Rayvon Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 So, if R&R are not obligated, this is an optional treaty of sorts? Now, I can understand that y'all want to call it a MADP but in reality, the reading of the treaty makes it an MDoAP bloc. To be fair, I get the confustion. CnG was called a MADP but have yet to ever ride out as one as a MADP should. I think people like the idea of MADPs until it actually has to be used, then it is like, "Wait, I have to go aggressive with you...NVM." But again, the wording within the treaty allows for members to not have to go aggressive, thus turning it into an MDoAP instead of a MADP.If you want to have this e-lawyered debate about obligations, perhaps you should hit up IRON gov. I think they need more of a lesson on this than US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 @Rebel - Go read the bloc charter, we have various provisions allowing one or two of the members to fight someone and not the other member(s) Also MADP means someone has to attack or defend, when requested, we haven't requested it, so RnR aren't obligated You see when someone has MD treaties and they get attacked, not everyone is automatically drawn in Knowledge, it's a powerful thing Yes it does say that and? My whole point is they have been put on "one side" due to the rest of the bloc coming in defense of someone, claiming they didn't attack so haven't come in the defense of that "side" is a copout and damage mitigation. But if as you say they aren't obligated to attack or defend until requested then you might as well change the content and the wiki from a MDAP bloc to ODAP bloc. Regarding the bold yeah that is how external treaties work but you're a bloc which is declared as an supposed singularity which moves together and acts together. Knowledge is indeed a powerful thing, so is spin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cairna Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 Yes it does say that and? My whole point is they have been put on "one side" due to the rest of the bloc coming in defense of someone, claiming they didn't attack so haven't come in the defense of that "side" is a copout and damage mitigation. But if as you say they aren't obligated to attack or defend until requested then you might as well change the content and the wiki from a MDAP bloc to ODAP bloc. Regarding the bold yeah that is how external treaties work but you're a bloc which is declared as an supposed singularity which moves together and acts together. Knowledge is indeed a powerful thing, so is spin. You're arguing over ridiculous semantics. What you call a treaty stopped having significance a long time ago, it seems, given that we have MnDOAP's and the like, which is basically a get out of jail free card for global wars (the life of the game). There's nothing with a bloc being formed in the spirit of an MDAP but having a legitimate clause allowing for some flexibility. Why don't you go troll IRON. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 You're arguing over ridiculous semantics. What you call a treaty stopped having significance a long time ago, it seems, given that we have MnDOAP's and the like, which is basically a get out of jail free card for global wars (the life of the game). I made one comment and would of stopped if several people didn't jump on me also arguing ridiculous semantics. There's nothing with a bloc being formed in the spirit of an MDAP but having a legitimate clause allowing for some flexibility. Why don't you go troll IRON. When IRON starts declaring hard decisions while stating copouts and spin within a DoW showing their bloc logo, Like what has happend with the US members here then I will ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 If you want to have this e-lawyered debate about obligations, perhaps you should hit up IRON gov. I think they need more of a lesson on this than US. There's nothing with a bloc being formed in the spirit of an MDAP but having a legitimate clause allowing for some flexibility. Why don't you go troll IRON. Is obligations about helping an ally when they need assistance against an enemy? But really your bad word of mouth is too early, wait some time before you start badmouthing alliances you want in the same coalition as your alliance. Especially considering how some alliances still have yet to meet their obligations to alliances already involved. Give it some time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorSoul Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 Actually I'm saying I wish you would be on your own side - in this conflict and in future ones - and not let external treaties pull you in different directions. Getting pulled as a whole bloc in just one direction would be a little bit better, but still, when you have as much NS as Us does, you don't even need individual external treaties. You know what happens when you get a fairly strong-NS bloc that's super isolated? The Dave War. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 You know what happens when you get a fairly strong-NS bloc that's super isolated? The Dave War. you should know by now there is an element in this game that would roll XX/SF every 6 months quite literally forever, I am unsure why you are surprised people would prefer to return to that world instead of the now multipolar world we're in now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnish Commie Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 Yes we have a MDAP. No it wasn't activated on our part, yet. What's the big deal? It's not as if MDAP means that any of the three could forcibly pull the two where ever they wanted to go. Don't honestly see what some of you people are going on about :| Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorSoul Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 you should know by now there is an element in this game that would roll XX/SF every 6 months quite literally forever, I am unsure why you are surprised people would prefer to return to that world instead of the now multipolar world we're in now. Well sure, but that's because they're pricks. The whole isolated SF/XX thing just added the politically convenient aspect to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 You know what happens when you get a fairly strong-NS bloc that's super isolated? The Dave War. If you sign treaties all over the web, it doesn't make you any safer in the long run. In fact, the only alliances that have avoided being on the wrong side of a beatdown for more than a couple years are the neutrals. I'm just talking about how to have your bloc be an actual political entity and a power cluster unto itself, rather than some extra tangles in the web between the blocs that matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex987 Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 Well FC, this argument is not actually about the bloc or the treaty text being followed. Instead it has been filtered through multiple levels and the complaint raised by the rebel is that our actions don't match with the acronym our bloc is associated with (MDAP) Nevermind that his conception of what an MDAP is still flawed anyway, he believes that an MDAP is when we enter with NATO and TIO against their will. If they want us to join they'll call us in. But they haven't, hence the treaty text that is still being followed as advertised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garion Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 (edited) Actually I'm saying I wish you would be on your own side - in this conflict and in future ones - and not let external treaties pull you in different directions. Getting pulled as a whole bloc in just one direction would be a little bit better, but still, when you have as much NS as Us does, you don't even need individual external treaties.External treaties will always have an influence on our standing in the world, but only an influence we are (rather) comfortable with. I'm under the impression you believe our current situation is just "something that happened" and not something we expected, and tried to influence, and about which we talked with our allies at lenght. In that case, you are mistaken.If you sign treaties all over the web, it doesn't make you any safer in the long run. In fact, the only alliances that have avoided being on the wrong side of a beatdown for more than a couple years are the neutrals. I'm just talking about how to have your bloc be an actual political entity and a power cluster unto itself, rather than some extra tangles in the web between the blocs that matter.Good god, this is golden. I was in XX before your alliance, dude: we would have blessed the chance of getting ties "all over the web" back then... For fuck's sake, your alliance signed with TOP out of all alliances out there, and for pure convenience xDThere is a thing we can agree with: you know nothing of my bloc's plans, so this whole talk is moot.Stop preaching please, it really hurts. Edited November 7, 2013 by Garion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 If you sign treaties all over the web, it doesn't make you any safer in the long run. In fact, the only alliances that have avoided being on the wrong side of a beatdown for more than a couple years are the neutrals. I'm just talking about how to have your bloc be an actual political entity and a power cluster unto itself, rather than some extra tangles in the web between the blocs that matter. NPO+TPF+US is actually a pretty considerable power cluster. Even though R&R doesn't seem to feel the need to defend NPO at this point, it went into that bloc knowing full well who NATO and TIO fight with, and in their own words, not minding that at all. You don't have to actually be in the same bloc to work together, as a lot of alliances show every war. The alliances on that part of the web have always been a little more decentralized anyway, it's just how they do things. Well FC, this argument is not actually about the bloc or the treaty text being followed. Instead it has been filtered through multiple levels and the complaint raised by the rebel is that our actions don't match with the acronym our bloc is associated with (MDAP) Nevermind that his conception of what an MDAP is still flawed anyway, he believes that an MDAP is when we enter with NATO and TIO against their will. If they want us to join they'll call us in. But they haven't, hence the treaty text that is still being followed as advertised. That wouldn't be a MADP, it'd be a merger. The whole point of a treaty is to give your ally the assistance it desires, so when an ally specifically orders you not to enter... (we're in agreement here) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyt2k Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 Not to self, don't get in an argument with people who don't have the need to make sense Seriously I'm not going to stand here and explain how the different types of treaties work Spin away if you want, I don't go to your sides topics to try and take cheap and nonsensical shots at people to make them look bad And your side consists of TOP, MI6, Umbrella and GOONS that's 4/5 of my least favorite alliances So it's not like it wouldn't be easy or that I'm not tempted, but I don't feel the need to try and score cheap points off people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 Well FC, this argument is not actually about the bloc or the treaty text being followed. Instead it has been filtered through multiple levels and the complaint raised by the rebel is that our actions don't match with the acronym our bloc is associated with (MDAP) Nevermind that his conception of what an MDAP is still flawed anyway, he believes that an MDAP is when we enter with NATO and TIO against their will. If they want us to join they'll call us in. But they haven't, hence the treaty text that is still being followed as advertised. Cute another one from government what is it 4 or 5 now, damn I must of hit upon a sensative spot. How is my view is flawed exactly? If you actually read what I said, you would know that I don't believe what you claim I do, so nice try. Of course treaties have to be activated on request and that would be the case if the bloc didn't exist there would be more fluidity when the cards dropped to where the three allies would of ended up in the war, but you're in a bloc the fluidity ceases to exist so when it had activated via a declaration of war being made by 2/3 of the bloc with one sitting in reserves when the cry for help comes. So you may not technically be in the war, but the side has already been chosen for you and who you're fighting for and that is the defending of the "key target". I know the stated purpose of the bloc was to become a central link in the chain of the web, but when the partners are equally invested on opposite sides of the chain and play as followers and not leaders in the chain they become un-unified and "loyalty" to allies gets tugged in both directions by leaders on either side of the chain until it snaps and the middle finger is given to one of the equally invested sides of the chain. But please carry on with the attempts at damage control replies coming from nearly half of the government over someones "foolish" comment. But sure I don't believe any of the above because someone who had only spoken to me afew times knows all my beliefs better than I do. :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyt2k Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 Some of us have an alergy to stupidity so we try to clense it from the world It's not damage control WE wrote our bloc charter WE know how our bloc works WE know who has to go to war and when WE are the ones in the bloc and WE are the ones allied to each other and WE are the ones in this war You can pretend to be the super smart guy you want to be by saying "Well if you read the wiki definition of MDAP you'd see that blah blah blah, so technically what you have is blah and blah, I just wanted to point this out because i'm ever so smart and feel the need to share it" but in reality, you're just trying to take cheap shots which aren't going to work, the only people who should care about how a bloc treaty works are the members of that bloc Go troll somewhere else, i'm bored with you now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevolutionaryRebel Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 I remember being an alliance that was requested/begged not to enter the war by its treaty partner. That Alliance was CPCN, the treaty partner was GATO and the war was GATO-1V. People lambasted it as cutting and running then, and I'm not in the least surprised to see that people will still fluff about on that nowadays as well. What better way to respect an ally than to act as your ally asks of you during wartime? Who can portray that as a deplorable thing? How is this a meaningful topic of discussion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 I don't even understand where all this is coming from, is it from that one post andyt2k did? What The Rebel and others fail to realize is how devoted the Us alliances are to each other. Yeah maybe R&R gets into a fight they don't want to this war, but so what? Next war we'll probably fight through an R&R treaty to even it out :P Hell as I've said a dozen times before, when XX was in the crosshairs, US was going to fight through R&R-FARK even though the allies we apparently meatshield for were on the other side. So in summation, suck it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenny N Karl Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 why argue with these guys? it is called STRATEGERY..... actions and results are still pending people... geez /your tears are delicious! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorSoul Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 why argue with these guys? it is called STRATEGERY..... actions and results are still pending people... geez /your tears are delicious! Why don't you make more appearances? D: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HM Solomon I Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 Why don't you make more appearances? D: Lenny is like some kind of elusive faun, that's just how it is. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyt2k Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 Faun, that's Venison Get Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim /me reds the redwine and berry sauce together Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da DreadLord Posted November 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 I don't even understand where all this is coming from, is it from that one post andyt2k did? What The Rebel and others fail to realize is how devoted the Us alliances are to each other. Yeah maybe R&R gets into a fight they don't want to this war, but so what? Next war we'll probably fight through an R&R treaty to even it out :P Hell as I've said a dozen times before, when XX was in the crosshairs, US was going to fight through R&R-FARK even though the allies we apparently meatshield for were on the other side. So in summation, suck it. You forget that I will make you drop all external treaties and make you all mine.. cause I'm evil like that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 You forget that I will make you drop all external treaties and make you all mine.. cause I'm evil like that I'm already yours <3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da DreadLord Posted November 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 <3 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.