Official Announcement from The Order of the Paradox

[Haflinger]

I am not sure there is much profit likely to be gained from arguing about what was said in previous conversations between TOP and Pacifica. I think it would be best if people moved forward, and especially if they remembered that these are highly emotionally charged times and people are likely to be sensitive.

A lot of the current situation is due to people overreacting and perceiving slights where none are intended, I think.

(Also, how on earth did I get to be the voice of reason? Bahaha.)

[Crispy99]

Looking treaty wise obviously TOP found it self in a cluster$%&@. I do not believe anybody would really mind you staying out and neutral.

Actually it would seem as the most logical step even further seeing how alliances towards which you were closer will not get really destroyed in this war as they are obviously on a bigger, winning side. And you can always aid them massively after the war.

The fact that despite that you did feel the need to jump in is a message to be acknowledged and so it will be.

You, telling us we could have and should have stayed neutral? Yes, it also would have gone a long way if you had gone with neutrality as well.

I don't post much here, but this warrants some clarification.

Branimir, I can understand how this would could give you bitter feelings. I don't, however, understand how you don't seem to be able to look at the situation logically and take into account the reactions formed by your very own actions. TOP was very much committed to the defense of your alliance as well as the ones we now fight alongside. I personally urged many of the alliances now thirsting for your blood to cool it down, in fact many here were not happy with how some people were treating our allies, you, as enemies. Many long winded posts were made defending you guys. You made me look like a fool. I was confident that you guys wouldn't make such a blatantly careless mistake, you did, and that is when you lost our respect and voided the terms of our treaty. Many here still had you in the best interests even after the fact, we wanted to help you get easier terms/shorter beating, but I don't know if how you are acting currently will help that. If someone is to blame here, it is not us.

You might have a point, if we held an MADP with you, but this is why we do not sign them. The way I see it, your entire side of the conflict is in aggression, we chose not to activate those oA clauses because we don't agree with the offensive side of this war, and no defense clauses are activated. The Karma side on the other hand is technically in the defensive, so those treaties are activated if the help is requested.

I suggest that you own up to your mistakes, your current course can only make us into enemies, and it seems your friends are running in short supply.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Crispy99

[Chief Savage Man]

I have not surrendered, and will continue to fight until pacifica achieves peace.

I would rather see everybody fight to the absolute end this time, until one side has been so demolished that they can't go on anymore and they admit defeat, with no prizes for the winner besides the prestige.

[Starfox101]

I'm surprised. Even after everything I still expected this attack to be on Karma.

I don't envy those alliances.

[Dilber]

Crymson, you know as well as I do that I wouldn't have said anything if I couldn't back it up. I'll respond in detail later.

OOC: I am currently posting on a cellphone. Once I am back at the computer, I'll either PM you or continue here.

[Nobody Expects]

Well said.

I like you. But I want a REAL pint. None of that 16oz mess that they serve in the States.

We are Irish at BAPS, you'll get a real pint of real Guinness.

[Jinnai]

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.

We did not attack one of our treaty partners. With the exception of one of the DoWs we activated a defensive clause unlike most who have gone to war using almost exclusively oA clause. All of them after lengthy debates because we had allies on both sides. Unlike other alliances, TOP doesn't break a treaty when war breaks out because we don't want to defend them. When we sign a treaty we intend to live up to it as long as its in effect, including the grace period.

[Steelrat]

4. Crymson stated our defense of Polaris for so long proved we didn't care about what TOP thought.

You can all continue now.

Crymson, you know as well as I do that I wouldn't have said anything if I couldn't back it up. I'll respond in detail later.

OOC: I am currently posting on a cellphone. Once I am back at the computer, I'll either PM you or continue here.

Point 4 would be very interesting, as i were in close contact with Crymson back then and i can remember you and Moo entering an IRC room yelling around "what the hell happens here".

I have also logs to prove that.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Steelrat

[Baden-Württemberg]

Couple points of contention. As a note, I no longer speak for the order, but I don't like seeing my former home lied about by people I considered friends.

1. There was an apology given by DM to TOP. Crymson stayed at the beginning of the chat that the logs would be made available to their membership.

2. Crymson admitted in the same log that OV did in fact reject the terms. Crymson had been told earlier that they would be the last terms given.

3. Crymson stated "appologies are meaningless at this point", and stated that what the order thought of the events from our perspective was irrelevant.

4. Crymson stated our defense of Polaris for so long proved we didn't care about what TOP thought.

You can all continue now.

2. If you wanted to have a peaceful resolution you could have achieved it.

4. The difference between you and Crymson is that when you asked Crymson to refrain from attacking Polar, he listened. However, when Crymson asked you not to declare on Ordo Verde, Pacifica obviously didn't.

Someone can argue that Ordo Verde has declined the peace terms, however the question of the source of the CB is valid. I am also concerned about the manner and timing of the NPO declaration. You could have at least talked to Crymson before declaring, and not do it in the middle of the negotiations.

Just my 02.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Baden-Württemberg

[Dilber]

Yeah, I guess Polar did never get hit.

What Steelrat is refering to, if I'm remember correctly, is when we found out that they had built a coalition to hit Polar, hadn't informed anyone, and had a set go date. We were pissed as hell.

[KingSuck]

Unlike other alliances, TOP doesn't break a treaty when war breaks out because we don't want to defend them. When we sign a treaty we intend to live up to it as long as its in effect, including the grace period.

In that case, with all due respect, would you mind me asking why TOP has not honoured this part of it's MDoAP with Pacifica:

Should either of the signatory alliances be attacked by another power, the other is required to come to its assistance with its full strength and resources.

I think it's pretty clear that the NPO has been attacked by quite a few powers (e.g. link) and there is no non-chaining clause in the treaty, shouldn't you guys be defending them? (serious question)

[The Chosen One]

Welcome to the party TOP, its good to have you on our side, good luck!

o/ R&R

o/ TOP

o/ Karma

Edited April 27, 2009 by The Chosen One

[ponken]

In that case, with all due respect, would you mind me asking why TOP has not honoured this part of it's MDoAP with Pacifica:

I think it's pretty clear that the NPO has been attacked by quite a few powers (e.g. link) and there is no non-chaining clause in the treaty, shouldn't you guys be defending them? (serious question)

Article V

This pact will not trigger reciprocal defense obligations in the event that a signatory has engaged in espionage, extreme provocation of another party, or otherwise conducted its foreign affairs in such a way as to bring the conflict upon itself. If one party to this pact calls upon the other party to provide assistance in a time of war, and the second party believes that reciprocal defense is not appropriate for the reasons stated in this article, the second party shall notify the first that no assistance shall be forthcoming. This notification will also automatically terminate the pact.

[KingSuck]

If one party to this pact calls upon the other party to provide assistance in a time of war, and the second party believes that reciprocal defense is not appropriate for the reasons stated in this article, the second party shall notify the first that no assistance shall be forthcoming. This notification will also automatically terminate the pact.

So in that case, the treaty has been terminated?

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1476579

[Lord Brendan]

Article V

This pact will not trigger reciprocal defense obligations in the event that a signatory has engaged in espionage, extreme provocation of another party, or otherwise conducted its foreign affairs in such a way as to bring the conflict upon itself. If one party to this pact calls upon the other party to provide assistance in a time of war, and the second party believes that reciprocal defense is not appropriate for the reasons stated in this article, the second party shall notify the first that no assistance shall be forthcoming. This notification will also automatically terminate the pact.

So the TOP-NPO MDP is canceled?

edit: KingSuck beat me to it

Edited April 27, 2009 by Lord Brendan

[KingSuck]

So the TOP-NPO MDP is canceled?

edit: KingSuck beat me to it

glad I'm not the only one who spotted it

[Hasin]

As far as I am aware there is supposed to be a continuation of a discussion that was adjourned, this discussion involved government officials from TOP and NPO.

[TECUMSEH]

Interesting. "Automatically terminate" is unambiguous.

Edited April 27, 2009 by TECUMSEH

[Electron Sponge]

This discussion is a perfect illustration of why too many treaties are such a bad thing. Also if NPO survives this war and manages to get peace, TOP's life expectancy (as well as several other alliances) may well be measured in months not years.

[Hasin]

This discussion is a perfect illustration of why too many treaties are such a bad thing. Also if NPO survives this war and manages to get peace, TOP's life expectancy (as well as several other alliances) may well be measured in months not years.

I'm not overly worried.

[Electron Sponge]

I'm not overly worried.

Neither was LUE.

[Freelancer]

This discussion is a perfect illustration of why too many treaties are such a bad thing. Also if NPO survives this war and manages to get peace, TOP's life expectancy (as well as several other alliances) may well be measured in months not years.

So are you saying that if The NPO isn't completely decimated they will seek vengeance on all that attacked and betrayed them ?

I do find this hard to fathom, especially as of late.

If I'm wrong please bash away..

[LOLtex]

So are you saying that if The NPO isn't completely decimated they will seek vengeance on all that attacked and betrayed them ?

I do find this hard to fathom, especially as of late.

If I'm wrong please bash away..

He's just saying that the NPO has a history of holding grudges.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

This discussion is a perfect illustration of why too many treaties are such a bad thing. Also if NPO survives this war and manages to get peace, TOP's life expectancy (as well as several other alliances) may well be measured in months not years.

Now that's the sponge I remember! Glad to have you back.

[Simon De Montfort]

So are you saying that if The NPO isn't completely decimated they will seek vengeance on all that attacked and betrayed them ?

I do find this hard to fathom, especially as of late.

If I'm wrong please bash away..

GW I ring a bell?