foxfire99 Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 (edited) From the termsI was wrong to say that it said nothing about being unable to resume hostilities, however, the wording allows TORN to come to the rescue of any alliance not engaging OV, or any of OV's allies. For example, this would allow TORN to defend ML from NSO. Just sayin'. I think "allies in this current conflict" refers to any alliance fighting on their side, not just those to whom they have direct treatys. Also, the whole point of the post was that they don't support the NPO's (or their own) actions. Rejoining to aid those defending them would contidict this slightly. Edited May 16, 2009 by foxfire99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Dear Bigwoody,You may want to consider changing your sig, specifically the part about what happens when you touch TORN's allies. It is no longer accurate. Love, Pezstar [ooc] congrats pez[/ooc] Also lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 I think "allies in this current conflict" refers to any alliance fighting on their side, not just those to whom they have direct treatys. Also, the whole point of the post was that they don't support the NPO's (or their own) actions. Rejoining to aid those defending them would contidict this slightly. He's right. TORN was aware of this as well, so they really couldn't come in again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadScotII Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 (edited) It does not matter now what TORN could have or could not have done for Valhalla. We know they are allies till the end but right now it is time to put all that to bed, look at ourselves re-build from the most recent war and then emerge a better than ever alliance. As I said about 20 pages ago or something stupid like that, we have in the past been real ****holes to others, but we are not the only ones. As for paying back tech, and has been said by the NpO leader in this very thread, if we were to pay the NpO back, then the NpO would be better paying back those who they took tech from, so would it not be better for us just to give to them, instead of the NpO? What about who those nations took it off? Where would it end? It is silly to talk about this, although not as silly as still talking in this thread, almost a week after it started. What has been done is done, learn from the past and move onto a brighter future. All the best to enemies and friends alike. o/ Umbrella & Co. o/ Valhalla Edited May 16, 2009 by MadScotsman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 I think "allies in this current conflict" refers to any alliance fighting on their side, not just those to whom they have direct treatys. Also, the whole point of the post was that they don't support the NPO's (or their own) actions. Rejoining to aid those defending them would contidict this slightly. So defending a defensive treaty partner because you have a treaty that says you will is supporting NPO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 (edited) I does not matter now what TORN could have or could not have done for Valhalla. We know they are allies till the end but right now it is time to put all that to bed, look at ourselves re-build from the most recent war and then emerge a better than ever alliance. As I said about 20 pages ago or something stupid like that, we have in the past been real ****holes to others, but we are not the only ones. As for paying back tech, and has been said by the NpO leader in this very thread, if we were to pay the NpO back, then the NpO would be better paying back those who they took tech from, so would it not be better for us just to give to them, instead of the NpO. What about who those nations took it off? Where would it end. It is silly to talk about this, although not as silly as still talking in this thread, almost a week after it started. What has been done is done, learn from the past and move onto a brighter future. All the best to enemies and friends alike. o/ Umbrella & Co. o/ Valhalla I don't think NpO ever took that much tech, if any. So go right ahead and send it, he also said he'd accept it. Edited May 16, 2009 by WarriorConcept Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Boris Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 I think "allies in this current conflict" refers to any alliance fighting on their side, not just those to whom they have direct treatys. Also, the whole point of the post was that they don't support the NPO's (or their own) actions. Rejoining to aid those defending them would contidict this slightly. Your interpretation of the terms is correct. Since NSO's attack on ML was motivated by, and in relation to, the current conflict involving Karma, we were bound by terms not to rejoin the fight on that, or any, front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 So defending a defensive treaty partner because you have a treaty that says you will is supporting NPO? The terms were clear. TORN could not have re-entered this conflict without breaking their word. They withdrew from the conflict while their only ally on the field was actively trying to throw them under the proverbial bus and have honored the contract that they agreed to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Your interpretation of the terms is correct. Since NSO's attack on ML was motivated by, and in relation to, the current conflict involving Karma, we were bound by terms not to rejoin the fight on that, or any, front. Question is why would you guys make such an agreement? Can you honestly state that you didnt think that little situation was not going to spiral into something much bigger? The terms were clear. TORN could not have re-entered this conflict without breaking their word. They withdrew from the conflict while their only ally on the field was actively trying to throw them under the proverbial bus and have honored the contract that they agreed to. Their only ally in the field at the time. Was there anyone at that point that honestly didnt see such as the beginning of the next big war thus a period of conflict in which many many alliances would be involved? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Their only ally in the field at the time. Was there anyone at that point that honestly didnt see such as the beginning of the next big war thus a period of conflict in which many many alliances would be involved? They consulted with their allies before they made the decision. If their allies felt that their actions were within the spirit of their agreements I don't see why an outsider would get upset about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 They consulted with their allies before they made the decision. If their allies felt that their actions were within the spirit of their agreements I don't see why an outsider would get upset about it. Upset? That is such a strong word. This is a discussion, a discussion Bigwoody came back to with words about what they would do for Valhalla. That changed the discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadScotII Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Upset? That is such a strong word. This is a discussion, a discussion Bigwoody came back to with words about what they would do for Valhalla. That changed the discussion. But if we in Valhalla do not doubt their word, why would someone, who has shown no love towards us within Valhalla take some sort of offence to the matter? Does it really matter, TORN have ridden with us many a times, and if need be, I don't doubt they will again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vespassianus Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 (edited) Well as a member of an alliance which is allied to TORN i can't say bad words about TORN, they made only honorable moves. It's easy to troll them, because they quited and didn't re-entered the war but they did what they had to do. Hail TORN! For the original theme of the topic: Valhalla fought very well, i think both sides enjoyed this war, so good luck for you to prepare for the next war! Edit: eh spelling. Edited May 16, 2009 by Vespassianus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeooh Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Tyga's Edited Law: The frequency of an alliance's whining is inversely proportional to the contribution they make to the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Well as a member of an alliance which is allied to TORN i can't say bad words about TORN, they made only honorable moves. It's easy to troll them, because they quited and didn't re-entered the war but they did what they had to do. Hail TORN!Well for the original theme of the topic: Valhalla fought very well, i think both sides enjoyed this war, so good luck for you to prepare for the next war! TORN did something honorable by staying out of the war after they withdrew. Doing the NPO's dirty work and starting the war by attacking their previous MDP partner was not a honorable move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 But if we in Valhalla do not doubt their word, why would someone, who has shown no love towards us within Valhalla take some sort of offence to the matter? Does it really matter, TORN have ridden with us many a times, and if need be, I don't doubt they will again. I don't take offense and I am already bored with the attempts to push such. It is where the discussion has gone. It is a subject much bigger then just this one instance. It is about the value of treaties. I dont think it shows much value in treaties if the actions of one treaty holder allows an alliance to not have to live up to their other treaties. Its honorable that those signed with TORN have given them a pass on such due to the sticky situation but that doesn't change the overall fact that such nonchalant dropping of responsibilities should not be set as precedent for similiar future actions. That is the issue I would be taking offense to if I was truly taking offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Boris Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Question is why would you guys make such an agreement? Can you honestly state that you didnt think that little situation was not going to spiral into something much bigger? We knew full well it would. That's why we consulted our other allies before we took terms. They all told us to take the terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 We knew full well it would. That's why we consulted our other allies before we took terms.They all told us to take the terms. Well, then all there is left is what other choice could have been made but that choice would have been a much harder one to make for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pezstar Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 [ooc] congrats pez[/ooc]Also lol [ooc]Thanks! The airline lost my wedding dress on the flight down. It was a very hectic week. But in the end, I'm just as married as I'd have been in my original dress. [/ooc] There was a lot going on the night TORN took the surrender terms presented to them. I can definitely remember, though, that they debated about it pretty hard internally before they accepted them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Brutus Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 There was a lot going on the night TORN took the surrender terms presented to them. I can definitely remember, though, that they debated about it pretty hard internally before they accepted them. At least they showed they aren't a puppet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 At least they showed they aren't a puppet While doing a bit of puppeteering of their own that night eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwoody Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Dear Bigwoody,You may want to consider changing your sig, specifically the part about what happens when you touch TORN's allies. It is no longer accurate. Love, Pezstar Yeah, next time it will be nuclear declarations rolled out over a long period of time on a suicide march. Oh no! Not a one on one Im sure TORN would win I don't think anyone wins a TORN v. GOD one on one. Nothing would have been left in either alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Z Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 I don't think anyone wins a TORN v. GOD one on one. Nothing would have been left in either alliance. Indeed and we both have a healthy respect for the other's war abilities. It would have ended in a nuclear wasteland all around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Indeed and we both have a healthy respect for the other's war abilities. It would have ended in a nuclear wasteland all around. So they would resemble their allies then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ying Yang Mafia Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 So they would resemble their allies then? Zing! Not impressed with the surrender terms. Too lenient. 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.