Joint TOP/TSO Announcement

[Saber]

So Fresh told you that 'you guys' (aimed at nc1701 so I'll assume it to be members of MCXA) would prefer to have you drop the treaty, and when asked himself said the above which is hardly a comment that suggests he is delighted with the arrangement, and you took it to be an endorsement of the treaty? Or did the first quote never happen?

First time I saw the first quote. We are not nc1701 and we do not have spies within MCXA to know what Fresh is telling his membership.

After asking MCXA and Fresh about their opinion toward renewal for some time, we got the answer Feanor quoted. Tone of the post might be motivated by the fact that we asked several times before receiving the answer. We were after all operating on a timeline as the old protectorate was expiring.

Also, I must comment on everyone but MCXA bringing up issues between TSO and MCXA. As you all should be aware, MCXA and TSO came to terms regarding the incident that happened, and TSO is fullfilling terms of that arrangement. I fail to see how issues before that agreement are still being brought up. If the agreement is not satisfactory then it should not have been agreed to or signed.

Edited March 20, 2009 by Saber

[WalkerNinja]

You know when a woman says she doesn't care, it means she does.

Not that Fresh is a woman

So you're accusing Fea of pulling a "No... Don't... Stop!" on MCXA? C'mon.

..................

I just wanted to address a point that I missed out on last night: treaty nomenclature.

As has been pointed out by our esteemed friends at the Gramlins, this treaty shares element of both an MDP and a Protectorate agreement. This is important to point out since one of the primary objection to this treaty seems to be "WTF? Why does a 2M NS alliance need protection BBQSAUCE!"

The military defense portion of this treaty is mutual. We could just as easily ask, who is TSO protecting TOP from? Those guys up there in the Continuum? Who are they protecting each other from? We have a mutual defense agreement with Valhalla, who are we protecting them from? If this line of questioning seems absurd, then I'm making my point.

This is termed to be a protectorate, because nothing else really fits. It's a formal relationship that is uneven in nature. According to the conventional wisdom of the OWF, that either makes it a protectorate or surrender terms. Clearly we're not making TSO surrender.

But then, why apply a name at all? If all of this ruckus is going to be caused by mis-labeling a treaty with a virtually meaningless acronym, why do so at all? In short, because there would be a ruckus anyways.

Exhibit A: ODN and Invicta sign a treaty... do not use acronym

Exhibit B: OMG, what kind of treaty is this between ODN and Invicta?

Three pages into it, everyone gives up and starts throwing random combinations of letters out there to appease the brainless.

For my part, based on these two experiences, I would suggest not putting any words in treaties at all. Instead, just put an acronym in 42-point font and sign it. The bigger the font, the more binding the treaty. I mean, really, no one reads these damnable things anyways, right? Aggression, defense, friendship, these things only mean what we want them to mean. Why waste the time writing actual sentences and *gasp* paragraphs! It's sooo much easier to just mindlessly draw lines.

[Litha Riddle]

You know when a woman says she doesn't care, it means she does.

Not that Fresh is a woman

/me slaps MegaAros

On topic, good luck to TOP

[Bob Janova]

Heh, got to say, those words from Fresh don't sound like a ringing endorsement . What's clear from this is that there are still serious issues between MCXA and tSO but that neither wants to force TOP to choose one over the other. It will be a tough job for TOP's diplomatic corps to keep both friendships without causing major tensions between them and possibly with others.

[Poyplemonkeys]

First time I saw the first quote. We are not nc1701 and we do not have spies within MCXA to know what Fresh is telling his membership.

After asking MCXA and Fresh about their opinion toward renewal for some time, we got the answer Feanor quoted. Tone of the post might be motivated by the fact that we asked several times before receiving the answer. We were after all operating on a timeline as the old protectorate was expiring.

To clarify I was not suggesting you had seen that quote before as it's a conversation between Fresh and nc1701. Just in the conversation Fresh clearly says that he'd told TOP that members of MCXA would prefer to see the treaty dropped. I wasn't asking if you'd seen the conversation between Fresh and nc1701, just if the conversation between TOP and Fresh that he mentions to nc1701 had actually happened.

I'm only querying that because from Feanor's quote alone it could quite conceivably be irritation about being rushed to an answer. However when combined with what nc1701 posted it seems that TOP could draw further conclusions from it if they already knew there were several members of MCXA who wanted the treaty dropped.

[Feanor Noldorin]

You know when a woman says she doesn't care, it means she does.

I don't put up with that nonsense.

[ochocinco]

I don't put up with that nonsense.

Certainly not, there's little reason to when you have no interest in women.

[Raunchero]

Sup guys!

Both pieces of logs are true. I did tell TOP that the GA would not be in favor of a treaty extension initially. After being asked multiple times further and not buying that enough people were asked about it to make a good call, they kept asking and I finally decided to that it wasn't worth wasting anymore time on.

Honestly, all of this is getting out of hand, on all sides. First of all, no way was that an endorsement of an extension of the treaty. I let TOP know what my people really wanted, they didn't like it, so I just said to do whatever and it really didn't matter to me, personally, because I just want to move on and focus on what's important and relevant. Secondly, we're not going to war over this either, sorry drama llamas. Thirdly, I'm on a boat.

Finally, can we all just move on? I'm sorry if I disappointed whomever or did anything wrong. I know I didn't though. TSO is a sovereign alliance. TOP is a sovereign alliance. MCXA is a sovereign alliance. We all make decisions and choices that we feel will be strategically the best for one another and where we feel like our friendships are the strongest. If this is how it is, then so be it. Let's just move on and do our own things.

[bkphysics]

Sup guys!

Both pieces of logs are true. I did tell TOP that the GA would not be in favor of a treaty extension initially. After being asked multiple times further and not buying that enough people were asked about it to make a good call, they kept asking and I finally decided to that it wasn't worth wasting anymore time on.

Honestly, all of this is getting out of hand, on all sides. First of all, no way was that an endorsement of an extension of the treaty. I let TOP know what my people really wanted, they didn't like it, so I just said to do whatever and it really didn't matter to me, personally, because I just want to move on and focus on what's important and relevant. Secondly, we're not going to war over this either, sorry drama llamas. Thirdly, I'm on a boat.

Finally, can we all just move on? I'm sorry if I disappointed whomever or did anything wrong. I know I didn't though. TSO is a sovereign alliance. TOP is a sovereign alliance. MCXA is a sovereign alliance. We all make decisions and choices that we feel will be strategically the best for one another and where we feel like our friendships are the strongest. If this is how it is, then so be it. Let's just move on and do our own things.

Despite my misgivings of what has occurred, I have always agreed of the sovereignty of the alliances involved, even though I think mistakes have been made. Regardless, your post shows what being the "bigger man" is about and I applaud your desire to simply let bygones be bygones and focus on your alliance's future.

One thing has become painfully obvious post this train wreck. The MCXA is now in much more capable hands.

Onward MCXA

[Archon]

I've only seen one MK member post negatively on this, one who isn't even gov. Doesn't equate to the whole alliance imo >.>

This is precisely what I was getting at. I was more than slightly upset that, after doing my best to guard my own comments I still found a member of TOP playing victim with regards to MK. It is worrysome given that, overall, MK has no disdain for TOP and would prefer not to see such incidents occur.

Oh well.

[WalkerNinja]

This is precisely what I was getting at. I was more than slightly upset that, after doing my best to guard my own comments I still found a member of TOP playing victim with regards to MK. It is worrysome given that, overall, MK has no disdain for TOP and would prefer not to see such incidents occur.

Oh well.

If it's any consolation, CoM is just one member of our alliance, and not a government member. I certainly know what it looks like when MK is out in force, and this thread is not demonstrative of that. I, for one, rather like MK and the way that they do business. You are to be congratulated on the achievements of your stewardship rather than chastised for imagined slights, Archon.

Cheers!

[Archon]

If it's any consolation, CoM is just one member of our alliance, and not a government member. I certainly know what it looks like when MK is out in force, and this thread is not demonstrative of that. I, for one, rather like MK and the way that they do business. You are to be congratulated on the achievements of your stewardship rather than chastised for imagined slights, Archon.

Cheers!

And then people like you come by and remind me that everything is okay and I just need to chill the hell out

Thank you for that.

[Blacky]

So, you're saying that it doesn't mean that they have?

That's precisely what I was saying Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz.

I suppose atleast one thing is evident from this thread and that is that the new leadership of the MCXA is not one of spite or bitterness or hatred. TOP is very lucky to have them as allies. If only it could be reciprocated.

[defroster]

I think its obvious that TOP needs TSO to protect them from Umbrella and Gramlins, duh.

lines being drawn, o/ TOP, brilliant political decision , o7 Umbrella \o/ Gramlins.

did I miss any?

[Khyber]

Neverender, I rather like MK and Vanguard to be honest. There are others in TOP that like you guys. Just because of one comment that wasn´t said in all seriousness and wasn´t that well thought out enters the thread it doesn´t mean that we now have problems with everyone listed.

To be honest this was a very heated topic inside of TOP. The temporary nature of it shows that we aren´t 100% sure about things. We love MCXA. We´ve fought with them, we´ve worked with them, granted many are not in TSO, but many remain in MCXA. We also have ex MCXA members that still love their former alliance, and that have friends in TSO.

We are caught between a dirty break up. Yes mistakes were made, and I would say by all involved parties. TSO got critisized more because MCXA was seen as the victim, and in all truth TSO messed up more then anyone out of us three. That said they performed admirably in the talks they had afterwards with MCXA by all accounts, and we still have a bond with them on a personal level.

I know there is some Sam haters or his old administration, but we are trying to make decision on what we know of him and those that left. We asked for information on what happened, a full investigation to find out what took place, and came to the decision that indeed they messed up, and even with their good intentions of trying to not cause drama in MCXA and leaving quietly, they should have been more upfront. I would say that Fresh should have been a little more communicative to the GA, but I´m not entirely sure about that. TOP messed up due to not investigating the matter furthur. No one told us 100% of the truth, and they all twisted things here and there.

Now the supposide ¨spy¨ who I believe did the account a good time before all this, although not 100% sure about that, was liked by both MCXA and TSO members before this point, and to my knowledge MCXA did not ask for his ZI. I leave it to MCXA to decide on what to do on these things.

This is just to tell you that things are never as cut and dry as you guys try to paint them. It was a tough call, hope you guys understand, and it was heavily debated, we thought this was the best path.

MCXA membership please understand that we didn´t do this to disrespect you, but if you needed our protection against lets say the Gremlins after messing up, believe me when I say we would try our best to resolve things diplomaticially. After all we all know how bloodthirsty them Gremlins can get.

[HeinousOne]

Neverender, I rather like MK and Vanguard to be honest. There are others in TOP that like you guys. Just because of one comment that wasn´t said in all seriousness and wasn´t that well thought out enters the thread it doesn´t mean that we now have problems with everyone listed.

To be honest this was a very heated topic inside of TOP. The temporary nature of it shows that we aren´t 100% sure about things. We love MCXA. We´ve fought with them, we´ve worked with them, granted many are not in TSO, but many remain in MCXA. We also have ex MCXA members that still love their former alliance, and that have friends in TSO.

We are caught between a dirty break up. Yes mistakes were made, and I would say by all involved parties. TSO got critisized more because MCXA was seen as the victim, and in all truth TSO messed up more then anyone out of us three. That said they performed admirably in the talks they had afterwards with MCXA by all accounts, and we still have a bond with them on a personal level.

I know there is some Sam haters or his old administration, but we are trying to make decision on what we know of him and those that left. We asked for information on what happened, a full investigation to find out what took place, and came to the decision that indeed they messed up, and even with their good intentions of trying to not cause drama in MCXA and leaving quietly, they should have been more upfront. I would say that Fresh should have been a little more communicative to the GA, but I´m not entirely sure about that. TOP messed up due to not investigating the matter furthur. No one told us 100% of the truth, and they all twisted things here and there.

Now the supposide ¨spy¨ who I believe did the account a good time before all this, although not 100% sure about that, was liked by both MCXA and TSO members before this point, and to my knowledge MCXA did not ask for his ZI. I leave it to MCXA to decide on what to do on these things.

This is just to tell you that things are never as cut and dry as you guys try to paint them. It was a tough call, hope you guys understand, and it was heavily debated, we thought this was the best path.

MCXA membership please understand that we didn´t do this to disrespect you, but if you needed our protection against lets say the Gremlins after messing up, believe me when I say we would try our best to resolve things diplomaticially. After all we all know how bloodthirsty them Gremlins can get.

What is this? Open book policy? Since when does that happen.

Very good explanation here khyber.

[Haflinger]

are you guys seriously arguing about what they call their treaty?

"Words have meaning and names have power. The universe begun with a word, you know. But which came first: the word or the thought behind the word?"

You guys are falling for our plan.

We made the treaty half-MDP and half-protectorate on purpose. Due to the controversial nature of this thread we needed to find a way to lessen the amount of arguing in the thread, or at least divert it. For many nights the greatest minds at TOP and TSO spent all their time trying to figure how to avoid the trolling. We came up with one thing - The only thing people on the OWF care more about than ridicule and arguing is e-lawyering. Now you are all confused about whether this is a MDP or a Protectorate and are forced to e-lawyer this thread to death rather than focus on the nature of the treaty.

As the guy who first brought up the MDP-like line, I'd like to point out that I didn't fall for your Devious Scheme, and merely said it was a "strange treaty."

[Heracles the Great]

Congrats to our allies in TOP - you've got a good one there TSO

[Khyber]

What is this? Open book policy? Since when does that happen.

Very good explanation here khyber.

Just trying to let people know that this was no easy choice, and that many things were weighed in before coming to the decision that I came to when I case my vote.

And contrary to Schatt's post and what ES posted on the Tattler, I did not vote simply to protect crownies of the established rulers, but rather tried to make a decision on what is right and wrong, and accepting the fact that we all mess up at times.