Siberian Tiger Alliance Announcement

[bzelger]

So you NAP'd yourselves to several White team alliances while it was convenient, right?

Interesting.

I give this a hearty guffaw for effort, but it really doesn't make much sense.

We shared trading resources until the NAP became inconvenient. We were never signatories for the purpose of holding a NAP.

Edit:

Sad to see white alliances attack other white alliances.

There's no DoW here.

Edit 2: Also, not nearly as sad as last summer.

Edited May 10, 2009 by bzelger

[Tygaland]

So you NAP'd yourselves to several White team alliances while it was convenient, right?

Interesting.

No, we signed SNOW when it was formed as a white team economic pact. We value our MDPs over NAPs tied to economic treaties but still followed the economic treaty clauses to the letter. Your attempts to defame the STA are typically feeble. Had we crapped our pants when war broke out and cancelled long-term treaties to save our infrastructure, you'd have a point. But no one would do something as weak as that, surely?

[Tygaland]

Sad to see white alliances attack other white alliances.

You are referring to OPP dogpiling the STA last August, I assume?

So much for white solidarity. :/

Yes, what were we thinking. Valuing our allies over "white unity".

[Coursca]

I give this a hearty guffaw for effort, but it really doesn't make much sense.

We shared trading resources until the NAP became inconvenient. We were never signatories for the purpose of holding a NAP.

Actually, it is you that gets the

Your alliance signed up for the whole treaty, not just the trading part. My point stands: it was not an inconvenience for you to hold that treaty and its accompanying NAP in the past, including the last war...

Also, you would be lying to say that it wasn't of some intrinsic benefit to STA to hold NAPs with the signatories of SNOW.

[Duncan King]

I had hoped that White could take a page from Aqua's book and avoid White on White violence because either way, the team loses.

I'm sorry that this was not possible for STA.

I agree that SNOW needs to be looked at, but I'd have much prefered not having the reexamination be prompted by inter sphere conflict.

[Tygaland]

Actually, it is you that gets the

Your alliance signed up for the whole treaty, not just the trading part. My point stands: it was not an inconvenience for you to hold that treaty and its accompanying NAP in the past, including the last war...

Also, you would be lying to say that it wasn't of some intrinsic benefit to STA to hold NAPs with the signatories of SNOW.

There was no benefit as last August showed. But keep flailing.

[Coursca]

No, we signed SNOW when it was formed as a white team economic pact. We value our MDPs over NAPs tied to economic treaties but still followed the economic treaty clauses to the letter. Your attempts to defame the STA are typically feeble. Had we crapped our pants when war broke out and cancelled long-term treaties to save our infrastructure, you'd have a point. But no one would do something as weak as that, surely?

Actually, before this I never had a reason to criticize STA. True story.

You can search for all of my posts in all of your threads if you'd like.

Also, its not defaming -- its criticism. If that's defaming to you, you need to grow thicker skin.

[Tygaland]

I had hoped that White could take a page from Aqua's book and avoid White on White violence because either way, the team loses.

I'm sorry that this was not possible for STA.

I agree that SNOW needs to be looked at, but I'd have much prefered not having the reexamination be prompted by inter sphere conflict.

Well, TPF attacked our allies forcing our hand as I said. But keep deluding yourself with your holier-than-thou ramblings. Unless you actually believe we should value an embedded NAP in an economic treaty over our MDP partners. If that is the case, thank Admin STA is not allied to Zenith.

[Taget]

You are referring to OPP dogpiling the STA last August, I assume?

Wish OPP was given a different assignment.

I agree with Duncan. If not this war then hopefully next we can put white on white violence behind us.

[Haflinger]

Well, this is sad.

And at the same time, it makes me wish once more that the order of treaties was reversed; NAPs should be worth more. But that's probably just my windmill.

[Tygaland]

Actually, before this I never had a reason to criticize STA. True story.

You can search for all of my posts in all of your threads if you'd like.

Also, its not defaming -- its criticism. If that's defaming to you, you need to grow thicker skin.

You are implying we are dishonourable with regards to treaties. We remained in SNOW even when OPP attacked us last August in violation of the NAP clause that has now forced us to leave the pact. When we are forced to choose between our MDP allies and an embedded NAP in an economic treaty, we will choose our MDP partners every time. If you feel the need to criticise us for that then that is your business.

Not to mention the irony of it all considering your alliance's actions a few weeks back.

[bzelger]

Actually, it is you that gets the

Your alliance signed up for the whole treaty, not just the trading part. My point stands: it was not an inconvenience for you to hold that treaty and its accompanying NAP in the past, including the last war...

Also, you would be lying to say that it wasn't of some intrinsic benefit to STA to hold NAPs with the signatories of SNOW.

I assure you that our alliance was spared no lumps in the last war, and received a fair few from white team alliances.

You're right, it was not an inconvenience to hold the NAP in the past, because we never had an overriding conflict before. Forgive us for not forseeing its eventual direct conflict with an MDP in the distant future when we signed it. I still don't understand the basis of your criticism.

[Coursca]

There was no benefit as last August showed. But keep flailing.

Ahh, so you selectively hone in on one part of the post. Okay.

Last I checked, OPP was not technically a part of SNOW. I don't believe OPP members are a part of SNOW by virtue of being a protectorate group under TPF.

Someone from TPF can correct me if I am wrong on this, though, but I don't believe that TPF's treaties technically apply to OPP members like you're implying.

[rsoxbronco1]

To address DK's post, I think the point is that Aqua has always had a NAP in spirit and (for the most part) no NAP in treaty.

From what I can see, White has had a NAP in treaty, but not in spirit.

[kingzog]

It's a shame the SNOW signatories couldn't have agreed on a treaty revision to keep this kind of thing from happening.

I should add that anyone suggesting that the STA is in any way 'dishonorable' is way off the mark.

[Tygaland]

Ahh, so you selectively hone in on one part of the post. Okay.

The rest of your post had already been addressed a number of times, if you choose not to accept that we calue our MDP partners over embedded NAPs in an economic treaty then, as I said, that is your business.

Last I checked, OPP was not technically a part of SNOW. I don't believe OPP members are a part of SNOW by virtue of being a protectorate group under TPF.

Someone from TPF can correct me if I am wrong on this, though, but I don't believe that TPF's treaties technically apply to OPP members like you're implying.

They have full access to all aspects of the SNOW pact and forum and SSSW18 had their own access masks rather than TPF Protectorate access.

[Coursca]

I still don't understand the basis of your criticism.

Glad you asked.

My problem is the overall devaluation of treaties and the paper on which they are written. I understand the whole "thin the treaty web" deal, but there's a point at which I feel it will cross the line between the restoration of some sort of "equilibrium" to the system and the total devaluation of treaties altogether.

Its not some blind "troll STA" criticism, rest assured. I have a pretty valid concern based on personal experience.

As I said earlier in the thread, you can look around in your previous threads: I've never had a problem with STA in the past.

[Roadie]

Man, we're the ones going to get declared on in Tygas next post and it's someone else doing all the elawyering.

Sheesh. We can hardly get an elawyering word in edgewise around here.

[Tygaland]

Glad you asked.

My problem is the overall devaluation of treaties and the paper on which they are written. I understand the whole "thin the treaty web" deal, but there's a point at which I feel it will cross the line between the restoration of some sort of "equilibrium" to the system and the total devaluation of treaties altogether.

Do NAPs even register on the "treaty web"? Not last I looked. The STA considers NAPs to be a statement of the obvious until someone does something to change that. If we truly did not value the SNOW treaty as you allege the we would have left back in August. In fact, I helped keep the pact going after the war when it was struggling. However, if I'm forced to choose between the STA's MDP allied and an embedded NAP in an economic pact, I'll choose the MDP everytime. Now, just because we have left SNOW does not mean we are going to attack anyone. It removes an obvious conflict from our treaty portfolio and our leaving SNOW was done in a courteous manner as per the terms of the treaty. How did you value your MADP with the NPO, out of curioisty or do you judge others more harshly than you judge yourself?

Its not some blind "troll STA" criticism, rest assured. I have a pretty valid concern based on personal experience.

You certainly pick a fairly weak and hypocritical topic to rail against.

As I said earlier in the thread, you can look around in your previous threads: I've never had a problem with STA in the past.

Never said you did.

[bzelger]

Glad you asked.

My problem is the overall devaluation of treaties and the paper on which they are written. I understand the whole "thin the treaty web" deal, but there's a point at which I feel it will cross the line between the restoration of some sort of "equilibrium" to the system and the total devaluation of treaties altogether.

Its not some blind "troll STA" criticism, rest assured. I have a pretty valid concern based on personal experience.

As I said earlier in the thread, you can look around in your previous threads: I've never had a problem with STA in the past.

We believe very strongly in our treaties. We have honored SNOW, and used the cancellation clause that was included for good reason. Failing to uphold an MDP to the best of our ability would be a far greater "devaluation of treaties" than cancelling a NAP through the proper channels and waiting for the expiration in my opinion. Conflicts occur and choices have to be made. MDP > NAP.

[Trigger]

Glad you asked.

My problem is the overall devaluation of treaties and the paper on which they are written. I understand the whole "thin the treaty web" deal, but there's a point at which I feel it will cross the line between the restoration of some sort of "equilibrium" to the system and the total devaluation of treaties altogether.

Maybe I'm not understanding your issues here. It seems to me you are upset that STA cancelled their NAP treaty to honor their MDPs. Are you saying it would have been more honorable to ignore their non-optional Mutual Defense treaties?

[Tygaland]

Man, we're the ones going to get declared on in Tygas next post and it's someone else doing all the elawyering.

Sheesh. We can hardly get an elawyering word in edgewise around here.

My next announcement will be a State of the Alliance address. Your magic 8-ball is broken.

Last I checked, yourselves and NSO had agreed to peace.

[Jyrinx]

Glad you asked.

My problem is the overall devaluation of treaties and the paper on which they are written. I understand the whole "thin the treaty web" deal, but there's a point at which I feel it will cross the line between the restoration of some sort of "equilibrium" to the system and the total devaluation of treaties altogether.

Its not some blind "troll STA" criticism, rest assured. I have a pretty valid concern based on personal experience.

As I said earlier in the thread, you can look around in your previous threads: I've never had a problem with STA in the past.

Wait... what? We DID value our treaties and the paper which they are written on.

That's the entire bloody point.

We did not anticipate being unable to aid our MDP partners due to a simple non-aggression clause. When the situation manifested itself, we didn't violate the treaty; we honored the non-aggression clause over our defense obligations to our allies. We hate doing that, and thus have relieved ourselves of this conundrum through exit procedures that exist in the treaty itself.

Seriously now, we value a treaty when we don't like it and then cancel it using procedures written into the treaty and somehow we devalue our treaties

[Duncan King]

Well, TPF attacked our allies forcing our hand as I said. But keep deluding yourself with your holier-than-thou ramblings. Unless you actually believe we should value an embedded NAP in an economic treaty over our MDP partners. If that is the case, thank Admin STA is not allied to Zenith.

You really are doing a masterful job spinning and controlling this conversation, Tyga. Bravo.

It's a war and you have to back your allies, no one is questioning that. However all I was saying was that it would have been nice if White on White violence had been avoided. Aqua has had similar situations before, most recently when NATO (the only Aqua alliance that entered for tC) attacked the Internationale, a member of Power Rangers with TAB and allies of the allies of many Aqua alliances. But even though NATO was such an outlier, no Aqua alliance hit them. NATO also did not attack any Aqua alliances after they hit NATO's MDP partners. It is possible, Tyga, the question is whether it's something you want to try.

And at that, my deluded ramblings are tired. Good night, Tyga.

[bzelger]

I had hoped that White could take a page from Aqua's book and avoid White on White violence because either way, the team loses.

I'm sorry that this was not possible for STA.

I agree that SNOW needs to be looked at, but I'd have much prefered not having the reexamination be prompted by inter sphere conflict.

Hey, at least you don't have to tolerate us any more.

Edit: Also, there is no white on white violence going on. Save your outrage until it's needed.

Edited May 10, 2009 by bzelger