603Redneck Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 We can only wish to be as aweful as you guys! I don't think that's possible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurnipCruncher Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 How about you throw ncc back in, but we include Nettles and cash. You can't trade the Dark_Lord Nettles. He reigns supreme over Satanreich. We are one, yet we are legion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dane0 Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 Nettles brings down the value, just pay us cash. Okay, 30 cents it is. Â Â You can't trade the Dark_Lord Nettles. He reigns supreme over Satanreich. We are one, yet we are legion. Lord Nettlemort will be okay in NSO, he'll learn to be even more of a dark lord. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevolutionaryRebel Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 If this is the prelude to Non Grata joining C&G, I'll spew my cornflakes. Congrats, this looks promising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikolay Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 Awesome treaty, congrats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsyKosis Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 Congrats to Letub and Gato! Â o/ GATO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 Congrats, GATO!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caustic Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 If this is the prelude to Non Grata joining C&G, I'll spew my cornflakes. Congrats, this looks promising. Â It's been in the works for almost a year now. Better get a bucket ready. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) It would be great if alliances actually stood for something and based their treaties on mutual characteristics/values rather than convenience or realpolitik. Honestly, if you can convince yourselves that the two of you are "likeminded," then who isn't? Â Edit: I believe that's what you would call a non-congratolations. Edited March 17, 2014 by Prodigal Moon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 It would be great if alliances actually stood for something and based their treaties on mutual characteristics/values rather than convenience or realpolitik. Honestly, if you can convince yourselves that the two of you are "likeminded," then who isn't?  Edit: I believe that's what you would call a non-congratolations.  Was that entirely a pun or just a message and a pun? If it has a message then you should blog it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 It would be great if alliances actually stood for something and based their treaties on mutual characteristics/values rather than convenience or realpolitik. Honestly, if you can convince yourselves that the two of you are "likeminded," then who isn't? Edit: I believe that's what you would call a non-congratolations. We do have mutual values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saladjoe Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 An autocracy and a mass member democracy, those always go well together. ;) But seriously congrats to both alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 An autocracy and a mass member democracy, those always go well together. ;) But seriously congrats to both alliances. Never stopped me before... :smug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warrior Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 Congratulations fellas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
603Redneck Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 It would be great if alliances actually stood for something and based their treaties on mutual characteristics/values rather than convenience or realpolitik. Honestly, if you can convince yourselves that the two of you are "likeminded," then who isn't? Â Edit: I believe that's what you would call a non-congratolations.well if this treaty bothers you then I got one that'll piss you off....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoADarthCyfe6 Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 It would be great if alliances actually stood for something and based their treaties on mutual characteristics/values rather than convenience or realpolitik. Honestly, if you can convince yourselves that the two of you are "likeminded," then who isn't? Edit: I believe that's what you would call a non-congratolations. Why do you think it took so long to sign the treaty in the first place? If you've known the relationship we've had with NG over the past two years, you would understand that this treaty was born not only out of politics, but mainly out of friendship. We know that our cultures are no where near the same, but GATO is one to open its arms to anyone and everyone. We don't hate people, and if you knew our community, it's extremely diverse with its opinions and mainly, just people.I understand that two year ago, this treaty would seem like nothing more then a pipe dream, but the times have changed, and really so have both of our alliances. And this is something I would say for the better.Another thing, you were allied to TOP when you joined Polar, remember how people responded when that happened? You really have no room to maneuver in this type of discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuurei Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 An autocracy and a mass member democracy, those always go well together. ;) But seriously congrats to both alliances. Â Not the first such pairing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 Why do you think it took so long to sign the treaty in the first place? If you've known the relationship we've had with NG over the past two years, you would understand that this treaty was born not only out of politics, but mainly out of friendship. We know that our cultures are no where near the same, but GATO is one to open its arms to anyone and everyone. We don't hate people, and if you knew our community, it's extremely diverse with its opinions and mainly, just people. I understand that two year ago, this treaty would seem like nothing more then a pipe dream, but the times have changed, and really so have both of our alliances. And this is something I would say for the better. This is the problem. You present yourselves as a friendly, peaceful, "open to anyone and everyone" alliance while also supporting an alliance like NG. Are you really so myopic that if the individuals in an alliance are nice to you, you give no consideration to how their alliance operates? Â Another thing, you were allied to TOP when you joined Polar, remember how people responded when that happened? You really have no room to maneuver in this type of discussion. Regardless of any other reasons for that treaty, I know that one of them must have been the desire to defend themselves against a group of alliances that were brazenly plotting against them. That's always a good reason for a treaty. Who's gunning for GATO? Â Besides, there are reasons why I'm back in a small alliance with a principled foreign policy baked right into its charter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 This is the problem. You present yourselves as a friendly, peaceful, "open to anyone and everyone" alliance while also supporting an alliance like NG.imagine thinking this is relevant -- or valid, even Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 Another thing, you were allied to TOP when you joined Polar, remember how people responded when that happened? You really have no room to maneuver in this type of discussion. I will admit that the initial overtures for the TOP-Polar treaty were strategic in nature (Polar was facing an aggressive coalition of alliances bent on destroying them, and we needed to diversify our treaty setup and move out of the FA corner we were in), but it ultimately would not have happened had both sides not discovered that, yes, we do have like-minded characteristics and values. We discovered a lot about one another that just cemented our mutual desire to make things happen. Â People act like TOP only signs treaties for their outward impact, but if that was the case, we'd have 30 MD-level ties pulling us all over the web. We work to sign treaties with people that have similar ideas and values to our own, and if they don't, then it doesn't work out. The only difference between ourselves and yourselves in this regard is that our ideas and values themselves may be different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) I will admit that the initial overtures for the TOP-Polar treaty were strategic in nature (Polar was facing an aggressive coalition of alliances bent on destroying them, and we needed to diversify our treaty setup and move out of the FA corner we were in), but it ultimately would not have happened had both sides not discovered that, yes, we do have like-minded characteristics and values. We discovered a lot about one another that just cemented our mutual desire to make things happen. People act like TOP only signs treaties for their outward impact, but if that was the case, we'd have 30 MD-level ties pulling us all over the web. We work to sign treaties with people that have similar ideas and values to our own, and if they don't, then it doesn't work out. The only difference between ourselves and yourselves in this regard is that our ideas and values themselves may be different.I'm like 90% sure that you just agreed with him complemented his point, Bob. :v Edited March 19, 2014 by Neo Uruk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 imagine thinking this is relevant -- or valid, even Hey let's just all treaty everyone. We're all a nice bunch of guys. Except for that alliance we fought last war (unless we exchanged a few pm's). Or that alliance with that guy in it who was rude to me on irc. They can all burn in hell (until we blow everyone's minds by burying the hatchet and signing a treaty!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 Hey let's just all treaty everyone. We're all a nice bunch of guys. Except for that alliance we fought last war (unless we exchanged a few pm's). Or that alliance with that guy in it who was rude to me on irc. They can all burn in hell (until we blow everyone's minds by burying the hatchet and signing a treaty!).Yes that is what happened here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 I'm like 90% sure that you just agreed with him complemented his point, Bob. :v There's no implication anywhere within his post that the TOP-Polar treaty is anything other then a realpolitik move, and his use of the treaty as a "no u" provides a vibe of disdain.  But no, I'm not trying to counter his point. I understand that alliances with past issues can bury their proverbial hatchet and develop a treaty relationship, and it's good to see GATO and NG doing exactly. We could use fewer older grudges around here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 There's no implication anywhere within his post that the TOP-Polar treaty is anything other then a realpolitik move, and his use of the treaty as a "no u" provides a vibe of disdain. But no, I'm not trying to counter his point. I understand that alliances with past issues can bury their proverbial hatchet and develop a treaty relationship, and it's good to see GATO and NG doing exactly. We could use fewer older grudges around here.He specifically referred to public response. I read it more as "why would you say that when your alliance had the same deal going on" 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.