which is more likely at this point, but time should tell.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1357865398' post='3074266']
I'm certain you will regret making this statement before this thread is over and that amuses me greatly.
[/quote]
And what, pray tell, are you intending to do to make him regret that statement?

[Walshington]

[quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1357865660' post='3074269']
lol Honourable? You are complete sell outs.
[/quote]

You know, I just don't see it. Can you elaborate your position?

Seems to me that NEW put BFF in a potential political bad spot, compounding previous communications problems.
BFF cancelled, citing a clause in the treaty.
If they'd have left it at that, there would be a whiff of "we're trying to avoid a war with NPO". But they vented that out by saying
they were in for whatever NEW did for the next week.

I seem to be missing the sell out part.

[AirMe]

[quote name='mythicknight' timestamp='1357865014' post='3074261']
I'm not sure why people seem to be in awe/praising the honoring of the cancellation period - usually that's just the standard way of doings things if you're cancelling a treaty, it's nothing new. Claiming it could have been waived altogether due to some blown-up infraction of another clause just reeks of covering asses/bailing tactics.

Anyway, that said, good luck NEW, good luck BFF, good luck Scott Bakula, may you find your way home.




Sending aid to their friends in the heat of the moment to try and get in on some action is far from some brooding plot they concocted like some of the posts in this thread are seeming to insinuate. I'm not defending their actions (we were taken by surprise too), but there's a clear difference.
[/quote]

So will you be assisting NEW if they decide to escalate the conflict or will you be sitting on the sidelines enacting a clause in your treaty that you claim would prevent you from helping them?

It is no secret that NEW has wanted to suicide out of the world. And as mentioned by BFF in this announcement, NEW did say they intended to start a larger war and that was their motive for aiding. So yes...they did concoct a plan to aid Kaskus as part of a plot to start a larger war.