Tygaland Posted May 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 There have been quite a few changes I'd hope since august. As far as the SNOW treaty goes? Not that I'm aware of. The only difference since August is how strictly the NAP aspect is followed and the sudden distaste for white-on-white conflict. That may have something to do with the reversal of fortune for certain SNOW members, though, rather than any changes with regards to SNOW itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 As far as the SNOW treaty goes? Not that I'm aware of. The only difference since August is how strictly the NAP aspect is followed and the sudden distaste for white-on-white conflict. That may have something to do with the reversal of fortune for certain SNOW members, though, rather than any changes with regards to SNOW itself. Actually if you'll remember tool did make a major push regarding protectorates in regards to the nap portion of SNOW several months ago. Fortune has reversed, we're pretty lucky to have something to do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3nowned Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 I suppose I expected that, but I didn't expect it this early... Good luck in the future! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wu Tang Clan Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Honorable thing to do STA. Good luck to you. Good luck to all of white. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 I suppose I expected that, but I didn't expect it this early...Good luck in the future! Oh really? When did you begin to expect STA leaving SNOW? Before this war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 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. You know as well as I do that protectorates are not signatories of the treaty, they just have access to the forum due to their protector being a signatory. They were not bound by the treaty, as they had never signed it. I could be wrong, but I think we rectified the issue after the war. And I believe SSSW18 did not have it's own mask until they stopped being a protectorate. Tyga, I really do believe you made the right call to leave here, but this isn't about what happened last August. If you had a problem with what happened, you should have brought it up... y'know... last August. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Oh really? When did you begin to expect STA leaving SNOW? Before this war? Dude, no need to get defensive. I would suppose he began expecting this when TPF attacked an STA ally. Calm down. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Dude, no need to get defensive. I would suppose he began expecting this when TPF attacked an STA ally. Calm down.-Bama I assure you it is a calmly stated question, but it is a question I think he can probably answer on his own although I hope he answers it independently rather then simply taking the now suggested course as laid down for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wu Tang Clan Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 You know as well as I do that protectorates are not signatories of the treaty, they just have access to the forum due to their protector being a signatory. They were not bound by the treaty, as they had never signed it. I could be wrong, but I think we rectified the issue after the war. And I believe SSSW18 did not have it's own mask until they stopped being a protectorate. Tyga, I really do believe you made the right call to leave here, but this isn't about what happened last August. If you had a problem with what happened, you should have brought it up... y'know... last August. -Bama He didn't say it was about last August. He used that as an example of less honorable alliances not holding up their agreement, thus explaining how he doesn't understand how a particular person in this thread has any right to talk about "honor" and "commitment." He did not state last August as the reason for cancellation, just as an element of the context of exactly what STA did, and why they did it. Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 He didn't say it was about last August. He used that as an example of less honorable alliances not holding up their agreement, thus explaining how he doesn't understand how a particular person in this thread has any right to talk about "honor" and "commitment." He did not state last August as the reason for cancellation, just as an element of the context of exactly what STA did, and why they did it.Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. My point is that no one broke any obligations last August. Protectorates never signed the treaty, and as such, were not bound by it. I know it's not why they left, it just galls me to see it portrayed as SNOW only enforcing the NAP in certain circumstances. It was not enforced on OPP because, well, they never signed it. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 You know as well as I do that protectorates are not signatories of the treaty, they just have access to the forum due to their protector being a signatory. They were not bound by the treaty, as they had never signed it. I could be wrong, but I think we rectified the issue after the war. And I believe SSSW18 did not have it's own mask until they stopped being a protectorate. Tyga, I really do believe you made the right call to leave here, but this isn't about what happened last August. If you had a problem with what happened, you should have brought it up... y'know... last August. -Bama I believe that it was brought up last August. But you're right; that's not the point. We're not here to complain about what happened then, we're simply drawing a parallel to try to defuse the ridiculous outcry over a hypothetical intra-sphere violence which isn't even happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 I believe that it was brought up last August. But you're right; that's not the point. We're not here to complain about what happened then, we're simply drawing a parallel to try to defuse the ridiculous outcry over a hypothetical intra-sphere violence which isn't even happening. As far as the "no white-on-white conflict" thing goes, I agree with you. While I hope such conflict can be avoided, I understand that you have MDPs to honor, and that such conflict has happened before. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 My point is that no one broke any obligations last August. Protectorates never signed the treaty, and as such, were not bound by it. I know it's not why they left, it just galls me to see it portrayed as SNOW only enforcing the NAP in certain circumstances. It was not enforced on OPP because, well, they never signed it.-Bama Yes, those protectorate wings are lovely things aren't they? "Damn NAP, we won't be able to hit them." "Don't worry, we will just ask a protectorate or two to do it." Perhaps treaties signed in which signatories with sizable protectorate forces shall have to have new clauses which also take into affect the "special forces" wings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Yes, those protectorate wings are lovely things aren't they? "Damn NAP, we won't be able to hit them." "Don't worry, we will just ask a protectorate or two to do it." Perhaps treaties signed in which signatories with sizable protectorate forces shall have to have new clauses which also take into affect the "special forces" wings. I believe there was discussion after the war about having protectores sign the NAP before being allowed to use SNOW, in order to prevent it from happening again. I was never very involved in SNOW management, so I'm not sure if anything came of it. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Yes, those protectorate wings are lovely things aren't they? "Damn NAP, we won't be able to hit them." "Don't worry, we will just ask a protectorate or two to do it." Perhaps treaties signed in which signatories with sizable protectorate forces shall have to have new clauses which also take into affect the "special forces" wings. This would be a terrific idea. Purple unity owes a lot to the fact that basically every alliance of any size outside of Avalon (who we're friendly with, they just conduct foreign affairs differently) has held a NAP at least since we started it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Boris Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 So much for white solidarity. :/ It's always been a joke to STA. I was amazed when they signed onto SNOW, since they had snubbed their noses at most prior white-unity exercises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 This would be a terrific idea. Purple unity owes a lot to the fact that basically every alliance of any size outside of Avalon (who we're friendly with, they just conduct foreign affairs differently) has held a NAP at least since we started it. Are there rules stating that a purple alliance cannot take a protectorate that is not on purple? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wu Tang Clan Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 My point is that no one broke any obligations last August. Protectorates never signed the treaty, and as such, were not bound by it. I know it's not why they left, it just galls me to see it portrayed as SNOW only enforcing the NAP in certain circumstances. It was not enforced on OPP because, well, they never signed it.-Bama So it was ok for TPF to manipulate the NAP by using their protectorates? I'd say that's hardly working towards a mutual benefiting and unified white team. Yes, it is the past. But how can TPF dare comment on this cancellation when this was pre-meditated and justified to happen months ago? It's too bad it took a war for this cancellation. Good work STA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vespassianus Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Sad, but unnecessary. A NAP and some eco cooperation was that !@#$? Than why don't you leave white if you have no friends here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 (edited) It's always been a joke to STA. I was amazed when they signed onto SNOW, since they had snubbed their noses at most prior white-unity exercises. It was not a joke to us; we have as much interest in a healthy sphere as anyone. I don't know why we didn't sign WET as I wasn't in STA at the time (that was an awful treaty anyway, and many chose not to sign that), and we have other reasons not to have been interested in the stronger treaties that were batted around from time to time (that were never in danger of coming to fruition for other reasons, I might add). Edit: Sad, but unnecessary. A NAP and some eco cooperation was that !@#$? Than why don't you leave white if you have no friends here? Hi Vesp. I consider you guys to be my friends. As has been stated, we did not leave this treaty because the economic cooperation was against our interests or because it was poorly run. We had an overriding obligation to a close ally. Edited May 10, 2009 by bzelger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 It's always been a joke to STA. I was amazed when they signed onto SNOW, since they had snubbed their noses at most prior white-unity exercises. You do realize why not many of your alliance mates have been posting lately right? Because any jab by you or them at another alliance can now be properly responded with a simple pointing at your Alliance Affiliation followed by laughter. Sad, but unnecessary. A NAP and some eco cooperation was that !@#$? Than why don't you leave white if you have no friends here? The smear tactics continue. Perhaps I should ask you a similiar question as I asked the earlier poster. I wonder if Bama would come to your aid as well though. So, are you stating that STA has no friends on white? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 So it was ok for TPF to manipulate the NAP by using their protectorates? I'd say that's hardly working towards a mutual benefiting and unified white team. Yes, it is the past. But how can TPF dare comment on this cancellation when this was pre-meditated and justified to happen months ago? It's too bad it took a war for this cancellation.Good work STA. I believe STA declared war on at least one ally of an OPP member, IIRC. Correct me if I'm wrong. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Boris Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 It was not a joke to us; we have as much interest in a healthy sphere as anyone. Nice use of the past tense there, bzelger. Also, curious that you say you have an interest in a healthy sphere, when you cancel a treaty promoting a healthy sphere because it wouldn't let you move in and attack people on the sphere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Nice use of the past tense there, bzelger.Also, curious that you say you have an interest in a healthy sphere, when you cancel a treaty promoting a healthy sphere because it wouldn't let you move in and attack people on the sphere. Then perhaps they shouldn't have declared on people we consider close friends. Really...have you not read the thread? You talking (attacking) point has already been hashed over and buried. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 The smear tactics continue. Perhaps I should ask you a similiar question as I asked the earlier poster. I wonder if Bama would come to your aid as well though. Nope. As I have stated multiple times, I think STA made the right and necessary decision, and I give you huge props for that. I still like you guys. I just wish you'd quit saying that the NAP was selectively enforced. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.