Bob Ilyani Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 This is a bitter, politically motivated, eve-of-war cancellation topic in the making. But hey, that's what you wanted, so congrats! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 (edited) Similar then to a TOPs moves on the eve of the last war? Edited April 14, 2013 by Roadie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taget Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 (edited) Are we to deduce from your brush-off of Trimm's point that TLR enjoyed picking between supporting NPO and supporting MK this past war? TLR did not enjoy choosing anything. If anything we spent a lot of effort behind the scenes trying to defuse tensions. We invested a lot political capital in trying to help bring NPO out from the cold and are not at all displeased to see them ascendant. And being on the opposite side from them is not something we wanted or desired. Our past relations with them go back more than one war. And our future relations wil go forward them past the next. Sometimes allies will agree to disagree and foreign policy is not about the current war but the war that will come after that or even the war after that. And quite frankly our relationship with NPO goes beyond simply whether it is strategic or useful. Most importantly we spent a lot of time arguing with ODN about NPO and how they were good folks on our wavelength. They were quite skeptical at first but we are glad our efforts have borne fruit in this treaty. Edited April 14, 2013 by Taget Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobbies0310 Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 I was going to read this thread but its probably so much BS speculation informing US why WE signed this treaty I would cry. Glad to have this treaty completed. o/ Our Pacifican Brothers. Dang that is different to say, heh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itseZe Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 We shall enjoy feeding the tears from this thread to the babies before eating them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 I was glad this treaty was signed and made possible, but reading this thread made it so much better. ;D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 Similar then to a TOPs moves on the eve of the last war? Yeah, because we cancelled on so many allies before the last war. Do you make these things up as you type them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiggah Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALALALA I CAN"T HEAR YOU BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE YOU!" is both utterly banal and a hallmark of Planet Bob. I'll say again what I've said a million times before. You don't have to sign treaties with someone to be their friend, and you don't have to sign a treaty with everyone who is your friend, It seems like every day more and more people around here have totally forgotten that when you are making political decisions, like WHO YOU SIGN A TREATY WITH for example, you ought to consider more things than whether or not someone is your OMGBFFFOREVER. Or you could just do what CnG does and treaty half of Bob now, and worry about the consequences later. You people drive me crazy sometimes. I believe we just finished personally getting rolled by 20-something alliances, who targetted us specifically because of our lack of outside ties and did so in back to back wars. In response, we've eliminated on major tie and added another. Both ties were already linked and remain linked to CnG, so although we'll happily take you're complaints and/or grievances, you have to pardon us for not taking them all that seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 I really can't understand why people still are surprised by CnG and mainly ODN behavior(even if GATO is trying to overcome them) in CN politics. CnG' FA objective is literally sit in the cool guys table and since NPO took over the table of course ODN were going to sign a treaty with them and keep their place on the table. Now we all know that while NPO has the table, their position isn't secure yet, that's why CnG will keep their treaties with DH until they are sure NPO will keep the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankees Empire Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 I really can't understand why people still are surprised by CnG and mainly ODN behavior(even if GATO is trying to overcome them) in CN politics. CnG' FA objective is literally sit in the cool guys table and since NPO took over the table of course ODN were going to sign a treaty with them and keep their place on the table. Now we all know that while NPO has the table, their position isn't secure yet, that's why CnG will keep their treaties with DH until they are sure NPO will keep the table. You're confused; CnG is the cool table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dom Zak Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 I really can't understand why people still are surprised by CnG and mainly ODN behavior(even if GATO is trying to overcome them) in CN politics. CnG' FA objective is literally sit in the cool guys table and since NPO took over the table of course ODN were going to sign a treaty with them and keep their place on the table. Now we all know that while NPO has the table, their position isn't secure yet, that's why CnG will keep their treaties with DH until they are sure NPO will keep the table. Haven't you figured out that nobody cares what you say anymore? Go retire or something... And why does it always have to be "Follow NPO" with you whether it be ODN, IRON, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheListener Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 I really can't understand why people still are surprised by CnG and mainly ODN behavior(even if GATO is trying to overcome them) in CN politics. CnG' FA objective is literally sit in the cool guys table and since NPO took over the table of course ODN were going to sign a treaty with them and keep their place on the table. Now we all know that while NPO has the table, their position isn't secure yet, that's why CnG will keep their treaties with DH until they are sure NPO will keep the table. No one is surprised here, this is ODN at their best. You seem to misunderstand laughing at them as being surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 Haven't you figured out that nobody cares what you say anymore? Go retire or something... You're mean and you hurt my feeling, I'll cry in my bed... :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevolutionaryRebel Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 (edited) Let's just say that if Alliances you were recently at war with complain about your FA strategy, it is quite likely that your strategy is working. If C&G's approach has been successful thus far, then why would they change course? As for CoJ's "Flat Earth", does this not contradict you dictum of Freedom of Association? If Alliances wish to form a Hegemony, who is CoJ to undermine the freedom of said Alliances in pursuing such a path, if it is beneficial for the alliance involved? Total anarchy would be just as bad for smaller Alliances as the present system, and cannot be obtained, due to the political advantages of being part of a bloc outweighing the negatives, such as TWI reports from CoJ. Striving to obtain it would increase the benefits of those that reject CoJ's logic as the fewer blocs there are, the stronger said blocs become. Without an adjustment of norms, this would lead to an elastic rebound back towards bloc politics, as realist self-interest sets in. The ideal is rather, somewhere between the extremes of 'Pax Pacifica', and Justica. The world is round. The pendulum swings both ways. 'Liberal Realism' will reign supreme. Edited April 14, 2013 by revolutionary rebel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 I guess if you were better at it we'd have a TOP treaty. Perhaps Os can give you a few pointers? Voodoo Nova is not a member of TOP anymore. As a sidenote, TOP-ODN relations are a direct result of OsRavan's desires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OverlordShinnra Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 There is a lot of work that went into this that I wasn't particularly apart of for a long, long time. From my end I'd really like to thank Jrenster though as he made me very comfortable with this relationship and I am now looking forward to continuing to flesh out this relationship as I have a feeling it will last a long, long time. o/ NPO o/ ODN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 Congrats, this has been in the works for a while so it must be nice to have it on paper. All of C&G's ties (except that IRON-INT ODP) are to either DH or NPO-sphere. Seems pretty coherent to me. Now, whether this illusory DH-C&G-NPO(+NG probably) supersphere can actually come to fruition is another matter, but if C&G somehow pulls it off, more power to them. Similar then to a TOPs moves on the eve of the last war? ?! Haven't you figured out that nobody cares what you say anymore? Go retire or something... And why does it always have to be "Follow NPO" with you whether it be ODN, IRON, etc. I'm trying to think of large wars when DR has been victorious without NPO on its side and I'm having difficulty. Not necessarily a criticism, as DR-NPO work well together, just pointing that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 ODN cares about what our allies think of us. We care about what people we respect think of us. I don't really care what you think of us. Sounds like you and Os need to have a quick chat and get your stories straight, then. Haven't you figured out that nobody cares what you say anymore? Go retire or something... And why does it always have to be "Follow NPO" with you whether it be ODN, IRON, etc. D34th posts are more likely to contain substance than the average post from an IRON member - including the one I'm quoting. You can take that as you will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 (edited) Let's just say that if Alliances you were recently at war with complain about your FA strategy, it is quite likely that your strategy is working. If C&G's approach has been successful thus far, then why would they change course? As for CoJ's "Flat Earth", does this not contradict you dictum of Freedom of Association? If Alliances wish to form a Hegemony, who is CoJ to undermine the freedom of said Alliances in pursuing such a path, if it is beneficial for the alliance involved? Total anarchy would be just as bad for smaller Alliances as the present system, and cannot be obtained, due to the political advantages of being part of a bloc outweighing the negatives, such as TWI reports from CoJ. Striving to obtain it would increase the benefits of those that reject CoJ's logic as the fewer blocs there are, the stronger said blocs become. Without an adjustment of norms, this would lead to an elastic rebound back towards bloc politics, as realist self-interest sets in. The ideal is rather, somewhere between the extremes of 'Pax Pacifica', and Justica. The world is round. The pendulum swings both ways. 'Liberal Realism' will reign supreme. You may read freedom of association "freedom from association." It has, in times past, not been uncommon that alliances or individuals have been wrecked simply for daring to switch membership or cancel a treaty. Anything else you extrapolate from the conditions of flatness are simply a disagreement on how things play out. A 2-yr cycle of King of the Hill has never resulted in the maximum engagement or enjoyment of anyone--King or serfs--and has always resulted in (a) long periods of abuse followed by (b) cannibalism at the top. What is the solution? To replace that model. [hr] Voodoo Nova is not a member of TOP anymore. As a sidenote, TOP-ODN relations are a direct result of OsRavan's desires. But, Yev: It is also an indictment that you do not know us very well that you believe Osravan has total power over our FA. He does not, and has not ever had that. [hr] Congrats, this has been in the works for a while so it must be nice to have it on paper. All of C&G's ties (except that IRON-INT ODP) are to either DH or NPO-sphere. Seems pretty coherent to me. Now, whether this illusory DH-C&G-NPO(+NG probably) supersphere can actually come to fruition is another matter, but if C&G somehow pulls it off, more power to them. It seems coherent to you to be allied to two groups who've been going to war constantly for the past 3 years? Oooooooookay. :rolleyes: Edited April 14, 2013 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaoshawk Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 Told you NPO were good people back in 2009 :P You were pretty wrong in 2009. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 It's consistent, two opposing spheres being allied to one bloc at the neck. You would have to remove one with surgery now. I knew it reminded me of something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 You've got it in the wrong, methinks. Doesn't look like we are going to see round 2 of EQ vs IQ. That doesn't look to good for a section of EQ that managed to piss off a good number of people during the last conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevolutionaryRebel Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 (edited) You may read freedom of association "freedom from association." It has, in times past, not been uncommon that alliances or individuals have been wrecked simply for daring to switch membership or cancel a treaty. Anything else you extrapolate from the conditions of flatness are simply a disagreement on how things play out. A 2-yr cycle of King of the Hill has never resulted in the maximum engagement or enjoyment of anyone--King or serfs--and has always resulted in (a) long periods of abuse followed by (b) cannibalism at the top. What is the solution? To replace that model. Our disagreement is as much a 'disagreement on how things play out', as a disagreement over whether the alternative you propose is achievable. CoJ has quite evidently been unable to enforce its agenda, despite its success in having far more gravity than its size would suggest. Changing norms requires a great deal of force which is not apparent in my eyes. There is insufficient incentive for Alliances to support your vision at the present, and even if it were obtained, we cannot be sure it would constitute and improvement upon the status quo until it is obtained. You describe a uopian vision, but lack a concrete means of obtaining it. In lieu of both precedent and practicality, I can respect, but not support. I am a reformist, not an anarchist. It seems coherent to you to be allied to two groups who've been going to war constantly for the past 3 years? We'll see, I suppose. C&G has been trying to look towards NPO for years. Back in my time, even Int was seeking warmer relations with NPO. Just as alliance member lists change, so do the character of Alliances. Edited April 14, 2013 by revolutionary rebel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enamel32 Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 (edited) Doesn't look like we are going to see round 2 of EQ vs IQ. That doesn't look to good for a section of EQ that managed to piss off a good number of people during the last conflict. Lol, DH and Co. has built up quite a few crimes over the last several years. Somehow I don't see that being wiped away with just one war, that was arguably a tie, but spin spin spin, and we'll see. If I was DH and Co., I'd be giving CnG the bj of a lifetime right now, because they're your only lifeline, and NPO's picking them away! Edited April 14, 2013 by Enamel32 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carson Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 I really can't understand why people still are surprised by CnG and mainly ODN behavior(even if GATO is trying to overcome them) in CN politics. CnG' FA objective is literally sit in the cool guys table and since NPO took over the table of course ODN were going to sign a treaty with them and keep their place on the table. Now we all know that while NPO has the table, their position isn't secure yet, that's why CnG will keep their treaties with DH until they are sure NPO will keep the table. you think that CnG actually has an FA objective? please, you give us too much credit :rolleyes: 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.