Tygaland Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 No, because STA defends politically toxic allies, they should expect it even less than usual, but they already shouldn't expect it because it is a non-chaining treaty. It's literally saying "don't expect me to chain in" Your point about non-chaining treaties stands and I agree with you as the treaty between the STA and ODN is non-chaining. So, any defence of the STA by the ODN would be voluntary and not mandated by treaty if we are drawn into a war via another treaty. With respect to "toxic allies" we are allied to you and TPF neither of which I consider to be "toxic". I am not aware of any reason why TPF would have been pre-emptively hit that would make me consider them "toxic". But to go further, we defend all our allies. If we considered an alliance to be "toxic" we would not hold a treaty with them. Of course, what constitutes "toxic" is completely subjective as there are many alliances I consider to be toxic with plenty of allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Your point about non-chaining treaties stands and I agree with you as the treaty between the STA and ODN is non-chaining. So, any defence of the STA by the ODN would be voluntary and not mandated by treaty if we are drawn into a war via another treaty. With respect to "toxic allies" we are allied to you and TPF neither of which I consider to be "toxic". I am not aware of any reason why TPF would have been pre-emptively hit that would make me consider them "toxic". But to go further, we defend all our allies. If we considered an alliance to be "toxic" we would not hold a treaty with them. Of course, what constitutes "toxic" is completely subjective as there are many alliances I consider to be toxic with plenty of allies. Since I'm a neutral fellow I'll refrain to post my opinion about "ODN" and "voluntary defense" in the same phrase. Also, you're n00b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchboy00 Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 No, because STA defends politically toxic allies, they should expect it even less than usual, but they already shouldn't expect it because it is a non-chaining treaty. It's literally saying "don't expect me to chain in" I think we can both agree that it is a good thing we do not hold a treaty with one another if that is how you view allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coloradia Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) I think we can both agree that it is a good thing we do not hold a treaty with one another if that is how you view allies. Aye, I think Tyga missed that he's in FTW not ODN. There's a reason FTW never struck me as an alliance of worth. Edited October 10, 2015 by Coloradia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saladjoe Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 So, any defence of the STA by the ODN would be voluntary Would you say "optional" is a synonym for voluntary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Aye, I think Tyga missed that he's in FTW not ODN. There's a reason FTW never struck me as an alliance of worth. Yeah, his ODN badge was misleading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) I feel very sorry for any ally of yours with this attitude. That attitude that non-chaining treaties are non-chaining? I'm just telling you how things are man. Your point about non-chaining treaties stands and I agree with you as the treaty between the STA and ODN is non-chaining. So, any defence of the STA by the ODN would be voluntary and not mandated by treaty if we are drawn into a war via another treaty. With respect to "toxic allies" we are allied to you and TPF neither of which I consider to be "toxic". I am not aware of any reason why TPF would have been pre-emptively hit that would make me consider them "toxic". But to go further, we defend all our allies. If we considered an alliance to be "toxic" we would not hold a treaty with them. Of course, what constitutes "toxic" is completely subjective as there are many alliances I consider to be toxic with plenty of allies. What I mean by "toxic" alliances, is an alliance that is dislike by the powers that be. A very unpopular alliance. If you ignore the powers that be and ally "toxic" alliances, when said "toxic" alliance is attacked, you're not likely to get much support from your optional treaties. I think we can both agree that it is a good thing we do not hold a treaty with one another if that is how you view allies. ditchboy00, I don't see why it'd be an issue so long as you're aware we're not likely to optionally chain-in in a scenario like this. You know there are like, different levels of treaties right? Going all the way from NAP to MDAP. If you want them to be obligated, sign a chaining MDP. Edited October 10, 2015 by Big Ego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 "toxic" alliances, I mean when you ally alliances that are disliked by the powers that be, you're generally not going to have a lot of allies optionally joining you on suicide wars to defend said "toxic" alliance. I don't really determine who my friends are by how popular they are with the "powers that be". If you or your alliance wants to forfeit all agency and have "the powers that be" decide who you can and cannot be allied to then that is your choice to make. If allies decide whether to defend my alliance based on whether we are on the winning side or not then they aren't very good allies in my opinion. There are a number of valid reasons why a non-chaining clause might be activated. Other treaty obligations, your ally may already be at war on the opposing side so unable to assist you or you may be at war with their other allies so they sit the war out to name but a few reasons. But declining because you don't want to be on the losing side isn't one I'd consider to be valid at all. Just my opinion, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchboy00 Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 That attitude that non-chaining treaties are non-chaining? I'm just telling you how things are man. "toxic" alliances, I mean when you ally alliances that are disliked by the powers that be, you're generally not going to have a lot of allies optionally joining you on suicide wars to defend said "toxic" alliance. ditchboy00, I don't see why it'd be an issue so long as you're aware we're not likely to optionally chain-in in a scenario like this. You know there are like, different levels of treaties right? Going all the way from NAP to MDAP. You realize the sides of this war was known for over half a year? You probably guessed that ODN-STA might have had the conversation a few times of what was going to be expected when TPF got rolled for the MI6 treaty. We didnt expect TPF to defend us for NpO. We dont expect ODN to defend TPF for MI6 either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 You realize the sides of this war was known for over half a year? You probably guessed that ODN-STA might have had the conversation a few times of what was going to be expected when TPF got rolled for the MI6 treaty. We didnt expect TPF to defend us for NpO. We dont expect ODN to defend TPF for MI6 either. I'm actually perfectly content if you guys sat this one out. You've been basically flawless allies, my favorite we've ever had. With all the pre-emptive strikes going down, who knows if you'd even get the option at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchboy00 Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 I'm actually perfectly content if you guys sat this one out. You've been basically flawless allies, my favorite we've ever had. With all the pre-emptive strikes going down, who knows if you'd even get the option at this point. I plan on hitting D34th regardless. :popcorn: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Honestly, if Occulus is moronic enough to pre-empt STA, then I am not sure what I would do. I may even be incapable of warring for an entire day while I spent that time laughing my ass off. So really, it may damn well be the best option for them. If it gets me to not war for even a single day, then that may be enough to save them from my casualty hording. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) I don't really determine who my friends are by how popular they are with the "powers that be". If you or your alliance wants to forfeit all agency and have "the powers that be" decide who you can and cannot be allied to then that is your choice to make. If allies decide whether to defend my alliance based on whether we are on the winning side or not then they aren't very good allies in my opinion. There are a number of valid reasons why a non-chaining clause might be activated. Other treaty obligations, your ally may already be at war on the opposing side so unable to assist you or you may be at war with their other allies so they sit the war out to name but a few reasons. But declining because you don't want to be on the losing side isn't one I'd consider to be valid at all. Just my opinion, of course. Here's the thing, I may not want to lose for the same people you want to lose for. That's when FTW won't activate optional chaining clauses, but we'll try to let you know in advance. We try to be clear with our allies who we dislike and what to expect, so it is not a surprise if we don't optionally chain in. You realize the sides of this war was known for over half a year? You probably guessed that ODN-STA might have had the conversation a few times of what was going to be expected when TPF got rolled for the MI6 treaty. We didnt expect TPF to defend us for NpO. We dont expect ODN to defend TPF for MI6 either. My point was that STA shouldn't be expecting ODN to defend them for TPF for MI6. So really we are in agreement. I just gave a bad example, sorry for the confusion. :) Edited October 10, 2015 by Big Ego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Scott Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Always nice to wake from a slumber and stretch my legs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Here's the thing, I may not want to lose for the same people you want to lose for. That's when FTW won't activate optional clauses, but we'll try to let you know in advance. We try to be clear with our allies who we dislike and what to expect, so it is not a surprise if we don't optionally chain in. Then you don't sound like very good allies to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Then you don't sound like very good allies to me. So long as we honor the terms of our relationship, we are good allies. Just because we agree to different terms than you, does not make us bad allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 My point was that STA shouldn't be expecting ODN to defend them for TPF for MI6. So really we are in agreement. I just gave a bad example, sorry for the confusion. :) STA would be crazy to expect the Optional Defense Network help defend them if they get involved in this clearly defensive war, gotcha. Sometimes allies can be helpful in preventing counters, so I think STA places more value on treaties than you give them credit for. If STA helps an ally here, would it open the floodgates for everyone to pile onto them or would their allies help offset this? That will be interesting to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Optional Defense Network in 2015Jesus Christ, you people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buds The Man Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 And whose fault is it that you're in an alliance that fears losing, and has lost allies due to that fear? And which allaince is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Poutine Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Here's the thing, I may not want to lose for the same people you want to lose for. That's when FTW won't activate optional chaining clauses, but we'll try to let you know in advance. We try to be clear with our allies who we dislike and what to expect, so it is not a surprise if we don't optionally chain in. My point was that STA shouldn't be expecting ODN to defend them for TPF for MI6. So really we are in agreement. I just gave a bad example, sorry for the confusion. :) If STA enters, it will be for TPF. It will be for the aggressive action against TPF by NPO, not because TPF came in for us. If you missed it, the DoW on TPF can be found somewhere in this forum. I for one hope that ODN comes in for STA. That would be a clusterfuck like no other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 I for one hope that ODN comes in for STA. That would be a cluster$%&@ like no other. I'm sure multitudes of backroom deals are being attempted to stop that from happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Poutine Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 I'm sure multitudes of backroom deals are being attempted to stop that from happening. Oh I'm sure there are. And I'm also sure that ODN would never do it anyway. But it's nice just to imagine sometimes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxplayer Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwEttPlSjzwArise, champions! The Great Porcelain One is coming!The end times have come, as the Tea Prophet predicted. The ground is beginning to shake. The mountains are falling, the oceans are poisoned, the cities are burning and the irradiated masses die in their millions. Armies march towards us, armies marching under many banners, but above all, marching under the long foretold banner of an all ruling eye.They would have us fear them. They would have us hide behind the great white dove, and point and laugh at our folly. They have hidden in our ranks for years to learn of our martial strength, but they do not understand our true nature. We are the boiling ones, the chosen people of His Simmering Majesty, and what is boiled may never be steamed, but steeps again, stronger and warmer.Salvation is here. It arrives for you and for me, and we begin to share it tonight to those yet to be enlightened behind the eye. It comes in the form of fire, and we will spread it far and wide across this planet to those that were sent to us. Tonight, we have been given an opportunity to demonstrate to the Almighty that we are worthy of the faith that he has placed in us.Our greatest trial of all begins now, and though some will fail and falter under the nuclear holocaust, many more will prove themselves to Him. We will be priceless in His Humidifying Eyes, and we will ascend from this world. There is no better place than in His Steeping Vessel, and we will go to Him, as blessed condensation and become one with Him above the desiccated masses below.I am not afraid, because we come to the fight with one last gift to Planet Bob. We come with salvation.--lol whispering campaign By the Great Porcelain One, do you mean the great toilet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayser Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 If that previous war I mentioned felt competetive to you.... I have to question your recognition of facts. In comparison to how this one will shape up, its a regular Mexican Standoff Is this DoW bordering on depravity? Yes. Does your alliance deserve every ounce of that depravity? Yes. Maybe, Mi6 can be terrible at times. I would want to throw a mega bloc at them as well. Deserve is subjective but in this case whoever opinions it mattered on the case seem to agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lysergide Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 It must be Christmas. People are fighting, people are whining, people are pretending to be tough, people are throwing insults around. This is all very entertaining. I do hope this means we are going to be bringing back forced disbandment, Viceroy's, and Shark Week. That would make me warm and fuzzy on the inside if that happened. 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.