Jump to content

Honor your debts and repay them in full.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 305
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Dang, giving your enemy the benefit of the doubt?!? After this silly war thing is over I think your people and my people should get together for some seriously friendly talks. :)

When we're not geared for war we're a laid back, friendly sort. :) Once this is all over, we'll trade six- 30-packs of beer and have a nice get-together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny that NSO are being criticised for doing the exact opposite of the treaty web and bloc formation that causes world wars in the first place. I'd rather have a close alliance with only an optional defence/aggression clause, than an MADP ally who bails on me as soon as things get too hot. Something which many alliances on the "hegemony" side of things are famous for, incidentally.

Some people suggest that a win for Karma would lead to either anarchic chaos or jackbooted fascism (or both, that's called doublespeak) in international relations. But it seems more likely that there will be a more voluntary level of cooperation. Or, as an old Hollandian saying goes: "Rather a good neighbour than a distant friend." :awesome:

Heh Ivan fighting alongside most of LUE, who ever thought they'd see the day?

Happened before.

Edited by Matthijs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we're not geared for war we're a laid back, friendly sort. :) Once this is all over, we'll trade six- 30-packs of beer and have a nice get-together.

I look forward to that. You guys should hang out in our channel more often so we can get to know each other better. We could definitely discuss some things, especially after this war is over.

Still at war though, so the obligatory :jihad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a silly idea to think that you need a treaty connection to declare an honorable war.

o/ NSO

In previous times this was considered a band wagon. Are you stating that this precedent is changing? I'm not saying anything negative, just curious what Planet Bob thinks of this. Do you need a treaty, or just say magically, they did us a favor so many mos ago, so we will join in an offensive war?

If so...what is the point of a treaty other than to mess !@#$ up...cause lemme tell you, TOP has been completely f'd over by most of our treaties, and partners of such for that matter.

IF treaties are not necessary to enter conflict, then WTH...why sign one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In previous times this was considered a band wagon. Are you stating that this precedent is changing? I'm not saying anything negative, just curious what Planet Bob thinks of this. Do you need a treaty, or just say magically, they did us a favor so many mos ago, so we will join in an offensive war?

If so...what is the point of a treaty other than to mess !@#$ up...cause lemme tell you, TOP has been completely f'd over by most of our treaties, and partners of such for that matter.

IF treaties are not necessary to enter conflict, then WTH...why sign one?

I think the operative word there was 'honourable'. NSO has a treaty with the STA which pledges them to assist us when in harm's way and they also have a bond with MK who offered their protection verbally to Ivan when he created the NSO. There is a bond between the STA, MK and NSO.

To me, bandwagonning is an alliance jumping into a war with absolutely no ties to anyone involved and this is clearly not the case with the NSO in this situation.

Also, with the way treaties are cancelled, suspended or blatantly ignored when it puts an alliance in danger of being attacked, I too question their usefulness. Well, more accurately, there are too many signed on a whim with no thought as to what honouring them actually means which means so many get cancelled when war looms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF treaties are not necessary to enter conflict, then WTH...why sign one?

Sort of like a prenuptial agreement. If your wife (ally) cheats on you with your best friend (DoWs for a stupid reason) when you go for the divorce (treaty cancellation) your wife can say, haha I still get half your money (you're a meatshield, for "honor")

We don't need treaties with every single friend we have. Sometimes, treaties are in order. Sometimes, they're not. If, in the future, New Sith Order finds itself in a diplomatically or militarily disadvantageous situation, then we may reassess the way we do business.

There's no sense in hypothesizing us being in an internally disadvantageous situation, as our Master Marauder of Internal Affairs is just way too awesome for that to ever happen. :awesome:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the operative word there was 'honourable'. NSO has a treaty with the STA which pledges them to assist us when in harm's way and they also have a bond with MK who offered their protection verbally to Ivan when he created the NSO. There is a bond between the STA, MK and NSO.

To me, bandwagonning is an alliance jumping into a war with absolutely no ties to anyone involved and this is clearly not the case with the NSO in this situation.

Also, with the way treaties are cancelled, suspended or blatantly ignored when it puts an alliance in danger of being attacked, I too question their usefulness. Well, more accurately, there are too many signed on a whim with no thought as to what honouring them actually means which means so many get cancelled when war looms.

I agree, treaties are nothing but a cluster*(&! and should really not be signed...cause honestly, they make no difference. The game should move more towards bonds and friendships, and less e-lawyering.

BUT, the precedent has been that if you don't have treaty obligations, you are riding a band wagon. As usual without a clear set of laws definitions are subjective.

The definition of a bandwagonner is obviously changing...Just saying...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, more accurately, there are too many signed on a whim with no thought as to what honouring them actually means which means so many get cancelled when war looms.

I agree. I think future treaties will be more thought out, atleast for a time, after the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, treaties are nothing but a cluster*(&! and should really not be signed...cause honestly, they make no difference. The game should move more towards bonds and friendships, and less e-lawyering.

BUT, the precedent has been that if you don't have treaty obligations, you are riding a band wagon. As usual without a clear set of laws definitions are subjective.

The definition of a bandwagonner is obviously changing...Just saying...

Karma is doing its job already then. :P

But seriously, I have no issue with treaties. STA values her treaties highly and that is why we have so few. The issue for me is not treaties but the number of them signed across the Cyberverse for very little reason. This means that when the crunch comes alliances cancel them and this, sadly, devalues treaties generally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, treaties are nothing but a cluster*(&! and should really not be signed...cause honestly, they make no difference. The game should move more towards bonds and friendships, and less e-lawyering.

OOC: Excuse me for wanting to play a Geo-Political Nation Simulator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...