Jump to content

Siberian Tiger Alliance Declaration


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 292
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Also, I would like to direct you to the text of the Novus Ordo Seclorum treaty text that establishes that, "An attack on one signatory is an attack on all signatories." STA declared war on NPO, a single entity within Oculus, automatically declaring war on the rest of the alliances within Oculus. There is no need to activate any defensive clauses in this case. As such, it is well within Letum's rights to declare a recognition of hostilities on behalf of the Senate and People of Oculus.


The signatories of the treaty may view an attack on one as an attack on all, but that's only binding to the treaty signatories.

STA declared on NPO and not all of the alliances that make up the bloc. Actions speak louder than a line of text in a treaty that's only binding to the signatories.

Before you scream elawyer, I know why it's played this way, as it fits the narrative and the plan not to make it complicated on allies at CnG.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The signatories of the treaty may view an attack on one as an attack on all, but that's only binding to the treaty signatories.

STA declared on NPO and not all of the alliances that make up the bloc. Actions speak louder than a line of text in a treaty that's only binding to the signatories.

Before you scream elawyer, I know why it's played this way, as it fits the narrative and the plan not to make it complicated on allies at CnG.

Isn't it kind of sad that they trot out fools to spout this line over and over? Everyone knows the truth and everyone also knows how this war will be going down. They should save themselves a shred of dignity and stop this pathetic spin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First let me say hats off to STA. May your nukes never miss their targets. Always had great respect for you guys. 

This comment struck me as strange, Slim.

1. It seems you knew about the attack on TPF and MI6 well before it would happen...did you tell them? If not, why not?

2. Why would you give assurances to ODN that they would be relieved of any treaty obligations at all, but besides that why you tell them in advance of an unprovoked attack on your allies? 

3. It actually adds to the speculation regarding ODN. It makes them look like the middle man that everyone believes that they are. It appears as though your allies in ODN have enabled this to happen, and now they will stand by and watch as your alliance burns, your ally TPF burns, and their ally MI6 burns. To me, this is outrageous. 

 

The last paragraph of your post is  dead on. 

Precisely. Doesn't look good on them at all. Why is this considered acceptable by anyone?

1. Everyone knew it was happening.

2. ODN isnt responsible for the actions of our allies. 

3. We enabled this to happen. If we wanted out of this war months ago all we had to do was tell TPF we wont be allied to anyone allied to MI6. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're in Polar, who was in the EQ coalition -- and I'm fairly sure CoJ was as well.

I'm not sure you can really make this argument.

Just because I didn't publically argue e-law semantics with my own coalition doesnt mean I thought I CoJ had disappeared as a distinct entity. I've never had a problem with the policy, it's just that the wording people use for it is silly and overly literal at at times.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The signatories of the treaty may view an attack on one as an attack on all, but that's only binding to the treaty signatories.

STA declared on NPO and not all of the alliances that make up the bloc. Actions speak louder than a line of text in a treaty that's only binding to the signatories.

Before you scream elawyer, I know why it's played this way, as it fits the narrative and the plan not to make it complicated on allies at CnG.

Why are you arguing with the person who wrote the first draft of the treaty text?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why isn't ODN assisting STA? Did they make a pre-agreement with the invading side to stay out on a wording technicality of their treaty? Bombing both STA's allies with warning is fine, as long as STA is not attacked?

 

I thought ODN was past the Optional Defense Network nickname. STA is fighting a defensive war and even if ODN can opt out on the treaty chain clause, why should they? Why not join in and prove they aren't the Optional Defense Network and they fight for their allies regardless of odds? This is a golden chance for ODN, how will people view ODN postwar should they be percieved as having let their allies begin getting taken down one by one.

 

Stat > Friends or does it go the other way around. This is a testing moment for ODN, which will shape our perception of them for a long time to come.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sincerely doubt ODN's decision making will change anyone's current opinion of them, positive or negative.

 

I never knew STA until this- and I have the utmost respect for them.

 

Per ODN... they are a lost cause... and when the world war comes they will come out saying "we are linked to such-and-such and will honor it"... and it will be a joke.

 

their allies are burning- for an actual cause and meanwhile ODN is touching up that hair spray for the world war.

 

bunch of dirt balls.

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I never knew STA until this- and I have the utmost respect for them.

 

Per ODN... they are a lost cause... and when the world war comes they will come out saying "we are linked to such-and-such and will honor it"... and it will be a joke.

 

their allies are burning- for an actual cause and meanwhile ODN is touching up that hair spray for the world war.

 

bunch of dirt balls.

 

To be fair you can say that about most AAs who have been around most of the game's history, at some point or other most AAs have fought in wars, or stayed out of wars which caused a PR hit for them in some way shape or form. So you're only really characterizing the majority of AAs in the game really.

 

When AA's like TPF consistently defend their allies they're accused of only living in the shadows of their larger allies. When AAs decide to stay out of wars because they have friends on both sides of a conflict they're usually called cowards by one side or the other for not supporting them (usually the losing side). So I don't really see the point of trying to call out ODN for something that has been done since well before I ever started playing CN over seven years ago, and is a norm at this point in the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Enjoy the war, will anyone dare counter the fearsome tigers or will NPO convince themselves they don't need help?

 

If NPO decides they want help, will ODN and STA live forever together as allies still? This will be a very interesting dynamic of this war, maybe even the most interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Oculus feels the need to call in allies, it would be a very sad sight.

I think STA only declared on NPO, so already I think allies with MDPs of STA have reason to assist asap if they are good allies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ODN...I would bet it was ODN that first initiated the conversation about friends on both sides to STA. I would bet that ODN told NPO/Oculus that they would "talk" to STA about the coming war and act as if they tried to prevent it but could not. I am sure ODN is talking a good game to STA about how bad they feel about the situation.

The ODN STA treaty is of strategic value only, not because of friendship. STA was sitting out there unconnected so the best thing to do with that NS is to tie it to that side of the treaty web. That is the only reason for the treaty. The treaty will never see ODN do anything for STA. STA however would go all out for ODN.

The big picture is quite simple. ODN literally goes from one master in MK to another master in NPO. If ODN were ever in a war like MI6 is in now they would go the way of Supernova X. This is why the Optional Defense Network does what it does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think STA only declared on NPO, so already I think allies with MDPs of STA have reason to assist asap if they are good allies.

Their only MDP partners are also tied to NPO, hence the wording on STA's behalf.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Their only MDP partners are also tied to NPO, hence the wording on STA's behalf.

The spirit of the treaty comes into play when one side is clearly the aggressor and the other side is gathering around the clear victim. ODN isn't in Oculus, so the supremacy clause shouldn't effect them and common sense should on who is defending.

Edited by Methrage
Link to post
Share on other sites

The spirit of the treaty comes into play when one side is clearly the aggressor and the other side is gathering around the clear victim. ODN isn't in Oculus, so the supremacy clause shouldn't effect them and common sense should on who is defending.


Yes because asking MDoAP allies to fight each other is the smart thing to do. Let's be honest all of CnG share a mutual level tie to NPO. STA understood that they would be hitting their Mutual level allies Mutual level ally. So they said to ODN we will not be activating the treaty we hold with you as it puts you in a really shit position.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes because asking MDoAP allies to fight each other is the smart thing to do. Let's be honest all of CnG share a mutual level tie to NPO. STA understood that they would be hitting their Mutual level allies Mutual level ally. So they said to ODN we will not be activating the treaty we hold with you as it puts you in a really !@#$ position.

If they would of had the ambition to try winning this war, would you of supported trying to win at least? Does CnG or Atlas see these attacks as worrying? If some CnG allies are allowed to burn while CnG relaxes, that leaves less potential allies for future conflicts to fight alongside.

 

Complaints and Grievances has been around forever, going back to the Grievances caused by MK, with a lot of complicit collective blood on their hands. Don't you think this could be the calm before the storm? Taking M16, TPF & STA out before CnG makes sense, divide and conquer. Although the real prize would be to take out any bloc which poses a threat to them, rather than any single alliances.

 

What blocs are even left? Citadel, SF, PB are all gone. Oculus is obviously the biggest, but CnG would seem like a bloc which shares heavy Doom Ties (thanks to some of you); with both Doom and CnG not being included or invited to Oculus. You are the competition. You need to be ready to compete to win. Naivety will cause you to lose before any war begins.

 

Soon targets will get scarce for Oculus & they'll be looking at new places to conquer.

Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...