Hymenbreach Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 If I'm update to date on my history, Legion asked us to not get involved. A true friend would have said 'No'. But that's ancient history now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King William IV Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Considering that The Legion you're canceling with is nothing more than a pitiful bastardization of the one you originally signed Orrple with, this is completely reasonable. Good luck, ODN. Yea an abomination that has elections a single leader (pre purplegate there), a cabinet and much of the same heart it did. I cccrrryyyy teeaaarrrssss of blllloooooohhhhdddddd!Seriously, you're like years late with this, considering what kind of abomination the Legion we used to love is nowadays. Sorry, I don't see anyone in the Legion asking for iFOKs love or yours specifically. I think they could actually care less about it. The Legion and ODN decided just recently that this should have been cancelled, there was no issue about it during my time as MoFA, I can tell you that for sure. If you want opinions to change, you may want to start by changing your actions. The pie is a lie.As for this being the result of ending up on opposite sides of a war, that is not accurate. The cancellation is driven by the joint assessment of the two alliances that our future foreign affairs directions are misaligned. Perhaps things will change, and a new treaty will emerge between us at some point. Perhaps not. It was a good treaty while it lasted. I think you are utterly wrong about this entire post. Cant move on in the future is a cop out for saying that the Legion was pissed at ODN and ODN at the Legion. Essentially you can see the degradation of Orrple over time. One merely needs to look at the facts. Both ODN and the Legion have parted ways and from what I know both parties needed to finally cancel this. It hasn't been honored since GWIII and frankly with ODNs new policy of having military treaties it can ignore (instead of cancel) it probably wouldn't have been honored in any major wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Style #386 Posted July 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Both ODN and the Legion have parted ways and from what I know both parties needed to finally cancel this. It hasn't been honored since GWIII and frankly with ODNs new policy of having military treaties it can ignore (instead of cancel) it probably wouldn't have been honored in any major wars. Is this something I have instituted? The ODN will not ignore treaties. Nor will we continue to suspend them. It is not a matter for discussion, and those who think otherwise are wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King William IV Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Is this something I have instituted?The ODN will not ignore treaties. Nor will we continue to suspend them. It is not a matter for discussion, and those who think otherwise are wrong. Whether or not you are the new guy in charge, your alliances reputation has shown issues with that. Anyways, your cancellation post clearly shows you will cancel a treaty if it cannot be honored, before said time comes that you will have to ignore it. So yes, you do not ignore treaties anymore, I do not accuse YOU of doing that. I accuse the ODN of previously doing that. Essentially you have retrograded to cancelling treaties before fireworks fly because that is what this is. You would not have stood by the Legion again anyways and not for lack of trying by both parties. If you truly knew what Orrple was (you may have), you would have known there should have been no option of publicly ignoring it. That was strike 3 on you guys and gals over at the ODN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Is this something I have instituted?The ODN will not ignore treaties. Nor will we continue to suspend them. It is not a matter for discussion, and those who think otherwise are wrong. Are you saying that you disapprove of ODN ignoring/suspending treaties and will not let it happen again? -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Style #386 Posted July 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 As has been said numerous times, Orrple doesn't carry the weight it used to, for reasons previously outlined. If it came to it, we would not have "ignored" Orrple, but we would have been put in a tough spot. So, we're choosing now, ahead of time, where we're going (crazy concept for us, I know). Given the huge discrepencies in our foreign policy and that of the Legion, it made the choice somewhat easier. Tough spot: avoided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoiL Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Are you saying that you disapprove of ODN ignoring/suspending treaties and will not let it happen again?-Bama The suspending wouldn't have changed anything. ODN was stupid for even saying anything about it. ODN could either have not entered the war with treaty conflicts or they could have only chose to defend one side(like RIA anyone?). If anyone thinks they should join both sides of the war, they are an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Style #386 Posted July 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Are you saying that you disapprove of ODN ignoring/suspending treaties and will not let it happen again?-Bama Yes. I'll admit that I played a very major role in the ODN's decision to fight with Karma. I didn't like the treaty suspensions, but I saw them as necessary. As such, so long as I have any say in the matter, ODN will not ignore/suspend (or otherwise !@#$%^&* our way out of) any treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King William IV Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 As has been said numerous times, Orrple doesn't carry the weight it used to, for reasons previously outlined. If it came to it, we would not have "ignored" Orrple, but we would have been put in a tough spot.So, we're choosing now, ahead of time, where we're going (crazy concept for us, I know). Given the huge discrepencies in our foreign policy and that of the Legion, it made the choice somewhat easier. Tough spot: avoided. Sorry, want to elaborate on the discrepencies? I made our goals abundantly clear prewar and yall had no issue with them then. Now you come here and cancel and claim that there are FA goals issues. In fact as soon as the Legion was out we both talked about an economic bloc with some blue members purple members and orange members. So do not come here and claim that there are some major FA discrepencies when truly yall just didn't want to put in the grunt work and get the relationship to where it was prewar. Y'all publicly abandoned the Legion and the games oldest treaty, what do you expect talks to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Yes.I'll admit that I played a very major role in the ODN's decision to fight with Karma. I didn't like the treaty suspensions, but I saw them as necessary. As such, so long as I have any say in the matter, ODN will not ignore/suspend (or otherwise !@#$%^&* our way out of) any treaties. Then I'm impressed. For the first time in a very long time, o/ ODN. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Style #386 Posted July 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 I made absolutely no bones about the fact that I wanted to move Legion out of the NPO's sphere of influence. I said exactly that. The bloc was intended to be military, not economic. Recently, Legion indicated to me that they would stick with NPO through thick and thin, and I cannot fathom this. I suppose I let my hatred of the NPO outweigh my love for the Legion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Arbiter Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) I made absolutely no bones about the fact that I wanted to move Legion out of the NPO's sphere of influence. I said exactly that. The bloc was intended to be military, not economic. Recently, Legion indicated to me that they would stick with NPO through thick and thin, and I cannot fathom this.I suppose I let my hatred of the NPO outweigh my love for the Legion. This is the real reason for the cancellation of ORPPLE, folks. I'm sorry to see us go our separate ways, but this cancellation was inevitable judging by ODN's recent cutting of all ties with ex-Hegemony. Edited July 14, 2009 by TheArbiter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Style #386 Posted July 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) This is the real reason for the cancellation of ORPPLE, folks. Perhaps you should review our charter before making a fool of yourself like that. Edited July 14, 2009 by Style 386 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Frontier Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 I never thought I'd say this, but ODN, you were too good for this treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King William IV Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 I made absolutely no bones about the fact that I wanted to move Legion out of the NPO's sphere of influence. I said exactly that. The bloc was intended to be military, not economic. Recently, Legion indicated to me that they would stick with NPO through thick and thin, and I cannot fathom this.I suppose I let my hatred of the NPO outweigh my love for the Legion. The Legion that did stand by NPO for the conflict? You asked the Legion to abandon the purple unity bloc, and all of its treaties but 2 (Orrple and the M*A*S*H treaty) to join Karma. A group that by this thread shows they do not support them. So yes, the Legion could have joined you and gotten flamed for it, or done exactly what it chose to do and been flamed still, but gained a little respect. Them standing by NPO would also be along your lines of "As such, so long as I have any say in the matter, ODN will not ignore/suspend (or otherwise !@#$%^&* our way out of) any treaties." I am pretty sure anyone who was saying that meant as long as they held that treaty that they would honor it in its fullest. So now essentially you asked the Legion to ignore their treaties, something that you just said you would never do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoiL Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 This is the real reason for the cancellation of ORPPLE, folks. That is what the OP says, only more respectfully. Legion became NPO's lapdog. My citizens declared a national day of puking when they signed with Valhalla. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Style #386 Posted July 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 The Legion that did stand by NPO for the conflict? You asked the Legion to abandon the purple unity bloc, and all of its treaties but 2 (Orrple and the M*A*S*H treaty) to join Karma. A group that by this thread shows they do not support them. So yes, the Legion could have joined you and gotten flamed for it, or done exactly what it chose to do and been flamed still, but gained a little respect. Them standing by NPO would also be along your lines of "As such, so long as I have any say in the matter, ODN will not ignore/suspend (or otherwise !@#$%^&* our way out of) any treaties." I am pretty sure anyone who was saying that meant as long as they held that treaty that they would honor it in its fullest. So now essentially you asked the Legion to ignore their treaties, something that you just said you would never do. Now you're putting words in my mouth, Will. I did not ask Legion to ignore treaties. I did ask them to join a bloc with a superiority clause. My goal wasn't strictly to fight with Karma, it was to fight against the NPO without getting mixed in what I could tell even then would be a cluster!@#$ of a coalition opposing them. I believe I pitched it as an "independent bloc". I truly meant it to be that. The bloc fell through, and I continued to oppose NPO, which resulted in us fighting with Karma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hymenbreach Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Legion became NPO's lapdog. My citizens declared a national day of puking when they signed with Valhalla. I believe that is a view commonly shared by the uneducated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincongrad Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 NPO is currently the pariah of CN. Legion's been there. It's not something I would wish on my worst enemy, much less on an alliance that, since Purplegate, has treated us with mild condescencion but mostly respect. I acknowledge that much of Karma have legitimate grievances with NPO. They will beat NPO down for a long time and keep demanding reps. That's fine, i respect their right to do that. But after the war is over some people will continue to abuse NPO, constantly trying to get a new round of wars or force NPO out of the politics for their own political purposes. After NPO's score is cleared through a long and arduous war or heavy reps, we expect people to leave them alone. Undoubtedly some alliances will continue to try and abuse NPO for their own political or popularity gains. When these jackals of CN try and tear at NPO, Legion will stand in their way, and I hope that when the cycle comes full circle, when Legion is once again hated by all, some will remember that we tried to do the right thing. More on topic: Arsenal, we initiated talks because we could feel the relationship falling apart. We felt like our periodic attempts at improving our relationship were met with apathy or less than halfway. During the Universalis war you chose to remain neutral even though you acknowledged that we were right, refusing to sanction Universalis for us when we asked. In essence, we felt like we were trying to do most of the work in our relationship and getting very little back except for some wonderful RL Forum posts by bigdaddychacha I can respect the fact that you don't want to have to make hard choices in FA anymore, and that's fine. I wish you had decided differently, but you're big boys and girls over there and you know what you're doing. My ability to understand where you're coming from will let me walk away from our friendship with only a sense of regret as opposed to anger. Cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Legion indicated to me that they would stick with NPO through thick and thin, and I cannot fathom this Im not surprised you find the idea of sticking with a treaty partner to the potential determent of your alliance as something you cannot fathom. I suppose I let my hatred of the NPO outweigh my love for the Legion. Something else that doesnt surprise me, they were only your oldest friends. Tell me something, If you hated the NPO so much you discarded your oldest friends then why did you attack FEAR and NATO instead of NPO? I would assume the kind of hatred that causes you to turn your back on your oldest ally to fight against NPO would ensure that you at least got to fight the NPO in "battle". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hymenbreach Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Alterego. I don't ask this often. Will you marry me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Style #386 Posted July 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) Im not surprised you find the idea of sticking with a treaty partner to the potential determent of your alliance as something you cannot fathom. I give you 0/10 for logic and another 0/10 for general comprehension. Something else that doesnt surprise me, they were only your oldest friends. Tell me something, If you hated the NPO so much you discarded your oldest friends then why did you attack FEAR and NATO instead of NPO? I would assume the kind of hatred that causes you to turn your back on your oldest ally to fight against NPO would ensure that you at least got to fight the NPO in "battle". If it was my decision, we would have fought NPO. It wasn't. I was disappointed that we were not able to fight further, but apparently we were not needed. Edited July 14, 2009 by Style 386 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroicDisaster Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) Sorry, the ODN (as an alliance) and me have never been friends to say the least. I'll quit it. Does no good to either party. Trolling your allies, un cool bro. Im not surprised you find the idea of sticking with a treaty partner to the potential determent of your alliance as something you cannot fathom.Something else that doesnt surprise me, they were only your oldest friends. Tell me something, If you hated the NPO so much you discarded your oldest friends then why did you attack FEAR and NATO instead of NPO? I would assume the kind of hatred that causes you to turn your back on your oldest ally to fight against NPO would ensure that you at least got to fight the NPO in "battle". Yes, because asking them to stick with their oldest allies is a terrible and morally wrong thing to do. We found that the Legion treaty does not share the same spirit, or share our future FA direction, no more sitting on the fence. Point 2. we had no real reason to go to war with NPO. We also hit FEAR and NATO because they hit our allies, and we followed through on our commitments. Edit: Terrible choice of words. Edited July 14, 2009 by HeroicDisaster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincongrad Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Alterego. I don't ask this often. Will you marry me? That's a filthy filthy lie. You ask Imperial like every other week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hymenbreach Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Yes, because asking them to stick with their oldest allies is a terrible and morally wrong thing to do. Comedy gold. 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.