Xiphosis Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 My good friend Black Phoenix brought up a good question, namely, why the OP even decided to post this. After pondering it with the due diligence afforded by a short attention span, I'm forced to conclude that the only motive someone has to leak a joke like this is a desire to ruin it for future generations, and thus, is a buzzkill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joracy Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 Okay...Let me try and go through this. In that clause, it specifically gives OBR nations the right to retaliate against any form of hostility, and in doing so, they would not be doing something hostile to the opposing nations alliance? When added to the non aggression section, it essentially removes the CB for counter-attacks(On another alliance), but makes the CB for a counter-attack(By OBR) very broad? Then again I could just be blind :S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cairna Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 This is why TORN doesn't sign neutrality-type treaties. They are either unnecessary or one-sided. This is the latter, it seems. I have to agree with this- I've never really seen the point. I've always been a fan of the "Don't bother me, I won't bother you" approach. Gotta say though, I don't think I would care if I had signed this. You attack a member without reason, or are unreasonable with reaction to the members actions, you'll get a response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 Writ De Credo was written for a different era in digiterra. A time when e-lawyering amused the digisapiens which inhabited these admin forsaken lands. And true to that this is also amusing. However true malice is absent in this document. bolded part of it for people who seem to think this is just awful Okay...Let me try and go through this.In that clause, it specifically gives OBR nations the right to retaliate against any form of hostility, and in doing so, they would not be doing something hostile to the opposing nations alliance? When added to the non aggression section, it essentially removes the CB for counter-attacks(On another alliance), but makes the CB for a counter-attack(By OBR) very broad? Then again I could just be blind :S you're basically correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 Okay...Let me try and go through this.In that clause, it specifically gives OBR nations the right to retaliate against any form of hostility, and in doing so, they would not be doing something hostile to the opposing nations alliance? When added to the non aggression section, it essentially removes the CB for counter-attacks(On another alliance), but makes the CB for a counter-attack(By OBR) very broad? Then again I could just be blind :S Yes. OBR claims the right to retaliate for any hostilities ranging from military attack to trade cancellations. By signing this document, signatories essentially agree to this clause, and in turn, waive their right to recognize this as an attack from OBR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 In that clause, it specifically gives OBR nations the right to retaliate against any form of hostility, and in doing so, they would not be doing something hostile to the opposing nations alliance? When added to the non aggression section, it essentially removes the CB for counter-attacks(On another alliance), but makes the CB for a counter-attack(By OBR) very broad? Sounds about right. It's admittedly pretty funny, I have to hand it to whoever wrote it. I might be weird, but if OBR's been sitting around their Round Table for the last two years snickering deviously about their trickery, I say good for them. The game's about fun, and no one was forced to sign anything; jokes on us, and the OP's still a buzzkill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 My good friend Black Phoenix brought up a good question, namely, why the OP even decided to post this. After pondering it with the due diligence afforded by a short attention span, I'm forced to conclude that the only motive someone has to leak a joke like this is a desire to ruin it for future generations, and thus, is a buzzkill. Xiphosis you often speak wisely and your words are to be read. Allow me to join you in your noble quest to share a light about the motive of the knight which has come before us. I believe that the reasons for this are one of the most common one a man can find, and they are of a power struggle kind. It is my belief that the knight before us has found himself in a position he believed his virtue does not deserve, and as such has come before us to share a light about those that have did him wrong. I do however, so humbly say, that this is a wild speculation from my part,... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 So when can we expect the nukes to start flying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 I suppose I should get around to cancelling that then.... but, I am already in my pajamas... ZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 Xiphosis you often speak wisely and your words are to be read. Allow me to join you in your noble quest to share a light about the motive of the knight which has come before us. I believe that the reasons for this are one of the most common one a man can find, and they are of a power struggle kind. It is my belief that the knight before us has found himself in a position he believed his virtue does not deserve, and as such has come before us to share a light about those that have did him wrong. I do however, so humbly say, that this is a wild speculation from my part,... If that be so, I must only chuckle heartily, for this is truly one of the least ground-breaking conspiracy kills I've ever seen in my days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
energizer Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 (edited) :jihad: Wow, I am disgusted. Not at OBR, but at the folks who claim the Order of The Black Rose to be a manipulating alliance. While I have no understanding over why Sir Experimentum would bring this article into a certain viewpoint, I can safely say that its every alliance's right to protect their own members. Now, were alliances such as NPO, M*A*S*H, IRON, MHA, etc... forced to sign the writ de credo treaty? Absolutly not! It was by free will and will alone between each of the governments to sign the treaty, and signing of a treaty would mean they fully understand the wording and makeup of the contents. If the signatories had no problem with it, why should any of you? If by some reason you have a issue with the treaty, and your alliance is listed, I suggest taking the flame and unessasary posts to your government. A true and rightful document is to be a exchange of agreements to help better aid the civilized world. For those who claim "No one would honor this treaty!", I ask you to look at protectorate treaties which can be just as manipulating, For one party has to defend the other, while the one defended has more of an option should the protector get attacked. Yet the are honored none the less, as are other treaties. -Energizer Edited February 28, 2009 by energizer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 Sounds about right. It's admittedly pretty funny, I have to hand it to whoever wrote it. I might be weird, but if OBR's been sitting around their Round Table for the last two years snickering deviously about their trickery, I say good for them. The game's about fun, and no one was forced to sign anything; jokes on us, and the OP's still a buzzkill. this is why I dont think much will come from this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHD Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 Don't get me wrong, I am extremely displeased reading this information. The fact that the ODN was one of the founding signatories of a treaty with such intent is most angering. You and me both - although I'm less angered (because as mentioned no alliance would stand by as a member was attacked) and more disappointed. OBR doesn't seem the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr3looc Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 I previously had great respect for OBR but this has shattered the illusion I had of them as an honorable alliance. It is ridiculous to think that any alliance would have honored such a treaty/scam but the fact that they pulled the wool over so many of our eyes is quite disturbing. I couldn't agree more. As everyone else has said, why bother? It's not like the Geneva Convention or the UN are going to go in a make sure people follow the legality of a treaty. This will and should have profound impacts on OBR and treaties in general I feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 They had fun with treaties in their own unique way... it's no worse than canceling treaties with friends knowing they'll be pummeled into the ground. Hizzy, don't worry, I'll do... *passes out on bed*....zzzZzZZZzzZZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Lightning Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 Heh, I remember considering pushing ONOS towards signing it but decided not to largely because I didn't understand it's text. It seems my illiteracy has served me well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deth2munkies Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 OH NOES! SAVE US FROM THE EBIL OBR! If people actually read the entirety of the treaties they signed, they would have noticed this. Moreover, I don't seem to recall OBR ever actually using this clause to the effect that you described. It's like saying "This has a 72 hour cancellation clause, that means if they figure out that something bad is going to happen 72 hours in advance, they can cancel it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 this is why I dont think much will come from this. Why Mogar, my child, many has already come from this. I do not dare to speak for the digiteriansinhgianwut, but I shall be so bold in my words to say that many chuckles were shared across the globe. And what greater gift we can receive, then a smile upon our face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 A true and rightful document is to be a exchange of agreements to help better aid the civilized world. For those who claim "No one would honor this treaty!", I ask you to look at protectorate treaties which can be just as manipulating, For one party has to defend the other, while the one defended has more of an option should the protector get attacked. Yet the are honored none the less, as are other treaties. There's a very distinct difference between protectorate treaties and the Writ De Credo that we'd all do ourselves a favor to understand; motive. OBR wrote that clause, apparently, motivated by a desire to trick others for what I presume and hope would be their own amusement - if it was any other reason but for the lulz, I worry highly for the security of OBR's members under such governance. Protectorate treaties are drawn up with the understood mutual desire to protect one party, not both, and are pursued in that vane. That's the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Specific Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 (edited) :jihad: Wow, I am disgusted. Not at OBR, but at the folks who claim the Order of The Black Rose to be a manipulating alliance. While I have no understanding over why Sir Experimentum would bring this article into a certain viewpoint, I can safely say that its every alliance's right to protect their own members. Now, were alliances such as NPO, M*A*S*H, IRON, GRE, etc... forced to sign the writ de credo treaty? Absolutly not! It was by free will and will alone between each of the governments to sign the treaty, and signing of a treaty would mean they fully understand the wording and makeup of the contents. If the signatories had no problem with it, why should any of you? If by some reason you have a issue with the treaty, and your alliance is listed, I suggest taking the flame and unessasary posts to your government. A true and rightful document is to be a exchange of agreements to help better aid the civilized world. For those who claim "No one would honor this treaty!", I ask you to look at protectorate treaties which can be just as manipulating, For one party has to defend the other, while the one defended has more of an option should the protector get attacked. Yet the are honored none the less, as are other treaties. -Energizer Excellent points. Many of us have carefully worded our fair share of treaties to protect our interests, negotiating in the common currency of broad or narrow language. Surely there is something upcoming in Part II that would make this a controversy more fitting of the outrage thus far expressed? Edited February 28, 2009 by General Specific Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 Why Mogar, my child, many has already come from this. I do not dare to speak for the digiteriansinhgianwut, but I shall be so bold in my words to say that many chuckles were shared across the globe. And what greater gift we can receive, then a smile upon our face. Oh I completely agree everyone finds this amusing, I just don't see it having much damage on OBR, if someone wanted them dead by now they would be, they've left everyone alone and had their fun with this treaty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yubyubsan Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 Only five pages so far? What happened, you all wear yourselves out over in the MCXA thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 Surely there is something upcoming in Part II that would make this a controversy more fitting of the outrage thus far expressed? Intent non written verba, brute? All I could think of reading your post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homura Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 There's a very distinct difference between protectorate treaties and the Writ De Credo that we'd all do ourselves a favor to understand; motive. OBR wrote that clause, apparently, motivated by a desire to trick others for what I presume and hope would be their own amusement - if it was any other reason but for the lulz, I worry highly for the security of OBR's members under such governance. Protectorate treaties are drawn up with the understood mutual desire to protect one party, not both, and are pursued in that vane. That's the difference. I certainly would be more inclined to believe it is only a joke and don't have a reason at this moment with current evidence presented to believe it was intended to actually harm somebody, but regardless, the "revealed" hidden motive was unlikely to cause more than benign effects should it have been activated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwistedRebelDB47 Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 So when can we expect the nukes to start flying? Update, obviously. Want to make some popcorn and I'll come by your place around 11:50 to catch the fireworks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts