Siberian Tiger Alliance Announcement

[deathman1212]

"I admit that I had kind of a grudge against Argent, mainly because of Poobah"

Taken from your own blog, DK

Edited May 10, 2009 by deathman1212

[William Blake]

I think many of your views of Argent were motivated by me. May just be my ego talking though. It was common knowledge that you didn't like us (as some of your ex-government members have told me, hello nahz), and the fact that you're sorry that you didn't try to include us is far-fetched in my mind.

Oh, and don't pretend like you know what we plan on saying or not saying to TOOL.

Not everything I say is a smear campaign, DK. Stop trying to paint yourself as a victim that I have constantly belittled.

Had we been interested in the bloc we probably would have talked to you about it. But like others have said Argent was still a protectorate when it was first brought up (back in Nov I think) and since our stance didn't change over the next couple months there was really no reason to talk to one of our protectorates about it, even though you guys were already at the point where ending the protectorate could have been done whenever you wanted. And the topic was sufficiently dead by the time we upgraded treaties. I never personally saw anything in posts or logs that mentioned excluding you guys, for whatever that is worth.

Edited May 10, 2009 by William Blake

[Duncan King]

"I admit that I had kind of a grudge against Argent, mainly because of Poobah"

Taken from your own blog, DK

Having a grudge and acting on it are two very different things. Don't pretend that I'm the only one on this planet who has ever had an issue with another alliance or leader. If everyone acted on their grudges, there would be more than one war every fiscal quarter.

The reason that I personally didn't ask Argent was that they were a TOOL protectorate and I don't like to touch others protectorates. Doing so is asking for trouble. Plus, it was not my call, I was mainly letting the other alliances take the lead on who to and not to invite. I was the techie.

But, I digress. This conversation is not about me, Argent, or the failed White bloc negotiations. It's about STA leaving SNOW. As I've already stated my opinion on that, I'm leaving this conversation now. Any one that wants to further discuss the failed White Bloc and my motivations on it can send me a letter or find me on IRC.

Edit: clarification

Edited May 10, 2009 by Duncan King

[deathman1212]

Yes, but a grudge will cloud your original judgement, thus having a reaction on all of them. - about argent -.

At least, thats how it works for me. [ooc] In real life[/ooc]

[Zombie Glaucon]

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

Interesting.

This kind of juvenile thinking really needs to be left off these forums. Ranks right up there with "LOL peacemode LOL!!@!"

[Wu Tang Clan]

This kind of juvenile thinking really needs to be left off these forums. Ranks right up there with "LOL peacemode LOL!!@!"

I second this motion.

[Otto Verteidiger]

Wow, this definitely became an interesting topic quickly... Ummm, well then, alright.

[HeinousOne]

Most people don't believe that an NAP extends to a signatory's allies. If you do believe that, that's fine. But like you, TPF had an MDP obligation. I think most of us understand that your MDP allies come first, and that you had to put them before an NAP. I respect that. I wish you'd see that we were doing the same thing, and not trying to use an NAP to shield ourselves. I think we'd have preferred not to attack an ally of a SNOW member, but like you, we rightly put our allies first.

-Bama

No, for what its worth you guys at TPF have treated us with quite a bit of respect lately. I understand why you guys have needed to do what you have done and I think you guys as a whole feel the same way about what we have had to do. I just wish the peanut gallery would shut up as most of those raising hell here have nothing to do with this.

I'll just chime in on this.

STA wasn't invited when work started on the White sphere MDoAP bloc, Whiteacre or Blizzard or something, don't recall what it was named. Let me see if I recall correctly -- TPF, TOOL, DefCon, FEAR, NEW, TGE, UCN, WAPA and Zenith. All the other signatories of SNOW at that time. Most of us turned it down I believe for various reasons -- like FEAR, TOOL, DefCon... dunno about any others.

The only one not invited? STA.

Even if they were still under terms, they should have been invited in on the talks and to help shape the White Unity bloc. I mean WAPA, who doesn't believe in anything above a MDP or ODP or something (don't quite recall...), was invited to help and all that stuff.

Yeah, just from my standpoint, STA doesn't have any friends on White... and that's just a shame in the strongest sense of the word.

Well we may not have strong friendships on White yet but there are what seems to be efforts in that regard. Who knows what the future holds after this war.

Hey Bzelger!

Personally i like you, no problems, but i really don't like this move by STA. A NAP wasn't a big deal, if you consider us friends, than why do you cancel a treaty like this? There are some white alliances who are not so familiar with most of white, but they can keep this treaty to have a healthy sphere as you said. If you look for further cooperation with white alliances than why did you cancel the basic white unity treaty?

I know that you still don't like SSW18 for attacking you in the last GW, but they were not part of SNOW this time. If it's the reason of cancellation it's so lame.

I think this was answered but basically we Had to drop the unity treaty with everyone due to the actions of one of the signatories. That's just how it works out. It's nice to see some folks not happy about it as that means some folks actually like us in it. Things can still be worked out after hostilities die down.

But TPF did nothing to avoid that. It was their protectorates and according to OPP they knew about it, yet did nothing to prevent a situation. That's not in the best interest of "Solidarity of Nations On White" now is it? Did STA leave as a direct result of those events? No. But another war broke out. Pressure was put on STA, and this was justified to the utmost degree.

(I would like the thank BamaBuc for being understanding and respectful at all times. My responses aren't directly aimed at you but the people that attempt to slander STA in this thread, when they were at the fore in working for white unity. STA is by far one of the most honorable alliances in the game. If you think for one second that they left SNOW because it was best for their alliance alone, you are dead wrong. This was a decision made for the good of their close allies that hadn't betrayed them at an earlier time. You can not blame STA for the events that have transpired. This was, without a doubt a tough decision, and anyone that want's to degrade STA can have those such actions speak for the context of their character.)

With that, I will leave this thread.

One last time, o/ STA. Honorable as always.

Thank you for your support, its nice to see someone outside of STA defending our actions just as much as we are, although I am still unsure why we are having to defend our actions when those that caused us to have to take this action have said it was an honorable move. I guess some people are just too obvious with their agendas.

If I ever waver in my faith in orange unity, I need only read this and my faith in orange is restored.

Your faith may be restored but the rest of orange may not feel the same way when they see how TORN fared in this great war.

I lold

If you think looking at white is funny, you should try being here. We gotta look at NPOs allies to feel good about ourselves, which is sad.

It's really not that bad, just folks outside of this are trying to turn it into a bigger deal then it is.

I guess I know one alliance that feels this way now.

Noted for future reference.

Nice try, I think Boris already tried something similiar and failed. You guys are already at the bottom of the barrel, you must have found it cozy down there.

For the record my statements on TORN are mine and mine alone. That comes with thinking independently and not being part of the STA government. I find it absolutely helarious how TORN fumbled with the OV situation and then pulled out of the war completely, leaving their allies high and dry. That is why it is worth a laugh to see you guys trying to speak "down" to any other alliance about their actions. You blew your pulpit up woody.

[Tygaland]

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 did bring it up last August and it was basically laughed off. I think someone from NEW said it was a good point I had raised but no one else commented seriously on the matter. Also, my references to August are also in relation to the outcry about white-on-white conflict even though there is none at the moment (thanks to the STA ironically) yet no such outcry was heard back in August.

But it is interesting that protectorates get all the bonuses of SNOW membership but can still be used by their protectors to sidestep the NAP clause in the treaty.

[Tygaland]

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.

Wow, at least i know who to go to for information on what my alliance thinks. This will save me a lot of time and effort thinking for myself.

STA assisted SNOW quite a bit and I often spoke to Mia to help her out when needed so you know not of which you speak. The reason we avoided other unity blocs was because they tried to include MDP clauses which we are not interested in. STA is fine with joining an economic bloc, not an economic bloc trojan horse containing a mutual defence pact.

The reason? We want to control who we are sworn to defend.

[Tygaland]

Sad, but unnecessary. A NAP and some eco cooperation was that !@#$? Than why don't you leave white if you have no friends here?

You'd love that wouldn't you.

[Jipps]

I did bring it up last August and it was basically laughed off. I think someone from NEW said it was a good point I had raised but no one else commented seriously on the matter. Also, my references to August are also in relation to the outcry about white-on-white conflict even though there is none at the moment (thanks to the STA ironically) yet no such outcry was heard back in August.

But it is interesting that protectorates get all the bonuses of SNOW membership but can still be used by their protectors to sidestep the NAP clause in the treaty.

The last great war was unfortunate procession of events, we were protectorates at the time and I believe we weren't included as part of the treaty at the time. We are now a full signatory on our own accord and we would do everything in our power to avoid white on white conflict.

However if STA finds itself unable to avoid the conflict after trying its best not to, then a cancel is completely understandable. Although there may not be a white on white conflict at the moment, why else would you cancel an NAP if you weren't planning to?

[Jipps]

You'd love that wouldn't you.

I'd miss my cuddly tigers and their uranium resources.

[Salmia]

But it is interesting that protectorates get all the bonuses of SNOW membership but can still be used by their protectors to sidestep the NAP clause in the treaty.

They cannot anymore. The Charter was revised back in December in light of the OPP attack on STA. Signatories are now responsible for the actions of their protectorates, meaning if a protectorate attacks another signatory, the protector can be held responsible and kicked out for it.

[BamaBuc]

I did bring it up last August and it was basically laughed off. I think someone from NEW said it was a good point I had raised but no one else commented seriously on the matter. Also, my references to August are also in relation to the outcry about white-on-white conflict even though there is none at the moment (thanks to the STA ironically) yet no such outcry was heard back in August.

But it is interesting that protectorates get all the bonuses of SNOW membership but can still be used by their protectors to sidestep the NAP clause in the treaty.

Wrong, Tyga. You were not laughed off. The charter was fixed to prevent it from happening again. I agree with you that most of the OMG WHITE ON WHITE is hypocrisy, but get your facts straight please.

-Bama

[Tygaland]

Wrong, Tyga. You were not laughed off. The charter was fixed to prevent it from happening again. I agree with you that most of the OMG WHITE ON WHITE is hypocrisy, but get your facts straight please.

-Bama

Yeah, four months later the Charter was amended but the horse had already bolted. Now 5 months after the change here we are with people abusing the STA for leaving SNOW (legally and legitimately) and "ditching" their "NAP partners", the same "NAP partners" that sat back and watched as OPP joined others in kicking our carcass around for a month. The same "NAP partners" that then demanded massive reparations from the STA when the war was over. The same "NAP partners" that did not respond to my mentioning of the fact that SNOW signatories can circumvent the NAP clause by calling their protectorates in (while still enjoying full access to SNOW facilities) for 2 weeks after it was raised, the discussion lasting one day and 3 posts with no mention of any action being taken to close the loophole or rectify the situation.

Now it is revealed in this thread that alliances on white bleating about "white unity" were discussing another bloc to replace SNOW without anyone bothering to tell me about it.

And white team alliances have the audacity to abuse the STA for leaving SNOW. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

During my time in SNOW, STA was frequently left out of updates on what was happening and I'd only find out days or weeks later when I chatted to Mia on IRC. As leader of the STA, I encouraged our guys to register on the SNOW forum and get involved in trade circles there. As Mia confirmed, I offered advice and assistance to her when she took over as head of SNOW.

If you guys really wanted to close that loophole, you'd have done it straightway. But it took your four months to get around to it and I never saw any discussion on it at all until the treaty amendment was announced. I guess you needed to keep the loophole open in case OPP needed to attack us again for peace terms violations, I can think of no other reason for months of inaction over a serious flaw in the treaty.

My advice, lose the NAP clause. It is utterly pointless. Although now the SNOW signatories are homogeneous now, it may not be such an issue anymore.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Tygaland

[bigwoody]

For the record my statements on TORN are mine and mine alone. That comes with thinking independently and not being part of the STA government. I find it absolutely helarious how TORN fumbled with the OV situation and then pulled out of the war completely, leaving their allies high and dry. That is why it is worth a laugh to see you guys trying to speak "down" to any other alliance about their actions. You blew your pulpit up woody.

I've learned over time that the guy speaking "just for himself" is usually an alliance's opinion with truth serum added. But thank you regardless for the status update on our relations with our allies, I had no idea.

[Tygaland]

The last great war was unfortunate procession of events, we were protectorates at the time and I believe we weren't included as part of the treaty at the time. We are now a full signatory on our own accord and we would do everything in our power to avoid white on white conflict.

However if STA finds itself unable to avoid the conflict after trying its best not to, then a cancel is completely understandable. Although there may not be a white on white conflict at the moment, why else would you cancel an NAP if you weren't planning to?

Because the majority (all?) SNOW signatories are or were at war with allies of ours or on the opposite side of the conflict and the NAP clause prevented us assisting NSO. We honoured the NAP clause and then once the situation with TPF and NSO was resolved, we left SNOW.

As far as I'm concerned we followed our obligations to the letter. If anyone has an issue over the honouring of treaties I would imagine the NSO would because it was their treaty with us that was put on ice due to the SNOW NAP. Thankfully, TPF's attack on NSO was so small that NSO were able to deal with it without our help.

If TPF decides to attack our allies at a later stage then we will go to war with them via our MDP with our ally. If TPF does not attack our allies then they will not have any issue with the STA.

[Tygaland]

I've learned over time that the guy speaking "just for himself" is usually an alliance's opinion with truth serum added. But thank you regardless for the status update on our relations with our allies, I had no idea.

Then I'd sue your teachers for neglect.

[bigwoody]

Then I'd sue your teachers for neglect.

Which allies of ours do you speak for in that regard?

Take it to PM if you wish, not looking to take this further off topic.

[Tygaland]

Which allies of ours do you speak for in that regard?

Take it to PM if you wish, not looking to take this further off topic.

You are the one that said you had learned that the words of a rndom member reflect the alliance government with "truth serum" and you ask me who your teachers are?

My point being, you are wrong. HeinousOne's opinion does not reflect that of the STA government no matter how much you wish it did.

[WarriorConcept]

Which allies of ours do you speak for in that regard?

Take it to PM if you wish, not looking to take this further off topic.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to the fact that you learned that one lone guy reflected a whole alliance's opinion, especially when that lone guy isn't even in government. I'm afraid if you'll look in most alliance they'll all have those few outspoken individuals.

[Jipps]

Because the majority (all?) SNOW signatories are or were at war with allies of ours or on the opposite side of the conflict and the NAP clause prevented us assisting NSO. We honoured the NAP clause and then once the situation with TPF and NSO was resolved, we left SNOW.

We Are Perth Army and The German Empire were on the entire other side of the war and managed to remain in SNOW, so probably not even the majority were attacking your allies.

I think everyone understands where you're coming from Tyga, you seem to be making the biggest deal out of it. There's no abusing going on, I have a great amount of respect for you all.

[WarriorConcept]

We Are Perth Army and The German Empire were on the entire other side of the war and managed to remain in SNOW, so probably not even the majority were attacking your allies.

I think everyone understands where you're coming from Tyga, you seem to be making the biggest deal out of it. There's no abusing going on, I have a great amount of respect for you all.

It doesn't seem he is the one making the big deal out of it, he's just defending his decision whenever someone brings it up. Which seems to be several times in this thread for some odd reason.

[bzelger]

I've learned over time that the guy speaking "just for himself" is usually an alliance's opinion with truth serum added. But thank you regardless for the status update on our relations with our allies, I had no idea.

I like how you skipped over my post on the subject to select the one that had what you wanted to hear. I can't say that you've ever been a topic of discussion in our private channel that I've seen, so I don't know where the groupthink you're projecting would come from.

If you want to have an issue with us I guess that's your prerogative.