Starfox101 Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 Lots of gems in this thread. Lets get started here... Starfox, you do realise that the coalition we surrendered to doesn't exist, don't you? Which means, what? Does that mean you won? I've dealt with this crap from Pacifica in Great War I, and now I have to see it again? There are times when you lose, and when you lose, you man up and admit you were beaten. You don't surrender and admit defeat, then once the gun is off your head, parade around with cryptic we won messages. I can admit when I've been beaten. Everyone has lost at some point. Man up and take off the blinders. "Losing a war means you didn't matter - nintenderek" I should've expected you to not know what you're talking about unless it was a really important economics paper. But yeah this treaty is funny. Congrats on consolidating your failures. Ps equilibrium doesn't exist anymore, idiots. Oh yes, we're clearly idiots for mentioning the fact that you surrendered to a grouping that included Polar. Generally resorting to insults to get a point across points to a lower standard of intelligence. Just drop the parody act, it's very tired. It's like you think that you and yours are going to get another chance at us again in the very near future... Regardless, a match made in heaven. Two birds, one stone etc etc It's inevitable. The tough talk is pointless, spare us. I knew there was a legitimate reason for me hating your guts, at least you finally put it down in writing. That's a bit overboard. You should probably calm down if you hate someone's guts for liking someone else. I hate these two alliances and yet my alliance lacks the strength, will, or courage to actually try to take them out. I know, I'll just say something menacing. That's almost as good. And that about sums up the entire conversation here. Lots of talk about two birds with one stone. Meanwhile, we'll be sitting and waiting for you to actually back up the tough talk. You had a shot at us a few weeks ago, and it didn't go well. I can well remember when there was reason to hail you lot. Remember being the key word there, as any reason is long in the past. Why, because they have a different opinion in regards to politics than you? Love them when they are with you, hate when they are against you. Blinders, blinders, blinders. Some of you should really think for yourself from time to time. Why should they? You're the opposite of L'Oréal, you're not worth it! Luckily we had this to close all conversation out, one of the worst jokes I've ever seen. Thank you, Stewie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbulaM1 Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 Congrats to both involved, so many optionals in there, perhaps a bit more commitment in the next one, but always a good way to foster a greater relationship. Schatt... Been awhile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 What makes you think anyone responds to anything CoJ does with a straight face? You have a weird problem with Schattenmann, WE GET IT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 Why even bother posting then? Because he's Vlad with inferior vocabulary; he loves to hear himself talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 I get a real Jehovah's Witness* vibe when I see the "Equilibrium doesn't exist anymore" talking point being parroted in this thread. I'd love to know who coined it. Send me screen caps bros! *These are traveling religious evangelists that plague my nation. They corner the unwary and come pre-programmed with pat answers to common questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 (edited) Congrats to both involved, so many optionals in there, perhaps a bit more commitment in the next one, but always a good way to foster a greater relationship. Schatt... Been awhile As a matter of principle, Justitia's Cult signs only optional treaties. This philosophy pre-dates the advent of the non-chaining MD, but for simplicity's sake the aim is similar. Barbula and anyone else who can read, continue on; everyone else, you stopped reading 10 words ago anyway. The reasoning behind this is: Justitia's Cult first and foremost is an entity unto its own, serving only the will of Justitia as interpreted by Her Presbyter; what terrestrial power can then bind us to service? M-treaties are compulsory; their very nature removes control of an alliance's actions from its leadership and membership, they cede sovereignty into the hands of the other. Justitia's Cult acts upon its principles; we may or may not enter any war whether we have a treaty or not, based upon the underlying cause of the war, its merits, the principles involved, and our ability to further Justitia's will by doing so. Those alliances with which we sign a treaty are those whose ideals and principles closely match our own, such that when we sign a treaty, no government need question our loyalty to them, nor us theirs, and will know that Justitia's Cult will defend them where defense is warranted. But we cannot and will not sign away that ability to discern. "Optional" has a mewling connotation to the mewling politicians of the world, but for us does not mean "if we think we'll win" it means "because you are in the right, or because you are not." Edited April 30, 2013 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbulaM1 Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 As a matter of principle, Justitia's Cult signs only optional treaties. This philosophy pre-dates the advent of the non-chaining MD, but for simplicity's sake the aim is similar. Barbula and anyone else who can read, continue on; everyone else, you stopped reading 10 words ago anyway. The reasoning behind this is: Justitia's Cult first and foremost is an entity unto its own, serving only the will of Justitia as interpreted by Her Presbyter; what terrestrial power can then bind us to service? M-treaties are compulsory; their very nature removes control of an alliance's actions from its leadership and membership, they cede sovereignty into the hands of the other. Justitia's Cult acts upon its principles; we may or may not enter any war whether we have a treaty or not, based upon the underlying cause of the war, its merits, the principles involved, and our ability to further Justitia's will by doing so. Those alliances with which we sign a treaty are those whose ideals and principles closely match our own, such that when we sign a treaty, no government need question our loyalty to them, nor us theirs, and will know that Justitia's Cult will defend them where defense is warranted. But we cannot and will not sign away that ability to discern. "Optional" has a mewling connotation to the mewling politicians of the world, but for us does not mean "if we think we'll win" it means "because you are in the right, or because you are not." I like that. I wish others would follow suit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific Fleet Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 As a matter of principle, Justitia's Cult signs only optional treaties. This philosophy pre-dates the advent of the non-chaining MD, but for simplicity's sake the aim is similar. Barbula and anyone else who can read, continue on; everyone else, you stopped reading 10 words ago anyway. The reasoning behind this is: Justitia's Cult first and foremost is an entity unto its own, serving only the will of Justitia as interpreted by Her Presbyter; what terrestrial power can then bind us to service? M-treaties are compulsory; their very nature removes control of an alliance's actions from its leadership and membership, they cede sovereignty into the hands of the other. Justitia's Cult acts upon its principles; we may or may not enter any war whether we have a treaty or not, based upon the underlying cause of the war, its merits, the principles involved, and our ability to further Justitia's will by doing so. Those alliances with which we sign a treaty are those whose ideals and principles closely match our own, such that when we sign a treaty, no government need question our loyalty to them, nor us theirs, and will know that Justitia's Cult will defend them where defense is warranted. But we cannot and will not sign away that ability to discern. "Optional" has a mewling connotation to the mewling politicians of the world, but for us does not mean "if we think we'll win" it means "because you are in the right, or because you are not." Wow, very well said. I'm happy that we are treatied to you guys. o/ CoJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Holton Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 NSO strategy is much better, you guys treaty more competent alliances and wait to them do all the job for you. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your post, but if you're insinuating that having competent allies is a bad quality... Actually nevermind. Just treaty Polar. I'm really disappointed with the quality of hate we're getting in here. At least when CoJ hates on you, you get some kind of behavior-based reason (e.g., your FP is an incoherent farce). This "hahaha" and "you're dumb" and "this [treaty] is almost bad as RIA" stuff is really weak - gradeschool level at times. Please try harder. I like to think my criticisms are at least up to an 8th grade level by this point. Weak hate for a weak alliance kind of fits though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 You have a weird problem with Schattenmann, WE GET IT. I have no problem at all with Herr Schatt. I've said before that he completes us. Life would be far duller without his efforts to entertain us all. I hope he continues to bring his special brand of comedy to the stage of Bob for many years to come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfcha0s Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 As a matter of principle, Justitia's Cult signs only optional treaties. This philosophy pre-dates the advent of the non-chaining MD, but for simplicity's sake the aim is similar. Barbula and anyone else who can read, continue on; everyone else, you stopped reading 10 words ago anyway. The reasoning behind this is: Justitia's Cult first and foremost is an entity unto its own, serving only the will of Justitia as interpreted by Her Presbyter; what terrestrial power can then bind us to service? M-treaties are compulsory; their very nature removes control of an alliance's actions from its leadership and membership, they cede sovereignty into the hands of the other. Justitia's Cult acts upon its principles; we may or may not enter any war whether we have a treaty or not, based upon the underlying cause of the war, its merits, the principles involved, and our ability to further Justitia's will by doing so. Those alliances with which we sign a treaty are those whose ideals and principles closely match our own, such that when we sign a treaty, no government need question our loyalty to them, nor us theirs, and will know that Justitia's Cult will defend them where defense is warranted. But we cannot and will not sign away that ability to discern. "Optional" has a mewling connotation to the mewling politicians of the world, but for us does not mean "if we think we'll win" it means "because you are in the right, or because you are not." Very well said, indeed. o/ CoJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Chele Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 As a matter of principle, Justitia's Cult signs only optional treaties. This philosophy pre-dates the advent of the non-chaining MD, but for simplicity's sake the aim is similar. Barbula and anyone else who can read, continue on; everyone else, you stopped reading 10 words ago anyway. The reasoning behind this is: Justitia's Cult first and foremost is an entity unto its own, serving only the will of Justitia as interpreted by Her Presbyter; what terrestrial power can then bind us to service? M-treaties are compulsory; their very nature removes control of an alliance's actions from its leadership and membership, they cede sovereignty into the hands of the other. Justitia's Cult acts upon its principles; we may or may not enter any war whether we have a treaty or not, based upon the underlying cause of the war, its merits, the principles involved, and our ability to further Justitia's will by doing so. Those alliances with which we sign a treaty are those whose ideals and principles closely match our own, such that when we sign a treaty, no government need question our loyalty to them, nor us theirs, and will know that Justitia's Cult will defend them where defense is warranted. But we cannot and will not sign away that ability to discern. "Optional" has a mewling connotation to the mewling politicians of the world, but for us does not mean "if we think we'll win" it means "because you are in the right, or because you are not." Schatt, quit trying to Mentor the Mewling Masses... they trust each other so little that they need "M" in front of their treaties, and are so unworthy of trust that their "M" means nothing. Our Options Originate in Our Ornery tendancy to Opine On the Obvious state Of the wOrld... Ok I Over did it there... I Odmit it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vasuda Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 Justitia's Cult acts upon its principles; we may or may not enter any war whether we have a treaty or not, based upon the underlying cause of the war, its merits, the principles involved, and our ability to further Justitia's will by doing so. Those alliances with which we sign a treaty are those whose ideals and principles closely match our own, such that when we sign a treaty, no government need question our loyalty to them, nor us theirs, and will know that Justitia's Cult will defend them where defense is warranted. But we cannot and will not sign away that ability to discern. "Optional" has a mewling connotation to the mewling politicians of the world, but for us does not mean "if we think we'll win" it means "because you are in the right, or because you are not." Having spent a good chunk of time CoJ, I've always had a lot of respect for this outlook. However, I think it's possible to be true to yourself without having to constantly doubt your allies. In the past, when I've signed or voted for MDoAPs, I did so because I felt there were deep common bonds between the two parties. Bonds that exceeded the moment. Bonds steeped in a shared personal and ideological history. This is why I was so pleased when The Ordinance of Rebirth was upgraded to an MDoAP in the form of Order 66. It was little more than official recognition of an existing bond with years of history behind it. A single-minded commitment to a lack of commitments is only something to admire when you doubt the nobility of those at your side. Doesn't the Justitian policy ultimately make a mockery of the Cult's allies? If you only sign treaties based on shared principles, then why not make a commitment to those principles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOLO SWAG Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 As a matter of principle, Justitia's Cult signs only optional treaties. This philosophy pre-dates the advent of the non-chaining MD, but for simplicity's sake the aim is similar. Barbula and anyone else who can read, continue on; everyone else, you stopped reading 10 words ago anyway. The reasoning behind this is: Justitia's Cult first and foremost is an entity unto its own, serving only the will of Justitia as interpreted by Her Presbyter; what terrestrial power can then bind us to service? M-treaties are compulsory; their very nature removes control of an alliance's actions from its leadership and membership, they cede sovereignty into the hands of the other. Justitia's Cult acts upon its principles; we may or may not enter any war whether we have a treaty or not, based upon the underlying cause of the war, its merits, the principles involved, and our ability to further Justitia's will by doing so. Those alliances with which we sign a treaty are those whose ideals and principles closely match our own, such that when we sign a treaty, no government need question our loyalty to them, nor us theirs, and will know that Justitia's Cult will defend them where defense is warranted. But we cannot and will not sign away that ability to discern. "Optional" has a mewling connotation to the mewling politicians of the world, but for us does not mean "if we think we'll win" it means "because you are in the right, or because you are not." Prototype has a very similar philosophy. Albeit less Schattenmann. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biff Webster Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 Mockery makes the most sense. Glad you're finding your new home better suited to your beliefs. Let us know if there is anything we can do to make it easier for you to succeed there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 Maybe I'm misinterpreting your post, but if you're insinuating that having competent allies is a bad quality... Actually nevermind. Just treaty Polar. Yep, you are misinterpreting his post, intentionally so. But it did pave the way for you to deliver that zinger. Sorry it took a bit for me to reply as it really floored me. Anywho, congrats to CoJ and Polaris on their new treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 (edited) Having spent a good chunk of time CoJ, I've always had a lot of respect for this outlook. However, I think it's possible to be true to yourself without having to constantly doubt your allies. In the past, when I've signed or voted for MDoAPs, I did so because I felt there were deep common bonds between the two parties. Bonds that exceeded the moment. Bonds steeped in a shared personal and ideological history. This is why I was so pleased when The Ordinance of Rebirth was upgraded to an MDoAP in the form of Order 66. It was little more than official recognition of an existing bond with years of history behind it. A single-minded commitment to a lack of commitments is only something to admire when you doubt the nobility of those at your side. Doesn't the Justitian policy ultimately make a mockery of the Cult's allies? If you only sign treaties based on shared principles, then why not make a commitment to those principles? Again, your interpretation of the O is a worldly one. Cult of Justitia is exactly what it is named: A mystery cult, a religious order, which serves a deity and set of ideals. A compulsory treaty would supersede that, and that is not an option for CoJ, not due to a lack of confidence or doubt. In addition, compulsory treaties are simply too prone to failures of personalities; for every pie-in-the-sky M-treaty based on "deep common bonds" there are 5 signed under false pretenses as "trip wires," or due to half-truths on one or both parts, or for convenience, or because of Scrabble. Cult of Justitia's option provides more promise and certainty than any M-treaty: That if your cause is just, win, lose, or draw, CoJ will be there without conditions. (Because of constant politics, I note that this paragraph is due only to Vasuda's use of NPO/NSO as an example, and the criticism is the same for any alliance) Even your Order 66 is not what you're advertising it as: It is a non-chainer, why? Because neither NPO nor NSO wants to get dragged into the other's poop under the wrong circumstances. I don't know Farrin's stance on non-chain clauses, but Brehon was loud and heavy about NPO never taking non-chaining into consideration. Yet NPO continues to ink non-chaining treaties. That is two-headed. As I noted before, our policy of O's predates the prevalence of Mn's (non-chaining M's). But when we get down to it, what is a Mn? It is an O. The only "mockery" here is that the alliances which sign Mn's don't have the confidence in themselves or their allies to call them what they are; they need that illusion of compulsion. Justitia's Cult has crafted one foreign policy, in practice it matches our rhetoric, and it is grounded in our internal values. It requires no high rhetoric or back-pedaling, it speaks simply to what it is. Edited April 30, 2013 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 So, Polaris, when do I get my free ice shipments now that we're hitched? Note, I prefer only the most fresh and delicious ice. In other words, happy to be working closely with you in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicalTrevor Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 This will work out exactly how you both think so congrats :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 Glad to see this ;) o/ CoJ o/ NpO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vasuda Posted May 1, 2013 Report Share Posted May 1, 2013 (edited) Again, your interpretation of the O is a worldly one. Cult of Justitia is exactly what it is named: A mystery cult, a religious order, which serves a deity and set of ideals. A compulsory treaty would supersede that, and that is not an option for CoJ, not due to a lack of confidence or doubt. In addition, compulsory treaties are simply too prone to failures of personalities; for every pie-in-the-sky M-treaty based on "deep common bonds" there are 5 signed under false pretenses as "trip wires," or due to half-truths on one or both parts, or for convenience, or because of Scrabble. Cult of Justitia's option provides more promise and certainty than any M-treaty: That if your cause is just, win, lose, or draw, CoJ will be there without conditions. (Because of constant politics, I note that this paragraph is due only to Vasuda's use of NPO/NSO as an example, and the criticism is the same for any alliance) Even your Order 66 is not what you're advertising it as: It is a non-chainer, why? Because neither NPO nor NSO wants to get dragged into the other's poop under the wrong circumstances. I don't know Farrin's stance on non-chain clauses, but Brehon was loud and heavy about NPO never taking non-chaining into consideration. Yet NPO continues to ink non-chaining treaties. That is two-headed. As I noted before, our policy of O's predates the prevalence of Mn's (non-chaining M's). But when we get down to it, what is a Mn? It is an O. The only "mockery" here is that the alliances which sign Mn's don't have the confidence in themselves or their allies to call them what they are; they need that illusion of compulsion. Justitia's Cult has crafted one foreign policy, in practice it matches our rhetoric, and it is grounded in our internal values. It requires no high rhetoric or back-pedaling, it speaks simply to what it is.It is little wonder that something is always a bit "off" with your ideology, when it is fundamentally steeped in mysticism. As you well know, the ideology of the Cult is simply what you make of it. Justitita was a mortal entity, who departed from this world before the Cult was even established. Although claiming to serve some higher justice, you only make a mockery of Justitia's true work on Digiterra, just as make a mockery of your allies.Who are you to judge whether or not an ally is worthy of your support? You are no representative of some "goddess of justice," you merely act in self-interest, just like everyone else. It's time to just come out and admit what everyone else has known since your foundation: You are not the Cult of Justitia. You are the Cult of Schattenmann. Stop pretending to be anything better.Who is the bigger hypocrite? The idealist who faces reality, or the mystic who tries to obfuscate political machinations by concoting some half-baked religious dogma? Edited May 1, 2013 by Vasuda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crownguard Posted May 1, 2013 Report Share Posted May 1, 2013 (edited) Not a huge fan of the treaty, but I am of a number of the people on the Polar end. I hope it works out with whatever your long-term plans are with this juncture. I don't know enough of them to say anything constructive of CoJ, but congratulations I suppose. EDIT: Well, I do commend the good taste in using a fine Hungarian as an avatar. Edited May 1, 2013 by Crownguard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted May 1, 2013 Report Share Posted May 1, 2013 Ah, the old "Cult of Schattenmann." Biggest compliment I've ever been paid. To think of me being worshipped by Presidents of FoK and GPA, Triumvirs of Old Guard and GGA, Senators and Ministers of ODN, GATO and NADC; Ministers of Browncoats, founders of Vox Populi, a Secretary-General of ODN, Sith Marauders, etc. etc. etc. All under the spell of that old snakecharmer Schattenmann. No, my boy, these aren't even people that like me; in fact, some of them have PZI-listed me. Maybe NSO should stop taking cues from GOONS. Why do they come? Precisely because it is Justitia's will we serve. As for your apostasy, your blood is upon your head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted May 1, 2013 Report Share Posted May 1, 2013 Ah Vasuda. Though you speak such treacherous blasphemy against Our Lady, I cannot help but to pity you. For it is clear that, despite your time as a brother in our halls, you have never once known the Light of Justitia. There is no other way in which one could reach such a place of twisted bitterness. The Sith are a fine home for such as yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biff Webster Posted May 1, 2013 Report Share Posted May 1, 2013 The Sith are a fine home for such as yourself.For the next couple of weeks at least. 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.