Congrats to Sparta

[oinkoink12]

We were the first ones to declare alongside Fark. Also, we expected a very tough fight since almost all upper rank IRON nations were assigned to Gremlins. We also didnt exactly count on MHA coming in so quickly (o/ härmlins).

You got to be kidding me right?

[Ejayrazz]

You got to be kidding me right?

What is he joking about?

[Kevin Cash]

What is he joking about?

either he is bull****ing on behalf of gremlins, or he just admitted that mha is so dishonorable they could not even be counted on to honor a 'blood brother' pact. which is it?

[Shinpah]

either he is bull****ing on behalf of gremlins, or he just admitted that mha is so dishonorable they could not even be counted on to honor a 'blood brother' pact. which is it?

Do you understand the difference between an MDP, MoADP, and MADP?

[Trinite]

except all ive ever seen from sparta is dodging the issue that you backstabbed the people you swore to protect, telling me to look elsewhere, saying im wrong without backing it up, performing ad-hominem attacks, ignoring main points while selectively responding to minor points, taking things out of context, etc. all i want is a consistent response as to why sparta feels it is acceptable to backstab people they swear to protect

I assume you would have preferred we stay neutral in a battle involving our allies, or perhaps joined NPO in a curbstomping of OV, GOD, and VE? Or maybe you just prefer to come out and troll Sparta no matter what our decisions. I don't who you were, and I don't really care. We were forced into a situation by NPO to pick a side. We did, and we made the right choice. If you disagree, so be it. We didn't stab NPO in the back. They tried to sneak around ours to hurt our friend. We didn't let them. I'm very sorry if this upsets you.

[Bob Janova]

Harmlins is an MDoAP, and MHA have a good relationship with IRON, so we weren't counting on them necessarily helping us on that front initially.

[Ejayrazz]

either he is bull****ing on behalf of gremlins, or he just admitted that mha is so dishonorable they could not even be counted on to honor a 'blood brother' pact. which is it?

What would he be !@#$%^&*ting about, exactly? What would we have to gain by !@#$%^&*ting?

Bob said it all. Nothing more. Chillax. ;]

Edited May 4, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[Kevin Cash]

Do you understand the difference between an MDP, MoADP, and MADP?

i dont understand how this is relevant to my point. gremlins and mha have stated repeatedly that they 'act as one' and that they're 'basically the same alliance' according to the harmlins treaty, which transcends the notion of any other kind of treaty. can you please tell me how my understanding of other kind of treaty holds any relevance?

[Ejayrazz]

i dont understand how this is relevant to my point. gremlins and mha have stated repeatedly that they 'act as one' and that they're 'basically the same alliance' according to the harmlins treaty, which transcends the notion of any other kind of treaty. can you please tell me how my understanding of other kind of treaty holds any relevance?

Read what Bob said. MHA proved themselves, though we weren't pressuring them. Just because we are blood brothers doesn't mean wont respect them in this current war if they didn't follow. This war is a mess, it puts many alliances in awkward positions. Sides are drawn, and it is more of a 'which ally is closest to me' war. Brothers understand one another, we aren't a bully. We would understand if MHA decided not to follow as they have relationships with IRON. Real allies don't just think about themselves, but each other.

[Kevin Cash]

What would he be !@#$%^&*ting about, exactly? What would we have to gain by !@#$%^&*ting?

Bob said it all. Nothing more. Chillax. ;]

it would help influence the point he was trying to make that entering was somehow 'uncertain'

that said i would agree that bob has made a much stronger point, though i still think harmlins would supersede any friendship that was not in written agreement, and has been stated before, the concept of 'harmlins stand together' would apply in this case.

[Raider]

Congrats to Sparta for getting the number 2 spot.

Now move back to Pink already!

[Kevin Cash]

Read what Bob said. MHA proved themselves, though we weren't pressuring them. Just because we are blood brothers doesn't mean wont respect them in this current war if they didn't follow. This war is a mess, it puts many alliances in awkward positions. Sides are drawn, and it is more of a 'which ally is closest to me' war. Brothers understand one another, we aren't a bully. We would understand if MHA decided not to follow as they have relationships with IRON. Real allies don't just think about themselves, but each other.

were you in such poor communication with your blood brothers that you did not know where they stand? good communication is a very far cry from 'bullying,' the latter of which i make no accusation thereof.

[Shinpah]

i dont understand how this is relevant to my point. gremlins and mha have stated repeatedly that they 'act as one' and that they're 'basically the same alliance' according to the harmlins treaty, which transcends the notion of any other kind of treaty. can you please tell me how my understanding of other kind of treaty holds any relevance?

I quoted the wrong post of yours it would seem, however I suppose that is a moot point at this time, what with Ejayrazz mopping up for me.

I should have quoted this post

except all ive ever seen from sparta is dodging the issue that you backstabbed the people you swore to protect, telling me to look elsewhere, saying im wrong without backing it up, performing ad-hominem attacks, ignoring main points while selectively responding to minor points, taking things out of context, etc. all i want is a consistent response as to why sparta feels it is acceptable to backstab people they swear to protect

Although Trinite already addressed this; it would seem that you don't understand that a distinction can be made when dealing with MDPs. One can say that whenever an alliance can go to war and is counterattacked for declaring war MDPs must be activated; this would mostly render all aggression clauses superfluous. The other option is to believe that MDPs activate only when the alliance you're treatied with (using hypotheticals here) is under attack for a war they did not start.

Given the specifics, it would seem that not only does Sparta reject that the accepting of screenshots is an aggressive action by OV and that they started the war by doing so (although that is an interesting line of reasoning I feel I have brought up), but they also accept the second definition of an MDP. So, Sparta was not actually obligated, if I am correct, to defend NPO via their MDP, which is further reduced because they canceled the thing.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Shinpah

[Ejayrazz]

were you in such poor communication with your blood brothers that you did not know where they stand? good communication is a very far cry from 'bullying,' the latter of which i make no accusation thereof.

Poor communication is irrelevant mate, we have excelling communication with MHA as we are with them everyday in channels whatnot. We declared on IRON accordingly to their declaration. MHA listens to its members, they needed to get a general consensus of the conflict and decided to follow through, they did with abundant speed and we praise them for doing so. Some figured they would take a little longer because of their relations with IRON, but because of their swiftness it shows their swiftness decision-making in dire need.

You are reading way too into this and drawing random jabs which really aren't construing with one another. If you hate MHA or Gremlins, that is fine dude, but I am having trouble really figuring what you are trying to get across here. Just because we are 'blood brothers' doesn't mean they need to follow us in every little situation which they have conflicting relations, they had their own relations with IRON and were in a tight position. If you follow a brother blindly, his acts will reflect yours and you'll turn into them.

If your questioning MHA and Grämlins relationship, you are deeply mistaken and you're traveling down a path of emptiness. We love MHA. MHA loves us. You should be able to understand mate, this war has put many on uneasy lines, picking and choosing between to sides which both are apart of.

[Kevin Cash]

I quoted the wrong post of yours it would seem, however I suppose that is a moot point at this time, what with Ejayrazz mopping up for me.

I should have quoted this post

Although Trinite already addressed this; it would seem that you don't understand that a distinction can be made when dealing with MDPs. One can say that whenever an alliance can go to war and is counterattacked for declaring war MDPs must be activated; this would mostly render all aggression clauses superfluous. The other option is to believe that MDPs activate only when the alliance you're treatied with (using hypotheticals here) is under attack for a war they did not start.

Given the specifics, it would seem that not only does Sparta reject that the accepting of screenshots is an aggressive action by OV and that they started the war by doing so (although that is an interesting line of reasoning I feel I have brought up), but they also accept the second definition of an MDP. So, Sparta was not actually obligated, if I am correct, to defend NPO via their MDP, which is further reduced because they canceled the thing.

first of all, i reject the notion that all mdps are really just odps. the fact that npo declared on ov is irrelevant, when you swear to defend somebody, you should demonstrate that your word holds meaning and, you know, defend them when they are attacked. claiming that 'mdps dont chain' especially on the eve of war is nothing more than a flimsy excuse to disregard the promises you made when you signed the treaty.

that said, simply not honoring the treaty is one thing, but backstabbing the people you swore to protect is an entirely new level of dishonor. if i were attacking them just because they failed to honor their word i would have any number of alliances with which i could attack, but sparta holds the singular distinction of being the only alliance to not only go back on their word but to backstab those they swore to protect (poison clan comes in at a close second for entirely disregarding their nap with tpf but the circumstances in that issue are slightly more forgiving).

the result is that they save their pixels and help send npo as far down as possible so that they may, as the op indicates, soon become the 'number one' alliance in cn.

[Kevin Cash]

Poor communication is irrelevant mate, we have excelling communication with MHA as we are with them everyday in channels whatnot. We declared on IRON accordingly to their declaration. MHA listens to its members, they needed to get a general consensus of the conflict and decided to follow through, they did with abundant speed and we praise them for doing so. Some figured they would take a little longer because of their relations with IRON, but because of their swiftness it shows their swiftness decision-making in dire need.

You are reading way too into this and drawing random jabs which really aren't construing with one another. If you hate MHA or Gremlins, that is fine dude, but I am having trouble really figuring what you are trying to get across here. Just because we are 'blood brothers' doesn't mean they need to follow us in every little situation which they have conflicting relations, they had their own relations with IRON and were in a tight position. If you follow a brother blindly, his acts will reflect yours and you'll turn into them.

If your questioning MHA and Grämlins relationship, you are deeply mistaken and you're traveling down a path of emptiness. We love MHA. MHA loves us. You should be able to understand mate, this war has put many on uneasy lines, picking and choosing between to sides which both are apart of.

thank you for clearing things up. my main qualms with gre (ignoring the codex) and mha (declaring a number of treaties inert) differ from this small branch, and i will bring them up when the time is right, but this is not the place for such derailments. i do look forward to further debates with you on those subjects when the time arrives, an opponent who does not immediately resort to ad-hominem attacks and logical fallacies is a rare thing indeed, and i cherish every such moment for what it is. but for now, this small branch of thought may be considered closed.

[Shinpah]

first of all, i reject the notion that all mdps are really just odps. the fact that npo declared on ov is irrelevant, when you swear to defend somebody, you should demonstrate that your word holds meaning and, you know, defend them when they are attacked. claiming that 'mdps dont chain' especially on the eve of war is nothing more than a flimsy excuse to disregard the promises you made when you signed the treaty.

You missed the entire point that I made. The distinction isn't in whether or not an MDP is optional, it's in whether it's called in for an aggressive war or not. If alliance A attacks Alliance 1, and Alliance 1's allies attack Alliance A, Alliance A's allies wouldn't be obligated to defend them for the war that they started. Or it would, depending on your line of thinking. I believe that most people go by the 1st definition, you seem to be going by the second.

If MDPs would activate under every circumstance of an alliance being attacked, regardless of their role in the war, then having aggression clauses would be entirely unnecessary. Because there are aggression clauses, a distinction must be made when alliances declare offensively or defensively.

[Trinite]

first of all, i reject the notion that all mdps are really just odps. the fact that npo declared on ov is irrelevant, when you swear to defend somebody, you should demonstrate that your word holds meaning and, you know, defend them when they are attacked. claiming that 'mdps dont chain' especially on the eve of war is nothing more than a flimsy excuse to disregard the promises you made when you signed the treaty.

that said, simply not honoring the treaty is one thing, but backstabbing the people you swore to protect is an entirely new level of dishonor. if i were attacking them just because they failed to honor their word i would have any number of alliances with which i could attack, but sparta holds the singular distinction of being the only alliance to not only go back on their word but to backstab those they swore to protect (poison clan comes in at a close second for entirely disregarding their nap with tpf but the circumstances in that issue are slightly more forgiving).

the result is that they save their pixels and help send npo as far down as possible so that they may, as the op indicates, soon become the 'number one' alliance in cn.

If you bold it enough, and ignore my post long enough, it will soon be true.

[Kevin Cash]

You missed the entire point that I made. The distinction isn't in whether or not an MDP is optional, it's in whether it's called in for an aggressive war or not. If alliance A attacks Alliance 1, and Alliance 1's allies attack Alliance A, Alliance A's allies wouldn't be obligated to defend them for the war that they started. Or it would, depending on your line of thinking. I believe that most people go by the 1st definition, you seem to be going by the second.

If MDPs would activate under every circumstance of an alliance being attacked, regardless of their role in the war, then having aggression clauses would be entirely unnecessary. Because there are aggression clauses, a distinction must be made when alliances declare offensively or defensively.

the distinction is thin but it is there. it is so slight that i always thought it silly to differentiate. in my opinion, you should only sign with people that you fully intend to go to the grave for.

that said i still havent gotten a response to my main point, that sparta backstabbed the people they swore to defend. by directly attacking npo, they became the worst of the worst cn has to offer. am i to take it by the lack of response that they are conceding the point?

[Shinpah]

the distinction is thin but it is there. it is so slight that i always thought it silly to differentiate. in my opinion, you should only sign with people that you fully intend to go to the grave for.

Well, since you're not in any deciding position about the value and meaning of a treaty...

that said i still havent gotten a response to my main point, that sparta backstabbed the people they swore to defend. by directly attacking npo, they became the worst of the worst cn has to offer. am i to take it by the lack of response that they are conceding the point?

Sparta, as well as most of Planet Bob (as I assert because of the MDP-MADP distinction), do not believe that Sparta was obligated to defend NPO and in no way backstabbed them. By first cancelling with NPO and then obligating treaties that still stood they have become the best of the best CN has to offer. :lol:

[Kevin Cash]

I assume you would have preferred we stay neutral in a battle involving our allies, or perhaps joined NPO in a curbstomping of OV, GOD, and VE? Or maybe you just prefer to come out and troll Sparta no matter what our decisions. I don't who you were, and I don't really care. We were forced into a situation by NPO to pick a side. We did, and we made the right choice. If you disagree, so be it. We didn't stab NPO in the back. They tried to sneak around ours to hurt our friend. We didn't let them. I'm very sorry if this upsets you.

since you're so intent on making me respond, ok. (i accidentally skipped over this post anyway, my bad)

i would have preferred you didn't attack those with whom you were directly treatied to 48 hours prior. that is the very definition of backstabbing. if you had direct ties to ov then neutrality would have been the correct option, otherwise you should have attacked alliances who attacked npo with which you held no treaties with, going by your logic that 'mdps dont chain,' the fact that ve and god declared offensively, and assuming you did not hold madps with either of those, which i could be wrong (and if you did hold a madp with either of those your decision should have been neutrality). after the dust settled your job would have been to help any of the hurting alliances you held treaties with to rebuild, regardless of which scenario held true.

if you had, say, declared on alliances on the so-called 'hegemony' side that were anyone other than npo, you would not be under the scrutiny you are now (mainly because a far greater number of cowards took that path). but the fact remains that you (brace for boldface) backstabbed the people you swore to protect. they did not plan direct harm against sparta (and probably not indirect harm either) and thus you had no right to do that. if you are so distrusting of npo then you should have never held that treaty in the first place, in which case it demonstrates that your only interest was to ride the wave of success of those far greater than yourselves.

there are many ways to cut this cake, but in each case you are dishonorable traitors.

[Timeline]

the distinction is thin but it is there. it is so slight that i always thought it silly to differentiate. in my opinion, you should only sign with people that you fully intend to go to the grave for.

that said i still havent gotten a response to my main point, that sparta backstabbed the people they swore to defend. by directly attacking npo, they became the worst of the worst cn has to offer. am i to take it by the lack of response that they are conceding the point?

wow welcome to a whole new level of fail.

How has Sparta back stabbed NPO ?, did we not leave Q, did we not cancel our MDP with NPO ?.

Also you go on about the fact we swore to defend NPO, we signed a MDP, that to the end seem pointless as NPO had no respect for us, above all else made it clear they would only honour the treaty as and when it suited them.

What you need to keep in mind, is we have treaties with few alliances, allot less then many, but the same with NPO and anyone else some treaties mean more then others, even if they are the same level.

Also your a re-roll, more then likely a banned player or a NPO multi, good luck.

[Kevin Cash]

Sparta, as well as most of Planet Bob..., do not believe that Sparta was obligated to defend NPO and in no way backstabbed them.

in other words, 'might makes right.' o/ karma o/ change o/ skirting around your promised word

[Kevin Cash]

How has Sparta back stabbed NPO ?, did we not leave Q, did we not cancel our MDP with NPO ?.

the mdp was still active when npo was attacked. that you would later directly attack them when you had other options makes sparta the very definition of 'traitor.'

ps: try not to derail the topic with baseless accusations as to my origin, thanks. they're also against that whole 'backseat moderation' rule so i would advise you to stop. if you think i am breaking any rules feel free to report me as such, but making accusations like that only serves as an off-topic ad-hominem attack. making yourself look like a fool i daresay isnt worth the 20% warn

[Timeline]

the mdp was still active when npo was attacked. that you would later directly attack them when you had other options makes sparta the very definition of 'traitor.'

Please prove this point, do not just make a statement and feel its right.

ps: try not to derail the topic with baseless accusations as to my origin, thanks. they're also against that whole 'backseat moderation' rule so i would advise you to stop. if you think i am breaking any rules feel free to report me as such, but making accusations like that only serves as an off-topic ad-hominem attack. making yourself look like a fool i daresay isnt worth the 20% warn

please I have reported you, but it was used to prove a point that your baseless claims about Sparta, you have just no idea what has or is happening.