Terra Extraneus Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) Good to see that NADC have some NADS... Oh, wai... I know right? What's it matter anyways, it was an optional treaty. They would have gotten !@#$ if they didn't honor the 'optional' treaty regardless. (And yeah I know, they could have kept the treaty as well since its optional but I guess its symbolic somehow ) Also, sad but necessary Edit: Added word/typical phrase. Edited February 8, 2009 by Terra Extraneus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Boris Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 When an alliance starts to bleed treaties, one wonders if they are ill.Good luck to both alliances. One could make the argument that TGE has been ill for quite some time. I'm guessing this thread will soon be filled with blind support as folks begin to rally for the perceived under dog. Maybe they should hold off a second and really take a look at what it means to be a friend and figure out where that might have been violated. However this is far too much and I await the long stream of armchair moral crusaders. When a person who knows in detail what is going on, people are usually wise to listen. Tis unfortunate I feel mhawk's words here are not heeded as much as they should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) I'm guessing this thread will soon be filled with blind support as folks begin to rally for the perceived under dog. Maybe they should hold off a second and really take a look at what it means to be a friend and figure out where that might have been violated. However this is far too much and I await the long stream of armchair moral crusaders. While you're under no obligation to provide more details, if you want to change the perceptions of the public then you'll have to present the larger picture to them. Instead of lobbing criticisms at them for jumping to conclusions, show them evidence that supports your own side of the story. I realize no one has actually bothered to present their case on these forums for quite some time, but can it really hurt to try every once in a while? Edited February 8, 2009 by Penguin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 While you're under no obligation to provide more details, if you want to change the perceptions of the public then you'll have to present the larger picture to them. Instead of lobbing criticisms at them for jumping to conclusions, show them evidence that supports your own side of the story. I realize no one has actually bothered to present their case on these forums for quite some time, but can it really hurt to try every once in a while? Penguin for president... Or fish taster... Whatever fits... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 You know, you didn't have to cancel. You could have just not defended them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 You know, you didn't have to cancel.You could have just not defended them We have since drifted apart. Since we do not want to hold an empty treaty... Sucks it came to this. o/ NADC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Sucks it came to this.o/ NADC I know, it's called a joke, buzzkill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobbies0310 Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 NADC is just afraid to get stomped again, can you blame them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lakes Union Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 While you're under no obligation to provide more details, if you want to change the perceptions of the public then you'll have to present the larger picture to them. Instead of lobbing criticisms at them for jumping to conclusions, show them evidence that supports your own side of the story. I realize no one has actually bothered to present their case on these forums for quite some time, but can it really hurt to try every once in a while? People will always jump to their own conclusion no matter what anyone says or presents. Some people have a certain narrative set in their minds and will fit all facts to fit that narrative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Autumn Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 NADC is just afraid to get stomped again, can you blame them? How does one get curbstomped when there's no obligatory clause in the treaty which would drag them in? Certainly, NADC could have simply stood by, kept a treaty to look nice and simply not have honored it. Instead, they made a move which they knew would likely be slammed because they felt it the correct thing to do. Mind you, I'm speaking for another alliance here and could be incorrect about the motivations but I doubt that I'm that far off. Here's to taking a stand for once in the face of adversity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 People will always jump to their own conclusion no matter what anyone says or presents. Some people have a certain narrative set in their minds and will fit all facts to fit that narrative. That's still no excuse to provide the story. If it where, there would be no such thing as news broadcasts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchman Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 How does one get curbstomped when there's no obligatory clause in the treaty which would drag them in? Certainly, NADC could have simply stood by, kept a treaty to look nice and simply not have honored it. Instead, they made a move which they knew would likely be slammed because they felt it the correct thing to do. Mind you, I'm speaking for another alliance here and could be incorrect about the motivations but I doubt that I'm that far off.Here's to taking a stand for once in the face of adversity. As Barkeater said, the member nations of NADC decided to do this instead of maintaining an empty treaty. This was very difficult. We took the North Sea Accords very seriously - seriously enough not to let it become empty words. I am hopeful that TGE can get their current situation resolved and we can renew ties. While you're under no obligation to provide more details, if you want to change the perceptions of the public then you'll have to present the larger picture to them. Instead of lobbing criticisms at them for jumping to conclusions, show them evidence that supports your own side of the story. I realize no one has actually bothered to present their case on these forums for quite some time, but can it really hurt to try every once in a while? We have communicated details and concerns through the proper channels. Piling on is fail. This is a public notice, not dirty laundry time. I reccomend contacting mhawk or Barkeaters privately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vijaya Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) When a person who knows in detail what is going on, people are usually wise to listen. Tis unfortunate I feel mhawk's words here are not heeded as much as they should be. I would be surprised if mhawk knew the details, but you never know. Sometimes things are just what they are. As I said elsewhere, TGE has nothing against TPF and nothing against NADC. There's no big drama in either case - simply people who live for reading things into everything that happens. Edited February 8, 2009 by Valdemar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 We have communicated details and concerns through the proper channels. Piling on is fail. This is a public notice, not dirty laundry time. I reccomend contacting mhawk or Barkeaters privately. No, no, you have misunderstood me. I couldn't care less what reasons you had for canceling on TGE. I have no interest in going through the "proper channels," or any channels for that matter, to find out details about an affair that doesn't remotely concern me. I was merely offering the suggestion that if you want the public not to jump to the lowest energy conclusion then you need to give them a bigger picture. As long as you don't mind, then you have nothing to worry about and need not complain when they reach false conclusions and ignorantly post them in your threads. After all, the public's ignorance is primarily a byproduct of your desire for secrecy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Autumn Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 No, no, you have misunderstood me. I couldn't care less what reasons you had for canceling on TGE. I have no interest in going through the "proper channels," or any channels for that matter, to find out details about an affair that doesn't remotely concern me. I was merely offering the suggestion that if you want the public not to jump to the lowest energy conclusion then you need to give them a bigger picture. As long as you don't mind, then you have nothing to worry about and need not complain when they reach false conclusions and ignorantly post them in your threads. After all, the public's ignorance is primarily a byproduct of your desire for secrecy. And herein lies the rub. If you put all your reasons out in the open, people show up yelling about the need for using private channels. If you use private channels, people show up demanding total transparency. Either way, you can't win so why even bother? NADC ignored the impending troll-a-thon, made their announcement, requested that private channels be used and that's that. I don't see the confusion here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 And herein lies the rub. If you put all your reasons out in the open, people show up yelling about the need for using private channels. If you use private channels, people show up demanding total transparency. Either way, you can't win so why even bother? NADC ignored the impending troll-a-thon, made their announcement, requested that private channels be used and that's that. I don't see the confusion here. I'm pretty sure the private channel meme has generally referred more to individuals than official alliance business. Even so, you should note that I am not calling on NADC to be more transparent, but suggesting that the only way to keep conclusions from being drawn is to provide tangible evidence. It was a suggestion in reply to a post that called the public misinformed and suggested that they not post when ignorant of the situation. I agree very much with that sentiment and was offering my suggestion as to a means of reducing the ignorance of said public; not trying to tell you what to do. As you say, you cannot have it both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchman Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 No, no, you have misunderstood me. I couldn't care less what reasons you had for canceling on TGE. I have no interest in going through the "proper channels," or any channels for that matter, to find out details about an affair that doesn't remotely concern me. I was merely offering the suggestion that if you want the public not to jump to the lowest energy conclusion then you need to give them a bigger picture. As long as you don't mind, then you have nothing to worry about and need not complain when they reach false conclusions and ignorantly post them in your threads. After all, the public's ignorance is primarily a byproduct of your desire for secrecy. I see what you are saying. We don't mind the peanut gallery. Let them rip all they want. Also, let them jump to whatever conclusion they want. I think the peanut gallery is getting lazy. Our treaty with MCXA was hit a lot harder than this drop. NADC believes that if a treaty is no longer an accurate descriptor of our relationship to another alliance, it must be dropped. A stack of treaties is not impressive. Meaningful, accurate treaties are more to our liking. As I said before, we hope that ties can be renewed to TGE someday. Right now, they cannot be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Pay attention, MCXA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchman Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Pay attention, MCXA. *high fives Shattenmann* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 *high fives Shattenmann* Oh you know you would have felt bad if I hadn't said anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchman Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Oh you know you would have felt bad if I hadn't said anything. Yes, I admit it... you're right. You usually are Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan King Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Ah, I see how it is. Fok announces that they're keeping the status quo (they're keeping ties to their former protectorate, how shocking) and are hailed as having honor. NADC cancels a treaty (that they would have honored and still will probably honor for the next 48 hours) with an alliance from whom they had drifted apart and no longer felt they had the needed friendship to support (I've been there) and are criticized for being cowards, puppets, or having no balls. Those that lament the proliferation of treaties that they see as empty should be hailing this. Here is an alliance canceling a treaty because it had become empty and no longer reflected what relations actually were. They didn't keep it for appearances or for power, two reasons some alliance leaders seem to think are shallow reasons to have a treaty, and yet they're still criticized. You may not like NADC or agree with this move, but at least it changes something. You're welcome to hail the status quo, but I'll be welcoming the change. Good luck to both parties in the future and I hope you find the love again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Yes, I admit it... you're right. You usually are Frankly, it was just fun to get a rise out of you because I knew I could. But, now you know that it's better to announce cancellations after they've gone through the cancel period. The war won't have started (if there was going to be one), and people won't have anything to speculate about on hour 49. See? Also you'll note that where Ravyns said why they were cancelling no one got curious, but whenever you don't, everyone has something to say. And, everyone has to remember that it's not like NADC has a great deal of experience dealing with the treaty web. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchman Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Ah, I see how it is. Fok announces that they're keeping the status quo (they're keeping ties to their former protectorate, how shocking) and are hailed as having honor. NADC cancels a treaty (that they would have honored and still will probably honor for the next 48 hours) with an alliance from whom they had drifted apart and no longer felt they had the needed friendship to support (I've been there) and are criticized for being cowards, puppets, or having no balls. Those that lament the proliferation of treaties that they see as empty should be hailing this. Here is an alliance canceling a treaty because it had become empty and no longer reflected what relations actually were. They didn't keep it for appearances or for power, two reasons some alliance leaders seem to think are shallow reasons to have a treaty, and yet they're still criticized. You may not like NADC or agree with this move, but at least it changes something. You're welcome to hail the status quo, but I'll be welcoming the change. Good luck to both parties in the future and I hope you find the love again. Wow! Thanks, DK. Great post, great grasp of the situation, and great analysis. This especially - NADC cancels a treaty (that they would have honored and still will probably honor for the next 48 hours) If TGE was attacked tonight, I would push like hell to get NADC to their defense. I mean it. That is how important the North Sea Accords are to me. However, our relationship is not to that level at this time. So, we need to reconsider our official, treaty status. This is hard, no doubt. But necessary for any alliance that takes treaties seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shurukian Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Ah, I see how it is. Fok announces that they're keeping the status quo (they're keeping ties to their former protectorate, how shocking) and are hailed as having honor. NADC cancels a treaty (that they would have honored and still will probably honor for the next 48 hours) with an alliance from whom they had drifted apart and no longer felt they had the needed friendship to support (I've been there) and are criticized for being cowards, puppets, or having no balls. Those that lament the proliferation of treaties that they see as empty should be hailing this. Here is an alliance canceling a treaty because it had become empty and no longer reflected what relations actually were. They didn't keep it for appearances or for power, two reasons some alliance leaders seem to think are shallow reasons to have a treaty, and yet they're still criticized. You may not like NADC or agree with this move, but at least it changes something. You're welcome to hail the status quo, but I'll be welcoming the change. Good luck to both parties in the future and I hope you find the love again. I would like to quote this post because I love it, and instead of reiterating my post that I just said in FOK's thread, since I know people won't read all 15 pages, I'll just requote it: I would like to raise a question.If you have a treaty partner that is giving you no communication, and relations with them have dropped to nothing, then why do you keep the treaty around? Why does something always have to have a hidden meaning or a secret attack behind something? I for one, believe that if you have an empty treaty, it's pointless to keep it around. Actions like keeping empty treaties around are what lead to such sudden breaks before an attack, as some are suggesting. Now maybe I'm out of the loop, but I don't know of anyone gunning for TGE, and don't see NADC running from anything. Therefore, I can see why this was posted, but I don't know why all the NADC bashing is needed. But then again, maybe it's just the trend to keep empty treaties these days. /me sighs. 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.