Jump to content

When all are one and one is all. To be a rock and not to roll.


Recommended Posts

For the purposes of the MDP Web (assuming Kashmir will one day be in the top 80), would it be the simplest to classify this arrangement as an ODoAP, or ODP? Basically, does the possibility of aggressive action exist within the broad terms of this statement/doctrine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For the purposes of the MDP Web (assuming Kashmir will one day be in the top 80), would it be the simplest to classify this arrangement as an ODoAP, or ODP? Basically, does the possibility of aggressive action exist within the broad terms of this statement/doctrine?

 

The possibility exists with[i]out[/i] the broad terms of this statement/doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the purposes of the MDP Web (assuming Kashmir will one day be in the top 80), would it be the simplest to classify this arrangement as an ODoAP, or ODP? Basically, does the possibility of aggressive action exist within the broad terms of this statement/doctrine?

 

I see it as an oDoAP bloc that any alliance can join personally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, I want people to read and understand the announcement. But, I find it bothersome when they try to tell me what it is or what it means. We know what it is and what it means, we wrote the thing. 

 

Thanks everyone for the kind words. Our intent here was to publicly state the feelings shared between the NSO and Kashmir, that is all. Sorry for the head scratching.

At the end of the day, you're relying on a traditionally styled document to relay your novel concept, which is fine, but you must understand that in doing so, you're using that traditional format and common vocabulary, and that is the prism through which everyone will interpret it for you.  If you did not mean "signatory" then you should not have used the word signatory, and the confusion caused by that choice is at your feet.  Don't berate the confused for the confusion you started.

"Party" would have been the better word.

 

Good luck, hope things work out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, you're relying on a traditionally styled document to relay your novel concept, which is fine, but you must understand that in doing so, you're using that traditional format and common vocabulary, and that is the prism through which everyone will interpret it for you.  If you did not mean "signatory" then you should not have used the word signatory, and the confusion caused by that choice is at your feet.  Don't berate the confused for the confusion you started.
"Party" would have been the better word.
 
Good luck, hope things work out.


Schat, no.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was I incorrect?

 

In the fact that it's written, no. But, boy genius, 'written' is a subjective word in this world of ours where EVERYTHING is in 'writing.'

 

We could be 5up3r133t and 'write' stuff like "In addition to the treaties listed below Kaskus currently holds numerous treaties that aren't public. These agreements are equally important and recognized." But then, that's also been done - hasn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the fact that it's written, no. But, boy genius,

 

Hey, bub, since your skin is so thin you can't bear questions about something you purposefully made confusing, allow me to stop asking questions and give you some advice since that seems to be what you needed rather than my well-wishes: When CoJ doesn't want public treaties, we just say "We signed a treaty with X, that's all."  Next time save the skin on your butt and take our lead.

Edited by Schattenmann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like paper, smells like paper, is a paper agreement.

 

Is it a nice paper smell, like a fresh-off-the-presses and still warm last research paper during finals week before you're finished the semester, or is it that kinda musty smell you get when you find an old book in your grandma's attic which may or may not have water damage?

 

This is important and may determine the future of the NSO/Prototype relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No codified treaty or terms has been proffered and none exists. That's not to mention that there are no obligations that would constitute a bloc.

 

In other words a gentleman's agreement, just one that we didn't feel compelled to keep private.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this is pretty much an Optional Defense and Optional Aggression Pact between Kashmir and NSO, with the possibility for more to sign on later? Congrats I suppose, but no need to try making it sound more complicated or revolutionary than it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A written paperless treaty bloc of individuals with signatories who aren't.

 

I don't usually admire your posting, but this was a gem. 

 

If you need something to compare it to you can look at our Moldavi Doctrine. This is Kashmir's thing, we just agree with it.

Edited by Master Holton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...