Diomede Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Oh, it shows. Indeed it does, and I thank TOP for their support now and always, war related or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neoche666 Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 (edited) Paradoxia Vault o/ Edited April 27, 2009 by Neoche666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurney Halleck Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Due to the treaty web imbroglio, any action or inaction by TOP would give the e-lawyers a case for "TOP R NOT HONORING TREETIEZ!" Damned if we activate one, damned if we activate the other, damned if we do nothing. However, IMO, we are, no doubt, culpable - not for our decisions re: those treaties, but by not canceling on those allies who we have drifted away from (or were never that close to). Hopefully, we shall continue to examine our place in the treaty tangle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shardoon Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 So, I have a question, since you didn't decide to help MCXA or IRON or any of the other alliances here on Hegemony's side (due to your "no chaining policy" or what have you), does that mean that you just felt the need to attack these alliances you declared war on tonight or did you forget about your 'no chaining policy" that you based your decision on.I really don't understand the difference between defending those in OUT with an ODP and defending those who are not in OUT but have an MDoAP. Either way, it's quite apparent TOP chose a side and will come out as winners at the end of this war. Treaties were dishonored, people were hurt, and I'm sure if you really wanted to prevent this war, you'd be in a mediating position right now and not in an aggressive (or defensive) position, attacking other alliances who are already getting gang-banged. *shrug* Regardless, good luck TOP and have fun with these wars. It's been said before. TOP was NOT for war and we were negotiating in good faith when the "Hegemony" side (I still dislike the labels applied to the "sides" in this war) began this little adventure. Now that more pressure has been applied, perhaps the chance for peace has become greater. o/ TOP and all who understand the deliberate actions of a successful democratic alliance. We will prevail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shardoon Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Paradoxia Vault o/ At least one member of the purple team has nothing better to do an hour before update. . . :lol: Yes, I know, I see what you did there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus Pullo Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Paradoxia Vault o/ There we go... Glad you support us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
necAnt Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Paradoxia Vault o/ allow me to correct you, it is vult, not an vault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nananana Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Is anyone else not surprised TOP didn't come in until the war was already grossly in their side's favor and that they attacked alliances much smaller than them? Way to protect your precious tech and infra, TOP. Love you too schnookums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neoche666 Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 you obviously have not seen my amazing hails earlier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leetopia II Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Pursuant to the ODP clause of the Orange Unity Treaty (article 4, subsection II), TOP hereby declares war on the United Purple Nations, Invicta and Echelon, for attacks upon R&R, upon Orion, and upon several OUT signatories, respectively. Echelon hasn't attacked any of those people, but okay, whatever rocks your bandwagon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordAkanata Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Echelon hasn't attacked any of those people, but okay, whatever rocks your bandwagon! Read your own DoW: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54930 R&R was at war with NPO at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Echelon hasn't attacked any of those people, but okay, whatever rocks your bandwagon! As pursuant to Article 4, Section 4.1 of the One Vision Bloc Treaty (below), and waiving Section 4.3 of the same Article, Echelon hereby acknowledges a state of war with all parties currently engaging the New Pacific Order. While we no longer acknowledge the individual treaty held between Echelon and Pacifica, we fully and wholeheartedly commit to defending the New Pacific Order in their time of need. Here you go. That included RnR and The International. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raunchero Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 We chose not to betray our allies by breaking treaties and then DoWing them. We care about the treaties we make. All of them. If you cared about all the treaties you made, then you'd be neutral right now, not picking a side. Instead you decided to choose one side over the other. All of the above treaties are optional (ODP, Chained MDP, oA). So, you're correct in that we decided to activate one side's treaties and not the other. They weren't dishonored, they weren't broken, they were simply not activated. If TOP had unlimited power, perhaps we could just end the war right now and work out a solution. However, we are only near omnipotent, sorry, and will have to make due with that. Well, at least you admitted it. In IRC, I was told that TOP wouldn't come to the defense of MCXA due to the chaining and you were very opposed to that. I guess you weren't very opposed when your true or closest allies get attacked though. I just don't like the whole situation. When you sign treaties, you either honor all of them or you become neutral, you shouldn't choose sides. I honestly expected better from TOP. Also, I know that TOP was participating in mediating pre-war and I applaud them for that. However, this war was declared (just or not) and it escalated very quickly. A lot of strange things happened. Regardless, I'm making the claim that this war could still be potentially stopped. TOP did not absolutely need to enter this war. You chose to enter it, for whatever reasons, and are now not a neutral, objective alliance in the mediating process. You want to talk about ending the war, you have to look at all these alliances who are chaining and taking advantage of such lopsidedness and coming in, attacking NPO, attacking GGA, attacking IRON, attacking MCXA, attacking with multiple alliances. It's becoming quite ridiculous. I am sorry that TOP didn't want to enter an offensive war without CB, especially because they tried to achieve a peaceful resolution beforehand, which was apparently shut down by your side. They have conflicting treaties, they are going with the defender, which is honorable. Hey Sam, it wasn't an offensive war, our ally(ies) got attacked, we defended, we requested for TOP's assistance, they said "no, we're going to stay out of it and we won't come in because we don't believe in chaining MDP's, etc., then they give us notification to cancel our treaty, and now they're in this war activating ODPs and whatnot via chaining. See where this becomes subjective? If there are conflicting treaties, the obvious choice would be to stay out of the war altogether and focus on bringing the war to an end. However, they chose to pick a side, which I guess is honorable, depending on who you ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dan Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 (edited) Echelon hasn't attacked any of those people, but okay, whatever rocks your bandwagon! http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54864 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54930 Edit: Too slow. Edited April 27, 2009 by Dr. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorkingClassRuler Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Good luck, TOP o/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leetopia II Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54864http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54930 Edit: Too slow. And now go and find where we're actually at war with them. It's okay, I'll wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus Pullo Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 (edited) you shouldn't choose sides. You should have seen the queries I got to the contrary. Edit: Leetopia II, you declared...not our fault you chose not to attack them. Edited April 27, 2009 by Titus Pullo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiss Goodbye Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 You'll have to. War searching is disabled during update. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gantanX Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 So, I have a question, since you didn't decide to help MCXA or IRON or any of the other alliances here on Hegemony's side (due to your "no chaining policy" or what have you), does that mean that you just felt the need to attack these alliances you declared war on tonight or did you forget about your 'no chaining policy" that you based your decision on.I really don't understand the difference between defending those in OUT with an ODP and defending those who are not in OUT but have an MDoAP. Either way, it's quite apparent TOP chose a side and will come out as winners at the end of this war. Treaties were dishonored, people were hurt, and I'm sure if you really wanted to prevent this war, you'd be in a mediating position right now and not in an aggressive (or defensive) position, attacking other alliances who are already getting gang-banged. *shrug* Regardless, good luck TOP and have fun with these wars. Please Raunchero, stop wasting your time, they just want to fight for a bigger side..that's it !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leetopia II Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 You'll have to. War searching is disabled during update. It's okay, I'll do it for you. Zero attacks launched on a single orange nation, R&R or whatever else was even mentioned. It's laughable to activate a MDaP without even having a shot fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dan Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Well, at least you admitted it. In IRC, I was told that TOP wouldn't come to the defense of MCXA due to the chaining and you were very opposed to that. I guess you weren't very opposed when your true or closest allies get attacked though. I just don't like the whole situation. When you sign treaties, you either honor all of them or you become neutral, you shouldn't choose sides. I honestly expected better from TOP. Yes, we did not enter due to the chaining clause. That was correct then as it is now. There is no "admitting" as I wasn't holding anything back. I don't like the entire situation either, however, I disagree with your assessment of our options. I think you need to take a look at the bigger picture. Also, I know that TOP was participating in mediating pre-war and I applaud them for that. However, this war was declared (just or not) and it escalated very quickly. A lot of strange things happened. Regardless, I'm making the claim that this war could still be potentially stopped. TOP did not absolutely need to enter this war. You chose to enter it, for whatever reasons, and are now not a neutral, objective alliance in the mediating process. You want to talk about ending the war, you have to look at all these alliances who are chaining and taking advantage of such lopsidedness and coming in, attacking NPO, attacking GGA, attacking IRON, attacking MCXA, attacking with multiple alliances. It's becoming quite ridiculous. If you can or could have given us a plan to end this war, please send it to me and we'll talk. The rest of what you said is fairly unrealistic so far as what you expect of us. I don't see why the winning side would even bother listening to us if we didn't participate, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 And now go and find where we're actually at war with them. It's okay, I'll wait. Who said that was needed? A DoW is enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nananana Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 I just don't like the whole situation. When you sign treaties, you either honor all of them or you become neutral, you shouldn't choose sides. I honestly expected better from TOP. And yet Q trumps other treaties. So how you can possibly preach any kind of equality in treaties when it clearly states in some of your current documents that certain relationships are more important than others? You should be happy I'm not council, if I had it my way, I'd declare on all the foolish bloodthirsty fools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Glad to have you with us Paradoxia Vult! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solidus117 Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 And now go and find where we're actually at war with them. It's okay, I'll wait. Don't worry, all E-Lawyers have been shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts