grahamkeatley Posted April 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Neutrality was an option. I didn't know dishonouring someone was a means to honour another. I personally would of felt wrong standing neutral in this massive conflict. Which is why we took the early stance on the terms at which TOOL would enter the conflict. Tell me this, we are dishonourable for not defending RoK, yet by NOT defending and staying neutral it would of been honourable? TailsK it doesnt add up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 It is an honor to be in this with you guys, true friends TOOL. o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Aren't you guys seven times their size? Picking on the small targets is in style these days, didn't you know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 (edited) I personally would of felt wrong standing neutral in this massive conflict. Which is why we took the early stance on the terms at which TOOL would enter the conflict.Tell me this, we are dishonourable for not defending RoK, yet by NOT defending and staying neutral it would of been honourable? TailsK it doesnt add up. No but it would've been respectable, go look at NpO and take notes. Edited April 24, 2009 by Carter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jtkode Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 You all are weak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brannagan Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 o/ TOOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 (edited) I personally would of felt wrong standing neutral in this massive conflict. Which is why we took the early stance on the terms at which TOOL would enter the conflict.Tell me this, we are dishonourable for not defending RoK, yet by NOT defending and staying neutral it would of been honourable? TailsK it doesnt add up. Yes it does end up. You are only dishonorable for not defending RoK because you defended TPF, if you had not defended either, you would have kept your honor intact. Consistency dear grahamkeatley, consistency. Edited April 24, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AUT Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 The amount of honor to stand by such an agreement is great. o/ TOOL You guys are as good of friends as anyone can ask for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Un4Gvn1 Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 I personally would of felt wrong standing neutral in this massive conflict. Which is why we took the early stance on the terms at which TOOL would enter the conflict.Tell me this, we are dishonourable for not defending RoK, yet by NOT defending and staying neutral it would of been honourable? TailsK it doesnt add up. You hit the nail on the head there, Grahamkeatley. I am proud to work with you in this war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamkeatley Posted April 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 No but it would've been respectable, go look at NpO and take notes. NpO are doing the exact same as us... They said NO oA and we will defend against aggression. Did they not? Or am I mistaken? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rosenberger Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Yes it does end up.You are only dishonorable for not defending RoK because you defended TPF, if you had not defended either, you would have kept your honor intact. Consistency dear grahamkeatley, consistency. Honor is defending an Ally in need, not standing on the sidelines watching the show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaPirate Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 TOOL must have a death wish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Honor is defending an Ally in need, not standing on the sidelines watching the show. Then defend your allies. Don't pick and choose which to defend, that is the dishonorable part. You can't claim to be honorable when you are only selective about it. And note, I know that others have done similar things for Karma, ODN being the one that has attacked, MHA having declared which treaties they would honor, but both of them had a justifiable reason for doing so. TOOL has none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Honor is defending an Ally in need, not standing on the sidelines watching the show. RoK isn't an ally? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 NpO are doing the exact same as us... They said NO oA and we will defend against aggression. Did they not? Or am I mistaken? They're neutral in the conflict because they have allies on both sides conflicting. Or am I mistaken? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 No but it would've been respectable, go look at NpO and take notes. *reads NpO announcement* *scribbles down notes* *examines notes* "That's odd... This policy looks familiar..." *compares to TOOL policy* "Why, they're more or less the same!" What were you saying again? -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 *reads NpO announcement**scribbles down notes* *examines notes* "That's odd... This policy looks familiar..." *compares to TOOL policy* "Why, they're more or less the same!" What were you saying again? -Bama 2. Polaris reserves the right to aid any of her allies financially or militarily BUT pledges to commit equal financial resources to the opposing side of the conflict and such military as required by the situation.4. Polaris has no quarrel with any alliance right now, we are not looking for a fight, spoiling for war or seeking any action against anyone for any reason, real or imagined. Polaris however will take exception to any alliance that attacks an ally without a treaty obligation to do so OR and otherwise valid CB. We will not hesitate to respond in defense of any conflict that occurs outside of the boundaries of this war. Bandwagoners, vultures and opportunists are not welcome to feed in comfort while others do the heavy lifting. Get better glasses bama? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 *reads NpO announcement**scribbles down notes* *examines notes* "That's odd... This policy looks familiar..." *compares to TOOL policy* "Why, they're more or less the same!" What were you saying again? -Bama I think he was saying you need to take better notes. 4. Polaris has no quarrel with any alliance right now, we are not looking for a fight, spoiling for war or seeking any action against anyone for any reason, real or imagined. Polaris however will take exception to any alliance that attacks an ally without a treaty obligation to do so OR and otherwise valid CB. We will not hesitate to respond in defense of any conflict that occurs outside of the boundaries of this war. Bandwagoners, vultures and opportunists are not welcome to feed in comfort while others do the heavy lifting. I do believe that that allows for oAs and not for bandwagoning. DT did not bandwagon, they honored an oA clause, and as such Polaris would not attack. A treaty obligation is still an oA clause, while not techinically "obligated" it is a part of a treaty that has been used for a long time to add allies into the fight. As Grub later states that bandwagoners will not be free to attack, this shows that that group is what he is referring to further more, not oA clauses of treaties. Your move, good sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Then defend your allies. Don't pick and choose which to defend, that is the dishonorable part.You can't claim to be honorable when you are only selective about it. And note, I know that others have done similar things for Karma, ODN being the one that has attacked, MHA having declared which treaties they would honor, but both of them had a justifiable reason for doing so. TOOL has none. That justifiable reason being that you approve of which side they decided to join on? TOOL never even said which side they would support, they simply set out a policy guiding how they would honor their treaties. MHA and ODN both said that they would ignore any treaties that would put them on the side they didn't like (well, MHA did turn around and promise to hit bandwagoners at least, I guess). If you can find anyway of justifying how that is at all more honorable than what TOOL has done that actually makes coherent, logical sense, then I'll be quite surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas Perry Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Welcome to the fight, TOOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Get better glasses bama? The only major difference I see, and which I admittedly did miss, is the part about equal resources to each side. As for the part about bandwagoners, needless to say, we will not be pleased if anyone bandwagons on ANY of our allies, including those who entered on oA. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 That justifiable reason being that you approve of which side they decided to join on? TOOL never even said which side they would support, they simply set out a policy guiding how they would honor their treaties. MHA and ODN both said that they would ignore any treaties that would put them on the side they didn't like (well, MHA did turn around and promise to hit bandwagoners at least, I guess). If you can find anyway of justifying how that is at all more honorable than what TOOL has done that actually makes coherent, logical sense, then I'll be quite surprised. That justifiable reasoning being that OV was unjustly attacked by NPO? Or did you forget about that somehow? That is the reason MHA and ODN said they would ignore any treaties, because of that completely dishonorable and ridiculous action by the NPO. Logical? Depends on if you think that NPO's attacks on OV were fair somehow. Coherent? I think so. I don't think that MHA and ODN made the best decisions possible, but they at least had a reasoning behind it. TOOL's reasoning is that they like TPF better than RoK, from what I can see, and also that an oA clause was used!!!!!!!! GASP! Fun stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igotsacane Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Welcome TOOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Bama, I respect you a lot, so stop trying to defend TOOL on a case in which they are most obviously wrong. TOOL doesn't phase me, they'll come out losing this war and losing their much undeserved sanction. Have a good day fellas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Can't say I'm too pleased with this. Oh well. 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.