LoSS restructuring

[Mjolnir]

It took me a while to write that Echelon-LoSS treaty. Better not cancel it >_>

[Poyplemonkeys]

By their own admission they werent happy with this and other treaties and decided over two weeks before hand to make changes that would include breaking that treaty. =====>

====>But one last thing before the door closes, lets go over to TPF and pretend we have no intention or parting ways, something we decided weeks ago and start trying to glean secrets off them followed swiftly by a preplanned treaty cancellation. That is a planned action to get information under false pretense.

17 days earlier they set in process a motion that would end in the treaty being canceled. Not long before the official post and obviously weeks after the decision was set in motion and made LoSS acted like nothing had or would be changing between them and TPF. They acted incredibly dishonestly and the fact they were pumping them for information rather than pumping them for tech deals or shooting the breeze shows information gathering on their ally (spying. The treaty was, in their mind, dead anyway) was their primary motivation.

They asked for information they were entitled to as they were obligated to defend TPF for at least a further 5 days and were asking if that clause of their treaty is likely to be activated. I'd sure like to know a little in advance if RIA/GOD/Vanguard were aware we'd have to come to their defense.

[Bob Janova]

If TPF didn't want to provide that information then they should have cancelled any treaties with intelligence sharing clauses before they started planning an aggressive war.

This is a big move by LoSS and it is clearly designed as a jump to the 'other side'. That's all well and good, but don't try to pretend that's not what you're doing. It also does make it look as though you only signed with the NPO for protection and had no intention of actually defending them if they need it.

[hizzy]

By their own admission they werent happy with this and other treaties and decided over two weeks before hand to make changes that would include breaking that treaty. =====>

====>But one last thing before the door closes, lets go over to TPF and pretend we have no intention or parting ways, something we decided weeks ago and start trying to glean secrets off them followed swiftly by a preplanned treaty cancellation. That is a planned action to get information under false pretense.

17 days earlier they set in process a motion that would end in the treaty being canceled. Not long before the official post and obviously weeks after the decision was set in motion and made LoSS acted like nothing had or would be changing between them and TPF. They acted incredibly dishonestly and the fact they were pumping them for information rather than pumping them for tech deals or shooting the breeze shows information gathering on their ally (spying. The treaty was, in their mind, dead anyway) was their primary motivation.

You actually do make some good points. But like Poyple said, they were well within their rights to do so, even if they were less-than-transparent in their motives.

Also, you're aware you've sig'd yourself eh?

[Alterego]

Also, you're aware you've sig'd yourself eh?

Im an egomaniac. Its one of my many good points

[Bob Ilyani]

oh yeah! Congrats LoSS!

[Amossio]

oh yeah! Congrats LoSS!

BOB thats why you're soo sexy!

[cjav0]

If TPF didn't want to provide that information then they should have cancelled any treaties with intelligence sharing clauses before they started planning an aggressive war.

This is a big move by LoSS and it is clearly designed as a jump to the 'other side'. That's all well and good, but don't try to pretend that's not what you're doing. It also does make it look as though you only signed with the NPO for protection and had no intention of actually defending them if they need it.

Then again, they weren't actually given a choice back then, now they have one and they seize it.

Nothing but props for LOSS!

GJ.

[christian trojans]

Hey could one of you design wizards put up a treaty web diagram.

CT

Edited April 20, 2009 by christian trojans

[christian trojans]

I agree with you my brother.

HAIL NpO, NPO and our allies... FORWARD TO WHATEVER COMES :jihad:

Edited April 21, 2009 by christian trojans

[Bob Janova]

Check the treaty compendium thread (in my sig), there is an image of the web in the OP there.

[Gobb]

I hope you come out ok with this restructuring!

[kswiss2783]

Sad to see. Wouldn't have expected this of the old LoSS

[Lord Brendan]

Sad to see. Wouldn't have expected this of the old LoSS

Isn't the whole point that they're going back to being like the old LoSS?

[Felix von Agnu]

You actually do make some good points. But like Poyple said, they were well within their rights to do so, even if they were less-than-transparent in their motives.

Also, you're aware you've sig'd yourself eh?

They are within their rights, I agree. I would have no problem with them asking for information before the cancellation period is done. What would irk me is them asking for the sake of gathering information for the side they are going to. If they wanted information about possibly having to defend us, they should keep it to themselves rather than pass it on. Granted, I don't know what they did with the information (OOC: RL been keeping me busy), since I haven't been around too much.

[kswiss2783]

Isn't the whole point that they're going back to being like the old LoSS?

Touche. So, then they will consider going back to their old treaties? I think not.

[Bob]

Touche. So, then they will consider going back to their old treaties? I think not.

Considering that NAAC has disbanded, as have most of the alliances they had treaties with, this would be rather hard, no? There's nothing to really consider there..unless you are referring to LoSS after NPO subjected them to yearlong terms.

They are within their rights, I agree. I would have no problem with them asking for information before the cancellation period is done. What would irk me is them asking for the sake of gathering information for the side they are going to. If they wanted information about possibly having to defend us, they should keep it to themselves rather than pass it on. Granted, I don't know what they did with the information (OOC: RL been keeping me busy), since I haven't been around too much.

I don't seem to see them passing on information anywhere..?

Edited April 21, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris

[Felix von Agnu]

I don't seem to see them passing on information anywhere..?

Then I don't see the fuss with them asking for information.

[Bob]

Then I don't see the fuss with them asking for information.

I'd talk to mhawk, as I seem to recall it was him who brought up those logs.

[Felix von Agnu]

I'd talk to mhawk, as I seem to recall it was him who brought up those logs.

As I said, I haven't been around much these past few weeks, so I didn't really read through the whole thread. >_>

I was merely offering my own personal opinion.

[Bob]

As I said, I haven't been around much these past few weeks, so I didn't really read through the whole thread. >_>

I was merely offering my own personal opinion.

I figured, but when its your alliance leader and his opinion differs from yours, its always good to know what his opinion is so you can change yours accordingly

[Felix von Agnu]

I figured, but when its your alliance leader and his opinion differs from yours, its always good to know what his opinion is so you can change yours accordingly

I see his opinion, and I am not changing mine. I didn't realize the time frame was so short, but I still stand by my opinion. I will say that jaaku could have gone about it better, but that's about it.

I think I'll keep my opinion as I said it though.

[Blacky]

I see his opinion, and I am not changing mine. I didn't realize the time frame was so short, but I still stand by my opinion. I will say that jaaku could have gone about it better, but that's about it.

I think I'll keep my opinion as I said it though.

Wait so are you honestly saying you support that move? I mean even I can see that it served no purpose other than to bring some juicy info to the other side. Whether or not they shared it publicly it's obvious that they intended to cancel the treaty. According to mhawk, a man whose integrity neither of us should question said that was the case. That inbetween the time that intelligence was demanded, and the treaty cancellation was posted no more than a few hours elapsed. That doesn't look like a serious attempt at repairing relations.

So are you saying that mhawk is somebody we shouldn't trust? Show me one thing he has said or done which was dishonest or would lead us to question his integrity?

[Felix von Agnu]

Wait so are you honestly saying you support that move? I mean even I can see that it served no purpose other than to bring some juicy info to the other side. Whether or not they shared it publicly it's obvious that they intended to cancel the treaty. According to mhawk, a man whose integrity neither of us should question said that was the case. That inbetween the time that intelligence was demanded, and the treaty cancellation was posted no more than a few hours elapsed. That doesn't look like a serious attempt at repairing relations.

So are you saying that mhawk is somebody we shouldn't trust? Show me one thing he has said or done which was dishonest or would lead us to question his integrity?

Wow, you have somehow taken a simple difference of opinion and greatly distorted it.

Wait so are you honestly saying you support that move?

I said that I had no problem with LoSS asking for info about a potential situation. I then said that as long as LoSS didn't spread that knowledge around, it would continue to be fine. If LoSS decided to spread the information around, it could be argued that they were spying.

So, allow me to answer the question directly. No. There was no attempt at repairing relations, but Jaaku could have been a lot more up front than he was. Demanding info as an ally, and then dropping the treaty 5 minutes later does not really show that he thought of TPF as the friend he claimed we were in the OP. In fact demanding anything as an ally before dropping a treaty is much like loaning a friend $20 and never seeing them again. We're better of over all, but still out $20.

So are you saying that mhawk is somebody we shouldn't trust?

Seriously? At what point did I say anything remotely like that? Mhawk has my full trust, as leader of TPF, and as a friend.

[Blacky]

Wow, you have somehow taken a simple difference of opinion and greatly distorted it.

No I haven't. I've merely been stating facts.

I said that I had no problem with LoSS asking for info about a potential situation.

What right did they have if they were just going to cancel the treaty and sign with the other side anyway?

I then said that as long as LoSS didn't spread that knowledge around, it would continue to be fine. If LoSS decided to spread the information around, it could be argued that they were spying.

But how is it fine? If as you profess mhawk had your full trust you wouldn't be making this argument. Also now you're just being a hypocrite. If their allies demanded that information in the same way they demanded it from TPF, shouldn't they be obligated to give them the information? Essentially what you're saying is it's spying. How is having the opposition spying on your alliance okay?

So, allow me to answer the question directly. No. There was no attempt at repairing relations, but Jaaku could have been a lot more up front than he was.

Yes and the fact that it wasn't upfront makes it not okay. As mhawk a man of great integrity and whose trust and loyalty you proclaim to have made it clear that it was not okay. You yourself compared the actions to spying. So I don't see how there shouldn't be a "big fuss" about it, most of which came from your alliance leaders which you don't seem to even agree with.

In fact demanding anything as an ally before dropping a treaty is much like loaning a friend $20 and never seeing them again. We're better of over all, but still out $20.

How are you better off having been $20 out, and having that $20 in your oppositions pockets

or atleast in reach of them?

Seriously? At what point did I say anything remotely like that?

You didn't say it directly but it was implied in your post.