Vijaya 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. Thank you. Your posts are always the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Frontier 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. As someone with absolutely no inside knowledge of what, if anything, is going to happen, I think you may have missed the reason why many people are claiming this to be cowardice. Given the rumours of TGE being "rolled", I think the people attacking NADC for this are doing it because they don't believe NADC's story, and think it is merely a case of Optional Spinatisis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taget Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Good luck to both parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchman Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Given the rumours of TGE being "rolled", I think the people attacking NADC for this are doing it because they don't believe NADC's story, and think it is merely a case of Optional Spinatisis. Either you believe us or don't. That's fine. The opinions of the OWF don't really affect the situation. If you want more details, I recommend that you contact NADC diplomatic staff via IRC or PM. 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...
Ghostlin Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) Good luck to both parties. Whatever you think TGE's done, I'd say Admin's throwing pebbles at them. I'd just hope, if I were them, they wouldn't turn into boulders. Whether or not NADC is noble or not by your opinion isn't really the question. The question should be, what made NADC feel like they had to cancel this treaty? Edited February 8, 2009 by Ghostlin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fadeev Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Always hard to cancel treaties - hope you guys made the right decisiono/ NADC I really doubt this was hard for them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kronuso Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Either you believe us or don't. That's fine. The opinions of the OWF don't really affect the situation. If you want more details, I recommend that you contact NADC diplomatic staff via IRC or PM. You really have not given those of us in the "OWF" anything to judge. Other than the obvious, that you are cancelling a treaty because another alliance told you to do so. Nothing new in that for the NADC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 The "we're doing this because we had grown apart" justification is very suspect when it's accompanied by several other cancellations. If it was by itself I'd buy it, but given the circumstances I have a very hard time believing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kronuso Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) The "we're doing this because we had grown apart" justification is very suspect when it's accompanied by several other cancellations. If it was by itself I'd buy it, but given the circumstances I have a very hard time believing it. Shush you, lest the MK have to pay more reps! )): Edited February 8, 2009 by Kronuso Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) This is a very interesting announcement, mostly due to TPF's recent treaty drop with TGE, as has already been noted. What confuses me is that in order for TPF to attack TGE, all those Continuum alliances with ODP's or whatever with TGE would have to drop them due to the wording of Q, or TPF would have to leave, and I don't see that happening unless some mighty sh*t has been going on behind the scenes, which I doubt. But the two treaty drops in a row just seem very curious... Edited February 8, 2009 by Francesca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kronuso Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) This is a very interesting announcement, mostly due to TPF's recent treaty drop with TGE, as has already been noted. What confuses me is that in order for TPF to attack TGE, all those Continuum alliances with ODP's or whatever with TGE would have to drop them due to the wording of Q, or TPF would have to leave, and I don't see that happening unless some mighty sh*t has been going on behind the scenes, which I doubt. But the two treaty drops in a row just seem very curious... Most likely TPF will not be the alliance that will hit TGE directly, if their SNOW pleas are any cue. TGE really has no treaties of importance now outside of that with TOOL. If history guides us, TOOL will continue to tow the TPF line. That leaves TGE on the side the Continuum has been wanting to hit for over a year: FOK/TGE/TOP/Gramlins/Umbrella/etc Edited February 8, 2009 by Kronuso Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 This is a very interesting announcement, mostly due to TPF's recent treaty drop with TGE, as has already been noted. What confuses me is that in order for TPF to attack TGE, all those Continuum alliances with ODP's or whatever with TGE would have to drop them due to the wording of Q, or TPF would have to leave, and I don't see that happening unless some mighty sh*t has been going on behind the scenes, which I doubt. But the two treaty drops in a row just seem very curious... I've seen this pattern before. Either that or the Cyberverse is prone to repetitive coincidences. But, with no real story on what has happened, who am I to judge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Most likely TPF will not be the alliance that will hit TGE directly, if their SNOW pleas are any cue. TGE really has no treaties of importance now outside of that with TOOL. If history guides us, TOOL will continue to tow the TPF line. That leaves TGE on the side the Continuum has been wanting to hit for over a year: FOK/TGE/Gramlins/Umbrella/etc TGE has a treaty with FOK, which is of extreme importance. Interestingly tho, FOK isn't actually in Citadel, just closely tied to them. And I don't think the Continuum will go to war with Citadel at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kronuso Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) TGE has a treaty with FOK, which is of extreme importance. Interestingly tho, FOK isn't actually in Citadel, just closely tied to them. And I don't think the Continuum will go to war with Citadel at this point. Oh yeah, thanks for the clarifier, I assumed that part was understood. tC really, really wants these alliances, especially the Citadel grouping, humbled. And yes, that includes secondary/roll-down signatories like Fark, RoK, RIA, etc. Edited February 8, 2009 by Kronuso Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Oh yeah, thanks for the clarifier, I assumed that part was understood. Hey, it wasn't especially for your benefit, although it was relevant to your post. It was so others that read this might have that information. tC really, really wants these alliances, especially Citadel, humbled. And yes, that includes secondary/roll-down signatories like Fark, RoK, RIA, etc. I suppose that includes alliances like TOP, too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kronuso Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 TOP is a curious one since they can still break and they are not really the NPO target. They say they will stick by their allies pre-war, but their history is sketchy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Oh yeah, thanks for the clarifier, I assumed that part was understood. tC really, really wants these alliances, especially the Citadel grouping, humbled. And yes, that includes secondary/roll-down signatories like Fark, RoK, RIA, etc. Whoa, hold up there cowboy, so you're saying that we want to humble ourselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Whoa, hold up there cowboy, so you're saying that we want to humble ourselves? That's what I was trying to point out.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kronuso Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) Whoa, hold up there cowboy, so you're saying that we want to humble ourselves? Let's talk after you withdraw or betray. Edited February 8, 2009 by Kronuso Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Let's talk after you withdraw or betray. Aw, gawn, get off the grass mate You Voxians always roll out the same sorta garbage in the hope of inspiring a bit of mindless drama, what with your conspiracy theorimisations and dastardly popcorn-munching Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kronuso Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Aw, gawn, get off the grass mate You Voxians always roll out the same sorta garbage in the hope of inspiring a bit of mindless drama, what with your conspiracy theorimisations and dastardly popcorn-munching There is much truth in popcorn. But you now this, and post only to dissimulate. Dat kool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Vox really, really wants these alliances, especially the Citadel grouping, humbled. And yes, that includes secondary/roll-down signatories like Fark, RoK, RIA, etc. There, fixed that for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kronuso Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Shine on, you crazy diamond <333 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Autumn Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) You really have not given those of us in the "OWF" anything to judge. Other than the obvious, that you are cancelling a treaty because another alliance told you to do so. Evidence to the point, please? Allegations of a conspiracy should be accompanied by proof. This is a very interesting announcement, mostly due to TPF's recent treaty drop with TGE, as has already been noted. What confuses me is that in order for TPF to attack TGE, all those Continuum alliances with ODP's or whatever with TGE would have to drop them due to the wording of Q, or TPF would have to leave, and I don't see that happening unless some mighty sh*t has been going on behind the scenes, which I doubt. But the two treaty drops in a row just seem very curious... From what I gather, the public view is that NADC does not honor its treaties due to being cowardly. Thus, why would TPF or any other alliance need to go through the effort to get NADC to drop an optional defense treaty which wasn't going to come into play anyway? Aside from making things look nice and clean (which would probably mean all MDAPs and MDoAPs had been cleared away first) it's a meaningless act. I'd hazard that the grand conspirators at work here 1) are incredibly and inexcuseably incompetant to the point that anything they do would fail within minutes of inception (see: The Rebillon) or 2) don't exist. Edited February 8, 2009 by Tokugawa Mitsukuni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 We have no intention of attacking TGE until we have dealt with the valhallan menance. 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.